Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
High profile official story supporting witnesses are actually suspects in an investigation into a 9/11 conspiracy which is what this forum is supposed
to be about.
Don't you agree?
It doesn't matter if I, or any other staff members agrees or not. What matters is how we on ATS present ourselves. It's not proper to attack someone
who, on the surface, is merely relating what they experienced. If you cannot refute their account with appropriate evidence, don't assail their
character.
Mentioning factual information is not a character assault. Clearly these people are not ashamed of being apart of these groups since they joined them
willingly. Plus I most certainly do provide evidence that refutes their accounts.
In none of my examples did I attack the witness or assault their character.
I merely mentioned personal information that IS in fact relevant to conspiracy.
No doubt there have been entire threads in this forum dedicated to all of these groups (PNAC, Opus Dei, CFR, and FBI) because they are so heavily
associated conspiracy or government corruption.
The notion that we have to be silent about the involvement of a 9/11 witnesses in these groups in a 9/11 conspiracy forum makes little sense to me.
Why is this very simple concept of civilized behavior so difficult to understand?
Wait a minute.......I am not disagreeing with being civilized or any part of your new rule other than the specific part I quoted and am discussing
about 9/11 evidence.
I exhibited no uncivilized behavior in my examples.