No. If someone here actually did it, they should not "out" themselves, nor should they try to provide explanation, justification or apologication (couldn't help myself). It would not help the situation (if there is one apart from the discussion) in any way, and if the guy is truly nutty enough to get violent it would only provide confirmation that the evil JREFers are responsible.
i don't agree.
the problem may be that JC saw this as an act specifically targeting him, not as something done from genuine concern. this would obviously piss him off. death threats are still ****ing crazy, but the way he may see this could "push him off the edge", if we assume he's anywhere nearly the cliff.
if someone here did report JC to the SS,
perhaps an apology could help cool JC down. i don't think 911 CTers are immune to apologies. i don't think it could hurt to offer an apology or explaination-- so long as it's anonymous. and most of us here haven't posted any details about real life existence.
and if it didn't help, oh well. it was worth a shot.
i don't like the idea of pissing off people that we
know are ****ing crazy. this guy, from previous posts, is obviously delusional. i think we should do our best to cool him down, not because it's our duty, but because insane people can do insane things when they are pissed.
you DO have a point though, that if someone here "confesses", many LCers will see it as confirmation that JREF are just evil shills. then again, if people here don't deny it either, then they'll take it the same way. likely, even if everyone here denies it, they'll still think we're responsible.
It was made apparent during the thread on LCF that these people don't care whether or not Gravy is the one who made the supposed report - they like the idea of violence against him based simply on his effective opposition to their theories.
that's true. but they are also very angry, and many people can't deal with emotions and logic at the same time. 911 truthers seem to rely on emotion a lot. they just "feel" that 911 was an inside job. they shout and yell. they scream slogans that feel comfortable. these are people that feed off emotion. if we have any reason to believe that any of them are capable of flying off the handle, we need to be careful not to **** with their emotions too much, because they just can't handle it.
i do think many are already convinced that gravy is some shill/government agnet/etc, and i'm willing to bet a number of 'em, therefore, extend onto gravy partial responsibility for the murder of 3,000 innocent americans. they are also delusional and paranoid, and many are likely convinced that more murders are just around the corner, followed by the destruction of their rights.
i don't expect these people to start shooting at gravy at ground zero, but if they are overly pissed at us, perhaps we should do our best to ease the tension. in general, i try not to piss people off, but i
really avoid pissing off people in mental hospitals. especially those that already thing i may be partially responsible for murdering 3,000 people.
you may be right that nothing good will come of my suggestions, but i think it's worth a shot. i don't think 911 truthers are evil, terrible people unable to relate to others in an emotional context, i just think they are delusional, emotional, and living in a reality that follows rules that may encrouage confrontation.
Jackchit provides a perfect example for why anonymous tips should remain anonymous.
if the tip came from this forum, so long as the poster has not posted personal info, then it is anonymous. i should have probably been more careful to exclude those that may have posted personal info, though. in such a case, i agree with you entirely. if JC and others know who you are in real life, or where you live, or where you work...
If he is serious then he'd go after anyone he feels is "against" him, whether they took real action or not. Giving such a nutbar the person who actually took action (assuming there is one, of course) could only inflame him further.
i think he wants to go after someone because he is pissed. i think he's already pretty bad with critical thinking skills. with or without a "confession", he's convinced it was JREF. if it was, at least maybe the poster can carry on some sort of PM or Email discussion to try to cool him down.
if not, we should at least deny it.
by neither confessing, nor denying it, we look "guilty" anyways, especially to those that require such a low level of proof that they are convinced that the government was behind 911.
