Some observations and statistics about this subforum

[Gravy]

Here's some statistics of mine...

This thread was my attempt to break free of the nonsense and hold a polite, factual conversation. I put forth the conditions simply, promised to behave myself, and did so throughout the thread. I even cleared my entire Ignore List first.

The experiment was not altogether unsuccessful. It was by far my most popular thread, and I received many good questions from a number of Truth Movement folks, including those who had proven troublesome in the past. This proves that, if they put their minds to it, they are perfectly capable of a rational conversation. I am proud of these, and hope others found them useful as well.

The thread has now gone to 30 pages, a total of 1180 posts. This is plenty for some good statistics. I tallied the number of posts according to the following approximate guidelines:

• Legitimate Question/Answer: Posts responsive to the OP, intelligently stated, useful
• Challenge or Clarification: The OP and similar requests for discourse, along with discussion of the OP itself
• Off-Topic Posts: A broad category -- posts that do not advance the OP, but are not obnoxious or particularly unwelcome either
• Bickering: Posts with little or no useful content, including slights against other posters, and unconstructive responses, from any and all parties
• Requests for Calm: Attempts to regain the upper hand, everything from polite reminders to active moderation
• Insults: Only considers posts actionable under the Members' Agreement, not lesser barbs

The categories overlap slightly, so the tally below should be considered approximate. Nonetheless, the pattern is consistent, albeit shifting slightly under the influence of one or two particularly odious posters. The totals are as follows:

• Legitimate Question/Answer: 330
• Challenge or Clarification: 34
• Off-Topic Posts: 218
• Bickering: 563
• Requests for Calm: 24
• Insults: 11

These totals also do not include the two splits to new threads, and one split to AAH, that occurred in the meantime. In other words, in this thread -- the absolute best I can craft, and one in which I absorbed considerable abuse, turning the other cheek numerous times -- scored a mere 30% useful content. Over 48% of posts were totally useless, and inflammatory to a given degree.

Now, I understand that the Internet is not the best place for a polite discussion, but these statistics are terrible.

Whose fault is it? Who cares? There is plenty of blame to go around. I was forced to report both Truthers and non-Truthers on several occasions. And I hardly ever report anyone.

It is clear, however, that some of the participants here are absolutely uncontrollable. Here is a sampling of the replies I received, again despite my absolute best efforts to take the high road:





So, in closing, let me make the following brief observations:

First, it is possible to have a calm, rational, factual discussion about September 11^th. Even with folks in the Truth Movement. Some of these discussions are even interesting.

Second, with very, very few exceptions, the particular people here -- Truth Movement and otherwise -- are simply not willing to have this discussion. Why this is, and whether this is representative of the larger populations beyond the JREF Forums, is beyond my ability to estimate.

Third, there hasn't been any truly new discussion for a long time. The last big event was the NIST WTC 7 report. It came up in my thread, but only peripherally. While some of the questions I was asked were good ones and led to productive discussions, hardly any were "new." I didn't have to spend much time hunting for answers.

Based on these statistics, you all will understand why I have little to contribute these days. Most of what is going on now is just crap, and most people still asking questions are simply stubbornly resisting the answers. I know there are a few exceptions out there, and I keep my door open for open-minded new posters and good ideas, but as time goes by those become ever more scarce.

I'm glad you did this, Ryan. Yesterday, in a post in Forum Management, I was about to use your threads as an example of how the thread starter can make clear at the outset that trolling and off-topic posts won't be permitted. I know I've seen you enforce that (or try to) many times. But then I said to myself, "How do I know that's worked? I'd better look into it."

Perhaps, in some small way, this is evidence of a job well done, of facts and education and skeptical thinking passed on. There will always be those we cannot reach. But they are not so numerous as I once feared. Take sockpuppets out of the equation, and they are a mere handful.

Perhaps this is how the Truth Movement ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper, and a lot of name-calling besides. If so, let me know when you all get it out of your system, and drinks will be at my place.

These are important points. Much of the to-do here is over just a few people's trollish behavior. Those characters will always be with us. They are not the ones successfully spreading misinformation to the general public, and we usually know within minutes if they're amenable to reason. If people are concerned about truthers who may matter in the larger scheme of things, I suggest they focus their attention on Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, et al.

 

[Cuddles]

How does the signal to noise ratio compare in the Politics or Religion/Philosophy subforums? My experience in those subforums is that threads there are just as likely to break down into pointless irrelevancies.

But a simple comparison with other subforums isn't necessarily fair. The 9/11 subforum exists to discuss facts about an actual event. The Politics subforum exists to discuss opinons. The Religion & Philosophy subforum exists solely to discuss pointless irrelevancies. What you need to do is not compare each section with other sections, but to compare each section with how that section is supposed to be. If that means that different sections require different rules, I don't see why that is a problem.

In addition, the 9/11 subforum is really in a rather peculiar position and is unlike any other section here, since it was created to discuss one single event. The election subforums that crop up from time to time are similar, but different in that they discuss current events in the run up to a main event, and therefore always have new things to discuss, as well as being temporary. Not only that, but every single thing that can possibly discussed here would also fit perfectly into another subforum, whether that be science, politics, social issues, media or whatever. It shouldn't be at all surprising that it may therefore need to be treated differently. In fact, possibly the biggest problem is that we haven't treated it differently from the start, and are only now realising the problems that causes.

 

[Gravy]

But a simple comparison with other subforums isn't necessarily fair. The 9/11 subforum exists to discuss facts about an actual event. The Politics subforum exists to discuss opinons. The Religion & Philosophy subforum exists solely to discuss pointless irrelevancies. What you need to do is not compare each section with other sections, but to compare each section with how that section is supposed to be. If that means that different sections require different rules, I don't see why that is a problem.

In addition, the 9/11 subforum is really in a rather peculiar position and is unlike any other section here, since it was created to discuss one single event. The election subforums that crop up from time to time are similar, but different in that they discuss current events in the run up to a main event, and therefore always have new things to discuss, as well as being temporary. Not only that, but every single thing that can possibly discussed here would also fit perfectly into another subforum, whether that be science, politics, social issues, media or whatever. It shouldn't be at all surprising that it may therefore need to be treated differently. In fact, possibly the biggest problem is that we haven't treated it differently from the start, and are only now realising the problems that causes.

If one wants to compare this subforum with another, the most apt comparison is with the general conspiracy theories subforum. Many of the same people are involved, the same type of beliefs are being discussed, but AFAIK that subforum requires nothing like the mod attention or action, relative to posting activity, as this one does.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would add, and this is not to tout the horn of the 9/11 subforum, but...

To a significant number of "truthers" the JREF 9/11 CT subforum, has become a fortress to attack, a grail to obtain, a place to prove you can beat the best. Now the truthers will laugh at this, bravado it away as nonsense, but you only have to look at the stats Gravy presented a while ago, the survey where the JREf was looked upon as the #1 thorn in their side...

So what of it. Well I think alot of the bickering, baiting, and trolling, from the truther end, comes from the sense of trying to "get one over on us". They can go back to their other truther friends and brag about how they "conquered" the JREF, or got a long time JREFer suspended, or got someone to say something stupid.

Just some thoughts.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

If one wants to compare this subforum with another, the most apt comparison is with the general conspiracy theories subforum. Many of the same people are involved, the same type of beliefs are being discussed, but AFAIK that subforum requires nothing like the mod attention or action, relative to posting activity, as this one does.

They are the same types of beliefs, but there is a crucial difference, in that we all experienced 9/11 and its aftereffects, and all that quite recently. There's an emotional component to this particular CT topic that the older CTs, like JFK and the Moon Hoax either never had, or which has faded over time. That makes posters on both sides of the issue more passionate about the topic, which will always lead to more vitriol in the discussion.

And I don't think there's anything we can do about that, except to wait for people to calm down. Check back in 20 years or so.....

 

[CFLarsen]

This is in many ways a very disturbing thread.

How has it been determined that a large percentage of members think there is a problem with one subforum? We currently have 18,903 members, where 2,743 are active. I sure as heck don't see 1,372 members speak out in this thread, or in other related ones. Yet, the claim is simply bandied around, as if it was The Established Truth.

Even if it was true, what difference does it make if a large percentage of members thinks a certain group of people has become intolerable? This forum isn't run by popular vote, in any way.

What if all the major issues have been discussed? Which area of the paranormal, supernatural, miraculous or other types of claims that we normally concern ourselves with does this not apply to? Take psychics: That issue has been discussed for much longer, and quite possibly in greater depth than what Truthers can come up with. So why not the same call for silencing this particular type of belief?

Because that is exactly what this is about: The silencing of a belief. 9-11 is done to death? Maybe. But stop everyone from discussing it? If people are tired of discussing something, nobody is forcing them to do it. Walk away. Let it be.

Furthermore, since when did we start rating members of this forum based on what they believe? Who do we go after next, those who believe in psychics? Dowsers? Christians? Why don't we all just begin to rate other members, based on our own pet peeves? Great idea.

What I see here is the exact opposite of critical thinking. What I see are unsubstantiated claims, appeals to popularity, crude mob mentality and blatant attempts of segregation based on beliefs.

For shame.

 

[Magenta]

Here's some statistics of mine...

Interesting, and a good example of a thread that would have benefited from moderated status from the beginning. It's disheartening to try and follow a thread that may have some interesting content only to find it's become bloated overnight by pages of irrelevance and bickering.

Oh I don't know, the thread on abortion that I partook in was pretty bad.

I think I know the one you mean, and I agree - I gave up on it after a while. I was thinking of a different thread: even though it didn't have a promising OP there was a civil exchange of viewpoints, so it is possible. But seldom seen in this sub-forum.

They are the same types of beliefs, but there is a crucial difference, in that we all experienced 9/11 and its aftereffects, and all that quite recently. There's an emotional component to this particular CT topic that the older CTs, like JFK and the Moon Hoax either never had, or which has faded over time. That makes posters on both sides of the issue more passionate about the topic, which will always lead to more vitriol in the discussion.

I think that's a good point. 9/11 was quite distant from me and I don't waste much emotion on truthers. On the other hand, I find myself getting quite angry with people who post lies and nonsense about the Port Arthur massacre, because it's much closer to home.

 

[Gravy]

This is in many ways a very disturbing thread.

How has it been determined that a large percentage of members think there is a problem with one subforum? We currently have 18,903 members, where 2,743 are active. I sure as heck don't see 1,372 members speak out in this thread, or in other related ones. Yet, the claim is simply bandied around, as if it was The Established Truth.

Even if it was true, what difference does it make if a large percentage of members thinks a certain group of people has become intolerable? This forum isn't run by popular vote, in any way.

What if all the major issues have been discussed? Which area of the paranormal, supernatural, miraculous or other types of claims that we normally concern ourselves with does this not apply to? Take psychics: That issue has been discussed for much longer, and quite possibly in greater depth than what Truthers can come up with. So why not the same call for silencing this particular type of belief?

Because that is exactly what this is about: The silencing of a belief. 9-11 is done to death? Maybe. But stop everyone from discussing it? If people are tired of discussing something, nobody is forcing them to do it. Walk away. Let it be.

Furthermore, since when did we start rating members of this forum based on what they believe? Who do we go after next, those who believe in psychics? Dowsers? Christians? Why don't we all just begin to rate other members, based on our own pet peeves? Great idea.

What I see here is the exact opposite of critical thinking. What I see are unsubstantiated claims, appeals to popularity, crude mob mentality and blatant attempts of segregation based on beliefs.

For shame.

Claus, you posted the same thoughts in forum management. You can dispute my analysis by producing your own, and by addressing what I've actually said, not what you imagine I've said. Start by reading the OP. Are my goals and suggestions unreasonable? I'm always glad to consider an informed opinion.

"Silencing belief?" "Stop everyone from discussing it?" You need to read the definition of "strawman argument" on your own website. This is about making discussions more productive and civil. It's about encouraging rational behavior. It's about being mindful of not helping to perpetuate conspiracy theories that we decry. You're welcome to join in that effort.

 

[gumboot]

Claus, you posted the same thoughts in forum management. You can dispute my analysis by producing your own, and by addressing what I've actually said, not what you imagine I've said. Start by reading the OP. Are my goals and suggestions unreasonable? I'm always glad to consider an informed opinion.

"Silencing belief?" "Stop everyone from discussing it?" You need to read the definition of "strawman argument" on your own website. This is about making discussions more productive and civil. It's about encouraging rational behavior. It's about being mindful of not helping to perpetuate conspiracy theories that we decry. You're welcome to join in that effort.

I think CFLarsen, like me, is responding to suggestions from some (quite a few, actually) people that essentially amount to banning 9/11 as a topic of discussion on the forums.

Personally I think that particular "solution" (in its many forms) should be rejected outright.

 

[Gravy]

This is in many ways a very disturbing thread.

...Because that is exactly what this is about: The silencing of a belief. 9-11 is done to death? Maybe. But stop everyone from discussing it?...

...For shame.

I think CFLarsen, like me, is responding to suggestions from some (quite a few, actually) people that essentially amount to banning 9/11 as a topic of discussion on the forums.

Personally I think that particular "solution" (in its many forms) should be rejected outright.

I would agree, but I'm confused, because no one has suggested any such thing here. Claus made a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the OP or anything else in this thread. Then he chose to be "very disturbed" by his own creation.

 

[gumboot]

I would agree, but I'm confused, because no one has suggested any such thing here. Claus made a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the OP or anything else in this thread. Then he chose to be "very disturbed" by his own creation.

While it hasn't explicitly been stated, the general thrust of the argument is the same:

1. I don't like the nature of discussion in the 9/11 Sub Forum
2. The discussion should stop

Some would say if you don't like what someone is saying, it is acceptable to tell them to stop, but not acceptable to take action to prevent them saying it. Otherwise would argue that even just telling someone to stop saying something goes against the basic principles of free speech.

 

[tfk]

The only discussion needed about 9/11 anymore is about why the government ignored warnings and it's policies about sharing information between agencies. As far as the event itself, the floor should now be closed for discussion. There are no more unanswered questions. Case closed. The next step is for twoofers to realize that they are WRONG.

Would that were the truth...

Tragically, some folks are realizing that the small brushfire that was the "truth" movement has just about burned itself out in the US. And the impending departure of Bush et al. will provide the welcome cleansing rain to snuff out the last embers.

So what is the response? "There be a whole passel of kindling elsewhere in the world, and it's time to go light some fires."

David Ray Griffin World Tour: Since I'm such a newbie, I can't yet post urls. So google the following:
"Prof. David Ray Griffin" +"911 truth international" +"2008.11.3"

At first glance, this is simply embarrassing. It's like having a loud-mouth cousin who gets drunk & feels the need to air the family's dirtiest linen at every social gathering. And every suggestion that he show some restraint is met with a loud, obnoxious "You can't tell ME what to say!"

Of course, this whole experience is humiliating to anyone who still possesses a smidgen of self-respect. In other words, "everyone but the ranter himself". And the rest of the family, determined to maintain their dignity, chooses to do nothing but ignore him & his stories. A task made especially difficult by the fact that the stories are complete figments of the boor's vivid and tawdry imagination.

It is not, in my opinion, an accident that Griffin is going to Japan with his book "The New Pearl Harbor". That title alone is guaranteed to generate massive amounts of curiosity in the general public. And it will spawn strong support from the revisionist historians in Japan, who will leap to accept analogies and absolution between 1941 & 2001.

Griffin will also find support amongst members of certain cliques around the world who wish ill for the US. A group which sadly includes a fair percentage of prototypically "angry young men" on college campuses throughout the US.

One's knee-jerk reaction might be to attempt to stifle Griffin in some fashion. Of course, that's not how the US operates. Freedom of expression (even "expression of the monumentally stupid") is sacrosanct in this country. And any attempt at a cure for this embarrassing situation would be far, far worse than the disease itself. But, for the rest of us, silence is not the only option in this case. Freedom of speech is universal in this country. Griffin gets to speak his mind about 9/11. And I get to express what an unmitigated buffoon I believe him to be for basing his theses on a foundation of amateurs, incompetents, perverse speculation and outright lies.

The First Amendment is a wonderful thing. it's alway been a source of bemusement to me that Truthers constantly view my exercise of my right to expression as an attempt to squelch theirs. Just anther in a long line of misinterpretations, I guess.

It occurs to me that the gods of sociology are not without their sense of humor. To many cultures in the world, including Japan, the concept of a person publicly spreading defamatory stories about their own "people" is unthinkable. Griffin is banking on the consummately American perspective that allegiance to the truth supersedes allegiance to one's clan. And he believes that the fact that he is an American trashing America's reputation will increase his credibility. Griffin is about to find out that this weapon is a double-edged sword.

Unfortunately it is miniscule comfort that some folks around the world will view Griffin as a vulgar pariah, even as they accept his accusation that Americans are a monumentally corrupt people.

I can't help but wonder with folks like Griffin, Jones, Fetzer, et al. if their bank accounts soothe whatever substitutes for their consciences.

tk

 

[Gravy]

While it hasn't explicitly been stated, the general thrust of the argument is the same:

1. I don't like the nature of discussion in the 9/11 Sub Forum
2. The discussion should stop

I'll call your attention to this part of my OP:

Conclusions and suggestions
​

First, let me make it clear that I greatly admire the contributions of dozens and dozens of rationalists who have taken the time to shed light on the events of 9/11 here. If I've enumerated any sins in this post, I confess to being guilty of them all, as well as to often not following the recommendations I make below. I'm not interested in being an internet sheriff, and I don't think 9/11 discussions should be constrained to certain topics or types of threads. Also, I know that some debunkers do this for entertainment, and it's not my place to ask them to stop (but I wish they would).

That said, I do think this forum would greatly benefit if many people showed better judgment in who they engage with and what they post about. That would have the positive side effect of allowing the more educational threads to stand out from what is now a sea of noise, redundancy, and bickering. Since this subforum isn't arranged by topic, these days if a new visitor finds what he or she came here to seek, it's probably by accident. Let's not add to the clutter.

 

[Thunder]

I would add, and this is not to tout the horn of the 9/11 subforum, but...

To a significant number of "truthers" the JREF 9/11 CT subforum, has become a fortress to attack, a grail to obtain, a place to prove you can beat the best. Now the truthers will laugh at this, bravado it away as nonsense, but you only have to look at the stats Gravy presented a while ago, the survey where the JREf was looked upon as the #1 thorn in their side...

So what of it. Well I think alot of the bickering, baiting, and trolling, from the truther end, comes from the sense of trying to "get one over on us". They can go back to their other truther friends and brag about how they "conquered" the JREF, or got a long time JREFer suspended, or got someone to say something stupid.

Just some thoughts.

TAM

The fact that very few...if any...truthers can come here and remain civil, without any name calling, accusations, or utterly insane arguments, should be very telling of the "movement" as a whole.

 

[Brainster]

While Trooferism itself is on the decline, laughing at Troofers does not seem to be waning. We used to get maybe 15% of 9-11 Flogger's traffic, then 17%, then 20%. In August we actually got 25%. That was back down to 20% in September (they did get a slight spike for the anniversary), but this month so far we're at 30% of their numbers (helped quite a bit by Philip J. Berg's lawsuit against Obama). Some of this relative improvement may be due to 9-11 Blogger's ridiculously counterproductive (but unsurprising) IP banning policy.

I agree with Gravy's essential point, that Troofers get far too much attention around here; it's like a blogswarm whenever somebody posts a bathroom scale experiment or the like.