The ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative

Please, let's not discuss the issues in this thread... this is for planning the "Fine Focus" initiative.

Thanks.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Please, let's not discuss the issues in this thread... this is for planning the "Fine Focus" initiative.

Thanks.

My Apology.

I am new here and I am unfamiliar with the workings of this forum... albeit a few empirical experiences here and I will be up to par. I do wish to participate with the future discussion, if applicable.

I don't have the time to contribute, but I'm looking forward to some nice reads as I continue to muck my way through this supposed "higher education" thing they call college.

The Academy even let me live onboard the training ship this semester as a ship keeper. Now, back to making these toilets flush.

I have things I can add to any of the top 4. You already have my U2U...

I will also offer up my help to others with their research within reason. If anyone needs anything just send me a U2U.

Now a few questions. Is there an area where we can work together to prepare some of these posts before making them public? How does this fine focus area work? Where is it at, it has a different URL, correct? What are the rules in it?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Why?

well using only 5 pieces of evidenc,e I don't think it's possible to arrive at an absolute truth. There are other questions to answer, that can help in finding more information about what really happened.

Anyways, I'm personally going to keep my mind open on this pentagon debate. Regardless of what truths you guys arrive on, I will seek alternative debates to compare to all of your answers.

If you want to know the 'truth' about what hit the pentagon, why don't you ask the Fire Chief who was in charge of the scene?

I remember in a television interview directly after the incident seeing him tell reporters that "a commercial airplane did not make contact with this structure",
later on that day his comment changed, and so did the look on his face.

Where is the man who was the HNIC (the fire chief) on the scene the day the plane struck the pentagon?What is his name, and where is he today?

It's that easy, that one man as well as the captains responsible for personell on the scene can verify and/or deny the 100% absolute undenyable TRUTH.

If you want the truth, just question THOSE men.

finished business.

I’ve noticed a number of first time posters who are jumping into the mix lately. What procedures will be used to qualify members for participation in the discussion?

Will there be any requirements for participants to establish credentials for participation other than previous participation on similar ATS threads?

I realize that for various reasons, Cathearder is no longer a member of ATS. However, in the interest of fairness, and since it was his thread that started the whole issue, has there been any thought to contacting him, and allowing him to participate? (at least on a limited basis)

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I realize that for various reasons, Cathearder is no longer a member of ATS. However, in the interest of fairness, and since it was his thread that started the whole issue, has there been any thought to contacting him, and allowing him to participate? (at least on a limited basis)

Yes. I have made an attempt to get in touch with him. No response yet.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I’ve noticed a number of first time posters who are jumping into the mix lately. What procedures will be used to qualify members for participation in the discussion?

Will there be any requirements for participants to establish credentials for participation other than previous participation on similar ATS threads?

I realize that for various reasons, Cathearder is no longer a member of ATS. However, in the interest of fairness, and since it was his thread that started the whole issue, has there been any thought to contacting him, and allowing him to participate? (at least on a limited basis)

With all due respect, it seems by the tone of your post that you are not interested in an objective debate where debunkers and theorists work together to form a more reasonable and logical opinion.

I joined this forum because it was my perception that the administration here did not condone taking sides in any way shape or form but only offer sincere belief in a sincere attempt to discern the basic and intricate interpretations of fact.

It seems like somebody clearly is on Cathearders side...

If the guy was banned then why make a special privelege for him to return unless you are partial to his opinion or method of presenting "so-called" facts?

If such facts are so strong then they should represent themselves again.

Originally posted by Archon
With all due respect, it seems by the tone of your post that you are not interested in an objective debate where debunkers and theorists work together to form a more reasonable and logical opinion.

…

If the guy was banned then why make a special privelege for him to return unless you are partial to his opinion or method of presenting "so-called" facts?

Archon, I agree with you that by Howard's "tone," he isn't out for an objective debate, but that part of his post doesn't matter so much.

Look at this:

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I’ve noticed a number of first time posters who are jumping into the mix lately. What procedures will be used to qualify members for participation in the discussion?

Will there be any requirements for participants to establish credentials for participation other than previous participation on similar ATS threads?

This reads to me as a plea to cut back on the competition, so to speak, either by preventing new members such as Merc_the_Perp from participating, or by preventing members who cannot establish more formal "credentials" from participating (and frankly I don't know what these could possibly be in relation to this subject).

No one with objectivity in mind would be concerned with "first time posters," but rather with making sure both sides of the issue are fairly represented by knowledgeable individuals, regardless of how long they've been a member.

Originally posted by bsbray11

No one with objectivity in mind would be concerned with "first time posters," but rather with making sure both sides of the issue are fairly represented by knowledgeable individuals, regardless of how long they've been a member.

I agree with your first sentence. Your only sentence.

Wether or not first time posters are knowledgeable remains to be seen. Beyond that their contribution should be measured by the content of their post. If and when this discussion begins... if someone (wether they are an esteemed member or not) shows that they are incapable of offering a logical and reasonable conjecture then they should simply be removed from the discussion. There is little precedent for this type of discussion in the world of political correctness. That's pretty much what I was saying. We are dealing with issues that are beyond political interpretation and they should be treated as such.

Curriculum Vitae

Originally posted by bsbray11
No one with objectivity in mind would be concerned with "first time posters," but rather with making sure both sides of the issue are fairly represented by knowledgeable individuals, regardless of how long they've been a member.

I think that question has already been reasonably addressed:

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We're looking for at least 20 well-versed members to volunteer to dig deeply into these sub-topics form the 9/11 Pentagon debate:
[...]
If you're interested in participating, please send a U2U to both myself and Springer (use "SkepticOverlord, Springer" in the "to:" field to send your message to both of us) with your intended angle of research/analysis, and links to related threads in which you've participated on ATS previously.

This indicates an interest in ATS members with some sort of track record to be examined. The apparent purpose for doing this is to ensure that each side of the debate is well-represented and less likely to be crippled by “flake-outs”.

If a member is “brand-spankin' new” and joined specifically to participate, however, I imagine the staff might be willing to consider external references in lieu of ATS experience, although I don't speak for them and they may have good reasons not to do so.

Still, can't hurt to ask.

Grail Force Winds

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Now... let's get on with it!

Indeed...

“Get on with it!”

Originally posted by Majic


This indicates an interest in ATS members with some sort of track record to be examined. The apparent purpose for doing this is to ensure that each side of the debate is well-represented and less likely to be crippled by “flake-outs”.

I received a U2U (mass) asking for participation. It said nothing of well indoctrinated sycophants. I have no track record as I am new here. If I am not qualified for this debate simply because I am new here... then perhaps this clarification should be added to the mass U2U.

Clearly this is something that is and would be irritable to someone, like myself, who came here looking for an objective discussion and not the learned doctrine of the resident polyglot and thier residual obfuscative minions.

The whole iniative of this debate was directed at new members... was it not? Simon?

Entrance Exam

Originally posted by Archon
If I am not qualified for this debate simply because I am new here... then perhaps this clarification should be added to the mass U2U.

If you are unable to send a U2U to the staff as requested then yes, you are not qualified to participate.

That would also be true if this thread is the only example of your contribution to the discussion you can offer.

For a straightforward explanation of why this is being done the way it's being done, kindly read the first post to this thread.

As for your participation, it's not for me to decide, but I will give you much higher odds of participating if you discuss this with the staff via U2U instead of indulging in unnecessary theatrics.

How hard can that be?

Originally posted by Majic
Entrance Exam

If you are unable to send a U2U to the staff as requested then yes, you are not qualified to participate.

That would also be true if this thread is the only example of your contribution to the discussion you can offer.

For a straightforward explanation of why this is being done the way it's being done, kindly read the first post to this thread.

As for your participation, it's not for me to decide, but I will give you much higher odds of participating if you discuss this with the staff via U2U instead of indulging in unnecessary theatrics.

How hard can that be?

If you must know I've already sent a U2U to SkepticOverlord....


And relating my concerns to theatrics instead of dealing with them in a direct sense is likely to further substantiate my sincere perception of your sycophantic role on the issue.


Is this how you treat new members?

Don't be afraid.




[edit on 13-1-2006 by Archon]

Unpopular Perception

Originally posted by Archon
And relating my concerns to theatrics instead of dealing with them in a direct sense is likely to further substantiate my sincere perception of your sycophantic role on the issue.

If you are capable of forming such conclusions based only on the exchange we have had so far, then I recommend avoiding unnecessary embarrassment by pursuing broader understanding.

If on the other hand your perception is based on more than this exchange, I recommend educating yourself on my actual positions on the issue, since you are clearly misinformed about them.

Insulting me as a consequence of your own ignorance diminishes only yourself.

Reciprocity Disagreement

Originally posted by Archon
Is this how you treat new members?

It depends on how they treat me.

In your first post to this thread, you posted off-topic, and had apparently not read what the thread was actually about.

No worries, we're only human.

In your second post, after being informed of this by SO, you politely apologized and resolved to get “up to par”.

All fine and good, I do respect that.

In your third post, in response to another member, HowardRoark, who said nothing that could reasonably be construed as offensive to you, you accused him of being “not interested in an objective debate” and made some suggestions about how the staff should deal with a banned member.

Puzzling and a bit abrasive, but still not alarming.

Then, in your fourth post – the post I responded to – you stated your opinions about how first-time members should be evaluated.

Again no problem there, but I thought it would be helpful to point out that SkepticOverlord did speak to that issue in the first post, and I suggested contacting the staff via U2U.

If doing so somehow offended you, it was not because I intended it to.

Then, in your fifth post, you apparently took my comments as an affront and proceeded to flame away, hurling your own “polyglot” brand of insults and passive-aggressive sniping, and here we are.

If you think you're going to somehow convince me of your competence or virtue by behaving this way, you are mistaken.

I'm sorry I tried to help.

Fear Itself

Originally posted by Archon
Don't be afraid.

I see nothing to fear.

Except perhaps an unnecessary disruption where there might otherwise be intelligent discussion.

Please, don't refrain from pursuing the latter on my account.

Now, if we may both be so considerate as to return the thread to discussion of the ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative rather than each other, I think we'll both feel better for it.

Regards,

Majic




P.S. If you don't feel you've said enough about me, there is a thread for that purpose. In that thread, I'm always the topic, and I encourage anyone who is so inclined to comment about me there, instead of other threads. Doing so promotes more coherent topical discussion.

P.P.S. By the way, that thread could use some well-crafted flames, and if you don't mind my saying so, I do admire your style.

P.P.P.S. Sorry, I can't resist making one last clarification. I object to being labeled “sycophantic”, because I consider that designation incorrect. Instead, I would prefer something more along the lines of “arrogant”, “smarmy”, “loquacious”, “narcissistic”, “ostentatious”, “pompous”, “bombastic”, “pretentious” and/or perhaps “garrulous”, but I've knocked heads too many times with too many different staff members to allow insinuations of sycophancy to go unanswered. The example in my vanity thread (which also catapulted me to drama queen stardom) is only one among many – much of them behind the scenes. Just sayin'.

[edit on 1/14/2006 by Majic]

Archon, I have no intention of stifling debate, however, I have noticed a large number of "newbies" that have registered and have zeroed in on that particular thread lately. I suspect that is is in related to the other issues that have come up lately related to that thread.

I don't think that you appreciate the fact that the greatest strength of ATS is the wide variety of opinions and viewpoints that are represented here. Unlike other boards where dissenters are actively discouraged or banned just because of their ideas, the only thing that will get you banned here is to flout the TOS (usually through openly abusive posts). This is what makes ATS the fantasitc board that it is today

While I don't want to get into a thread where we rehash what was said on page 25, or 69, or 104 of the existing 911 thread, there is something to be said about extracting the key and best arguments for both sides as long as they remain focused on the specific topic and not let it wander about.

based on some of the posts on pentagon thread lately, that may be difficult for some people to do.

Microphone Toss

Originally posted by HowardRoark
While I don't want to get into a thread where we rehash what was said on page 25, or 69, or 104 of the existing 911 thread, there is something to be said about extracting the key and best arguments for both sides as long as they remain focused on the specific topic and not let it wander about.

I would like to add that only a tiny fraction of the board's 50,000+ members (or member accounts, anyway) will be participating in the “fine focus” experiment.

It is exclusive because there has already been so much discussion about the issue. It is the subject of the #1 thread, after all.

As noted above, I don't expect to be one of participants in the new initiative. However, like every other member regardless of join date, I am still free to discuss this topic in any related thread I please -- and start new ones if I wish to explore specific aspects of the issue.

In other words, this initiative is supplementary to ongoing discussion of the 9-11 Pentagon Attack, not a replacement or substitute for it.

So I suggest not thinking that non-participation in this event amounts to “censorship” or an inability to discuss the matter in the hundreds of threads on the Pentagon Attack already in existence.

Last I checked, the “Post Reply” buttons were still working.

Originally posted by Majic

Apolegetic, non-articulate, quasi-semantical blather

Perhaps one day your intentions, your actions and your words will coincide. Until then I hope your ego doesn't bite you in the ass.

Attempting to be cordial looks terrible on you. You're merely a pundit. Any wise person can intuitively come to this conclusion. You have issues with being wrong... and when you are wrong... you offer an inarticulate diatribe about why you can never be wrong.

Thanks for at least trying to be cordial. You have effectively exposed one very pertinent fact...

I'm outta here. I never came here to kiss anyones ass.