• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

First Impressions are everything...

On a related note, an idea I have been kicking around for a while and think this is as good a time as any to implement:

A Fair Warning to All:
First off, you know my positions on the issues commonly discussed in this section, so do not take the following to imply that those views have shifted.

I've been lax. I've applied a critical and pedantic spotlight to my posts and the posts of CFists that post here, but I've often given a Get Out Of Jail Free card to other posters with whose opinions I agree. No more. In a personal effort to help improve the academic/scientific quality of what goes on in this subforum you can expect me to be highly critical of the logic and evidence present in a more global manner than before. This is not meant as an attack on anyone, nor does it mean to suggest that others are not making a concerted effort to post as high a quality post as possible. This is meant as a means to make our arguments/cases/presentations even better. Think of it as, to an extent, how the Politics forum operates; in that, there are posters that are smart, well-spoken, etc on both sides of the issue but, because they disagree, they force each other to improve the quality of their arguments. The CFists have failed miserably at being the foil to those of us that support the EBC and so I will be making a more concerted effort to fill that role.
 
tonicblue said:
I would like to thank TAM for starting this thread. I have lurked here since becoming disillusioned with the Loose Change forum after it's self-destruct last year.

I was reluctant to join up and post because of the feeding frenzy I observe when new members on the conspiracy side of the debate start to post. I decided to join up as a result of this thread, so thank you TAM.
Click to expand...

You are welcome. I have gone through a number of metamorphosis myself as I have struggled with how to approach the "followers" of the "inside job" theory of things 9/11. As people here are aware, I was much the same when I first started posting, as I am now, but there was a period where I became so angry, so bitter with the insanity of many of the CTs and their arguements, that I began to insult, berate, belittle, mock, and had fun with it. I was short lived fun, riddled with guilt for the most part.

It was satisfying in a bullying kind of way, and as a result, I soon saw the err of my ways, along with some advise from some wise, senior members of this forum.

Now I try (TRY) to be civil, and minimize the ad hominems. I feel my objective, which is to provide a sensible and logical explanation for questions asked by fence sitters re:9/11 is better accompished in this more civil fashion.

Arkan_Wolfshade said:
On a related note, an idea I have been kicking around for a while and think this is as good a time as any to implement:

A Fair Warning to All:
First off, you know my positions on the issues commonly discussed in this section, so do not take the following to imply that those views have shifted.

I've been lax. I've applied a critical and pedantic spotlight to my posts and the posts of CFists that post here, but I've often given a Get Out Of Jail Free card to other posters with whose opinions I agree. No more. In a personal effort to help improve the academic/scientific quality of what goes on in this subforum you can expect me to be highly critical of the logic and evidence present in a more global manner than before. This is not meant as an attack on anyone, nor does it mean to suggest that others are not making a concerted effort to post as high a quality post as possible. This is meant as a means to make our arguments/cases/presentations even better. Think of it as, to an extent, how the Politics forum operates; in that, there are posters that are smart, well-spoken, etc on both sides of the issue but, because they disagree, they force each other to improve the quality of their arguments. The CFists have failed miserably at being the foil to those of us that support the EBC and so I will be making a more concerted effort to fill that role.
Click to expand...

Sounds good. Sort of an informal Peer Review...always good. However, I know you like to correct people on the flaws in their debating techniques/tactics, so I am letting you know now...I will likely reveal many such flaws...and I am ok with it...so if you see them, realize I am probably aware of them...lol

TAM:)
 
Agreed, it's a good subject. I haven't been here all that long, but I've noticed it too.

On the opposite side, and this was not a pounce when he first entered the forum, what really annoyed me was... Oh-what's his name with the initiating event thing.

I kept asking him to tell me in simple words what his event was, and all he would do was direct me to a very long post full of links to other people. Arrrgggh. I gave up. Which means he probably thinks he "won."

[derail]

I would like to ask 2 questions though, since we're talking about newbies and reactions.

What the h-e-double-toothpix is the origin of "woo"?

And what in the world does a bunny with a pancake mean?
 
In a critical thinking forum, if someone makes an incredible claim, they have to back it up. What happens along the journey to the conclusion is irrelevant as the aim is to learn, be better educated, be humble and enjoy the banter.

The 911 CT claims are not just small biscuits. If anyone can show anything scientifically wrong about the calculations found in any of the official documents that proves some sort of inside job, posting in this forum is a waste of time and they are letting down the world.

They need to take it to the authorities. Though if it was proven and the evidence posted at the JREF forum, I am sure a multitude of people around here could back it up by 'peer review' if you want to call it that, not only that but the scientists involved in the official documentation would see their mistake, the ripple effect of the revelations ten fold, Bush ousted and hung etc.

The only thing I think would be better to do is for CT thinking visitors to stop 'introducing' themselves on a new thread as if this is a special club. You open a thread expect a lot of opinions, facts and general replies aimed at you. For 9/11 stuff, just read the stickies up the top and contribute normally. 400+ pages yeah, but that will help explain why things may seem as they are and will likely show you the smoking gun you believe you have is certainly not.

Hope this helps understand my position, be aware though my contribution of facts to the CT forum is minimal. The guys who know way better then I certainly do a good job showing me and others how things work. Remember also, whats written on screen has no tone or emotion, you fill in those parts by how you read it and how well the person has written it. Dont be so delicate.

Life is hard. Play hard.

EDIT: I would like to add also, if you think first impressions here are hard, well good luck buying a car, going for job interviews, meeting a new girl/boy, meeting their parents etc...
 
hellaeon said:
In a critical thinking forum, if someone makes an incredible claim, they have to back it up. What happens along the journey to the conclusion is irrelevant as the aim is to learn, be better educated, be humble and enjoy the banter.

The 911 CT claims are not just small biscuits. If anyone can show anything scientifically wrong about the calculations found in any of the official documents that proves some sort of inside job, posting in this forum is a waste of time and they are letting down the world.

They need to take it to the authorities. Though if it was proven and the evidence posted at the JREF forum, I am sure a multitude of people around here could back it up by 'peer review' if you want to call it that, not only that but the scientists involved in the official documentation would see their mistake, the ripple effect of the revelations ten fold, Bush ousted and hung etc.

The only thing I think would be better to do is for CT thinking visitors to stop 'introducing' themselves on a new thread as if this is a special club. You open a thread expect a lot of opinions, facts and general replies aimed at you. For 9/11 stuff, just read the stickies up the top and contribute normally. 400+ pages yeah, but that will help explain why things may seem as they are and will likely show you the smoking gun you believe you have is certainly not.

Hope this helps understand my position, be aware though my contribution of facts to the CT forum is minimal. The guys who know way better then I certainly do a good job showing me and others how things work. Remember also, whats written on screen has no tone or emotion, you fill in those parts by how you read it and how well the person has written it. Dont be so delicate.

Life is hard. Play hard.

EDIT: I would like to add also, if you think first impressions here are hard, well good luck buying a car, going for job interviews, meeting a new girl/boy, meeting their parents etc...
Click to expand...

lol. There is alot of truth in your post Hellion. Life is full of unpleasantries. I have been in many such stituations as you have mentioned, and they make the banter here seem...cuddly.

As we discussed the purpose of this thread last night, I wont regurgitate the points now. I would only leave this comment(s)...

1. If you are here because you enjoy intellectual banter, and abhore rediculous claims and snake oil salesmen, than blast away, bomb away, nail them to the wall.

2. If you are here because you see the JREF Forum as a place to debate the 9/11 attacks in a civil manner, so as to inform those watching in a well articulated manner, than take my OP for what it is worth.

3. Neither 1. or 2. is wrong, as each is an individual pov/motivating factor. The reason for my post is that I think a fair portion of our posters want to debate to provide intelligent presentation of evidence for others to digest. I also think that many of them from time to time, like myself, lose focus on that purpose, getting lost in our bitterness with the obnoxious claims, the bruises on our figurative foreheads. I think for this reason, we need to occasionally pull back and reevaluate....that is all.

And Hellion, I know you see this, and have recognize its worth, as you have said as much last night in our discussion. thank you for your honest, and presenting another pov to this discussion.

TAM:)
 
The only times I have ever "jumped the gun" at a new truther on this forum was with 2 users.

Wizard
Aphelion

Turns out I was right both times :)
 
I can only reitterate my previous comments.

If you have a problem with something another member of the forum is saying, report it. That's all there is to it. I'm frankly sick and tired of people complaining about being "attacked" or "insulted". That's what the report function is for. We're not Mods.

Personally I'm am only interested in insults if they're directed at me otherwise I couldn't care less.

William Rea it is disappointing to hear your initial experiences in this subforum. However don't assume your personal experiences are the only ones that count.

When I first came here I received no aggression in the General Skepticism subforum (The CT one didn't exist at the time) however I was savegly attacked on the politics forum, including being called a neo-nazi, racist, and holocaust denier.

I worked through such attacks, refraining from reporting immediately, and continued having perfectly civil communications with the person who made those initial remarks.

So I know how you feel. Personally I think there are some in both this and the politics subforum who do tend to be over-eager with their personal attacks, and often ignore what the target of their posts is trying to say. I tend to ignore said people, only engaging with them when I feel the urge to be entertained... :p

I feel confident saying the vast majority of posters in this and the politics subforum do not resort to personal attacks, and do make every effort to engage in friendly, informative, and lively debate.

-Gumboot
 
Pipirr said:
the origin of woo: from "woo-woo". Try this link as it might tell you a bit more.

I like to think it goes back to the noises mediums would make during seances, to convince the punters there was a spirit in the room. But I have no evidence.

Bunnies with pancakes means that its Lent and Easter all at once. Go ahead, indulge. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Pipirr and Hokuleue. You really CAN find anything on Wikipedia, I guess. Next time I'll try there first.;)
 
gumboot said:
I can only reitterate my previous comments.

If you have a problem with something another member of the forum is saying, report it. That's all there is to it. I'm frankly sick and tired of people complaining about being "attacked" or "insulted". That's what the report function is for. We're not Mods.
Click to expand...

We are not mods, but there is nothing wrong with a little reflection, or dare I say self-policing, so to speak. As I have said my goal is not be "mr. Niceguy", but rather to help further my goal of convincing fence sitters. It simply seems counter productive to make ourselves look as ignorant, vulgar, and obnoxious as the group we are arguing with. I think we end up losing some through this, as they are blinded by our attitudes, and see little else.

The wonderful thing about this forum, in particular, is that most people can be on the same side on one issue, and against on the next, and it does not interfere with their response "attitude" or "nature". Lately though, I have seen the opposite. We had the Ron/Perry duke it out. We had Bolloboffin and others get borderline nasty with each other over the issue of child services. We have been more heavy handed than usual on the last few posters who seem to slant Woo.

gumboot said:
Personally I'm am only interested in insults if they're directed at me otherwise I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

That is where you and I differ. I see others making this subforum look like a gang beating as putting a bad face on a place where many undecideds are directed to come. If others are being obnoxious and insulting repeatedly, than those undecided may come here and simply see the whole thing as childish banter, and that would be sad. Call it a quest, a mission, but to me this is not about having fun debating anymore. If it was, I wouldnt care either. To me this is a place to help promote the REAL TRUTH about 9/11 to those who want to hear both sides.

gumboot said:
William Rea it is disappointing to hear your initial experiences in this subforum. However don't assume your personal experiences are the only ones that count.
Click to expand...

William can argue for himself, but there have been a number of people on both sides of the 9/11 fence who have posted here, agreeing that this an issue that needs to be addressed from time to time.

gumboot said:
When I first came here I received no aggression in the General Skepticism subforum (The CT one didn't exist at the time) however I was savegly attacked on the politics forum, including being called a neo-nazi, racist, and holocaust denier.

I worked through such attacks, refraining from reporting immediately, and continued having perfectly civil communications with the person who made those initial remarks.
Click to expand...

And this has happened to me as well, in the sense that I have had arguements with individuals, but we have resolved them, and moved on to be more civil.

gumboot said:
So I know how you feel. Personally I think there are some in both this and the politics subforum who do tend to be over-eager with their personal attacks, and often ignore what the target of their posts is trying to say. I tend to ignore said people, only engaging with them when I feel the urge to be entertained... :p
Click to expand...

A completely valid approach. Like I said it depends on your purpose here, and your personal preference in dealing with confrontations.

gumboot said:
I feel confident saying the vast majority of posters in this and the politics subforum do not resort to personal attacks, and do make every effort to engage in friendly, informative, and lively debate.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

100% in agreement. Thanks for the input gumboot.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Yes it is too bad we could not have an "auto bump" feature that would allow a thread of importance to "resurface" at the top of the list from time to time, as a friendly reminder.

TAM:)
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
On a related note, an idea I have been kicking around for a while and think this is as good a time as any to implement:

A Fair Warning to All:
First off, you know my positions on the issues commonly discussed in this section, so do not take the following to imply that those views have shifted.

I've been lax. I've applied a critical and pedantic spotlight to my posts and the posts of CFists that post here, but I've often given a Get Out Of Jail Free card to other posters with whose opinions I agree. No more. In a personal effort to help improve the academic/scientific quality of what goes on in this subforum you can expect me to be highly critical of the logic and evidence present in a more global manner than before. This is not meant as an attack on anyone, nor does it mean to suggest that others are not making a concerted effort to post as high a quality post as possible. This is meant as a means to make our arguments/cases/presentations even better. Think of it as, to an extent, how the Politics forum operates; in that, there are posters that are smart, well-spoken, etc on both sides of the issue but, because they disagree, they force each other to improve the quality of their arguments. The CFists have failed miserably at being the foil to those of us that support the EBC and so I will be making a more concerted effort to fill that role.
Click to expand...

It will be a sign of the health of the forum if there is vigorous debate among people who fundamentally agree. The standard of CT "thinking" is so low that it is all too easy to be less rigorous than is ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom