Dealing with 9/11 Madness (argumentum ad hominem veritas)

[snip]

MOD EDIT - removed off topic post.

Mod Note: One Line Post / Off Topic – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by elevatedone]

A Brief History Of Time


Nope. You are responsible for what you post, and there's no benefit whatsoever to forcing mods to second-guess themselves.

There have been problems with what is known as "edit trolling" -- posting something in violation of the T&C, usually an insult directed at another member in the "heat of the moment", leaving it long enough for the target of the attack to see it, then removing it.

The best approach is to post what you intend to post. If you change your mind about something and want to edit it, that's fine, but if a moderator acts on the post before you do, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Also, please be sure to read this post about resolving disputes with mods.

It's not unusual for members to disagree with the staff about something or another, but there are right ways and wrong ways to go about it.

I recommend the right way.

reply to post by Majic

---

Thanks Majic.

I have spoken with the moderator and I think everything has been resolved.

I understand about the "edit trolling" thing also. I wasn't thinking along those lines. But thanks for your prompt answer to my question.


[edit on 12/17/2007 by Griff]

(Post Removed)





(Mod edit: Let's just work this out via U2U and leave the drama to the Bolshoi Ballet. -- Majic)

[edit on 12/17/2007 by Majic]

I think that this is a good idea. I have seen many 9/11 threads spiral out of control and end with personal attacks.

I've noticed that things really start breaking down when someone posts an opinion as fact or says something is factual but refuses to prove their factual statement. This then leads to frustration and finally a breakdown in communication.

I would really like to see a more cooperative effort on both sides of the discussions, where if someone asks that someone else back up their statement(s), they do their best to do so. Sometimes it's a simple matter of rewording their original statement. I always try to keep in mind that I know what I mean but that doesn't automatically mean someone else does. In my humble opinion, this seems to be a reasonable request????

reply to post by SimiusDei

---

I think I can put this one to rest. It was just a bunch of people who were highly dissatisfied with their in-flight meal. We've all been there. For that bunch, I guess it was just one too many pieces of food that would not come unstuck from the plastic! At that point, all you've got between yourself and dishonor are box cutters.

No, I'm not a "raider." This is my first time here. I'm just a guy from Tampa Bay. I find the sort of material you're discussing interesting. Did you suspect I was some troublemaker trying to crawl back in through the vent? - The worst I'll throw is a tiny, monumental bit of sarcasm. Hakuna Matata.

[edit on 29-12-2007 by Snarky]

P.S. I watched the second plane hit the WTC from my girlfriend's roof in Brooklyn. Five days later, I re-enlisted in the military. So I've been checking this conspiracy stuff out with a great deal of personal interest.

Sorry I didn't even mean to hit the post button. I am so embarrassed.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by LoneGunMan]

This is why I am very much drawn to think 9/11 WAS an inside job..this is a GOVT. document from a GOVT. website...and look at the date....WELL before 9/11...PLEASE take the time to read this document..I can't believe I never see it on any of the 9/11 threads anywhere..It says alot about Al-Quida, Bin Laden, and a Govt. that is accepted by the people of Afghanistan before this oil company could run pipelines through this area. This oil company was in talks with the Taliban..when the Taliban decided they didnt want to cooperate after all..BOOM we had 9/11 and we were bombing Afghanistan and there was our man put in as pres. of Afghanistan and we were running our pipelines. Check it out...

commdocs.house.gov...

I have a legitimate complaint I should have expressed here a few weeks ago. We have posters deliberately making all attempts to deflect from and disrupt topics. They enter in with no self-evident science knowledge or any study related to 9/11/2001. They relentlessly badger for sources, which have already been posted in many topics, and which validly support the points of argument of those refuting the "official" reports.

Yet, when validation is requested of our opposition, they refuse to provide it. Instead, relying on the illogic of the "official" reports, red herring and ad hominem to deliberately frustrate other posters. When those other posters, being only as human as anyone else, rebel, those seriously attempting to sort their way through all the illogic of the "official" reports retort as they normally are not inclined to do.

I realize moderators cannnot be responsible for every post of every discussion taking place. But neither can reasonable people be expected to take the worthless, deliberate incessant badgering, of unreasonable people, and do nothing. That is bordering on taking away our rights of free expression to defend ourselves. Reasonable people do not desire to become unreasonable unless forced to do so. We have a right to defend ourselves as much anyone else.

Loathing flame wars as I do, I have no intention of engaging in flame wars. At the same time, I do have intentions of expressing my distaste of the worthless antics of unreasonable people when directed at me or others. If it continues, I have every intention of reporting every incident in the future, until the behavior of unreasonable people is either drastically curtailed or desisted.

If moderators currently have no consensus on how they wish reasonable people to handle deliberate deflection disruption, could they please at this time form a consensus, and recommend exactly how reasonable people should handle such worthless bahavior, while staying in compliance with the rules and standards of these forums? Thank you, in advance, for your joint consideration of my request.

Moderator note: Post removed due to violation of the site's rules.



[edit on 27-1-2008 by dbates]

I am looking for the video that shows the "flash" several stories below the impact and then the sudden collapse of the bulding right after. Does anyone have a link as to where I can find it??

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

---

Thanks, SkepticOverlord, for a wonderful place to be! (virtually).

At 56k, it took me two hours to get to the end of the thread here, so I
could post a reply; well worth it!

9/11 is still sore to most U.S. citizens, including myself, which explains
all the 'heat', in my opinion. So incredibly sad... it has become the
equivilant of the JFK assassination to young persons, huh? Only this time,
it seems more a question of "WHO?" rather than "WHY?"

I'm a little less ignorant tonight, after this, and I respect your ability to
deal with it all! And your staff, of course.

Toning it down a bit,

FRIGHTENER.

Is it just against me or are the personal attacks being allowed more now in general?

Be Alert

It is not appropriate to post personal attacks against any member.

We do our best to keep up, but admittedly can't read every post in every thread in every forum in real time.

But fear not!

The ALERT button beneath each post is there for you if you want to let us know about a problem post, so please use it when you encounter abuse.

We can't be everywhere at once, or even respond to alerts immediately, but the nature of discussion forums being what it is, the evidence tends to remain there for us when we investigate.

The latest on Iraqi Oil:

www.nytimes.com...


Hidden price passed on to Iraqi’s :

ipsnews.net...

Anonymous, I was never so ashamed of being an American as I was while leaving Iraq (with electronic files concerning money trails well hidden). It is about alot more money than just oil.