Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

I object to the idea that I put so little effort into it; I didn't write an essay, true, but I've found that it's good to start with a few premises and then expand from there. The problem with a debate is that people get into the idea that you can only put one post per response and things like that. In discussions, there are no such limitations. As I've said many times, what I like about the Formal Debates forum in general is that more civilized discussion is expected. When dealing with highly emotional issues, I think this is definitely advantageous. However, while it's true that here, atleast, there can be some rules as to what insults aren't allowed, this doesn't mean that it's smooth sailing- there are myriads of insults and at the end of the day it can tire.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps - but just take notice how many of them go off-topic. AND inside formal debate threads where it's not even supposed to be allowed!

But then again, Scott has been allowed to ignore the rules already in place for formal debates and create his own. Could that odor I seem to detect be that of special favoritism? Hmmmm...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

okay, i sheepishly admit "always" might not have been the best choice of words but i believe you understand what i mean. as to the "terrorist" part you may well be correct, i have no idea though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

where are the "myraid of insults" in this thread scott?

and? so?
scott starts the thread, he's allowed to post what is, and isn't, allowed.
in short he makes the rules for his threads, as can anyone else that posts in this particular sub-forum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dude!!! You gotta watch what you say! You going to end up getting quoted in the collapse thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are like 3 regular SF members (members that post in threads OTHER than the 9/11 threads) that regularly participate in these threads. While I take guilty pleasure participating in these threads, I don't want them all over the board. I think the one thread should be kept open in pseudoscience. This whole formal debate was Scott's attempt to bypass Styder's closing of all the threads in PS, except the one. He knew the discussion thread could go on forever, so he created a formal debate in order to use it's discussion thread as a "new" 9/11 thread.

 

That's NOT the way I read the Formal Debate rules as posted. There's a particular format spelled out about presentation, rebuttal, limited participation (instead of just anyone/everyone jumping in) and a couple of other restrictions. If you are going to just have a free-for-all and ignore those rules, then why keep 'em posted? Just delete them.

And it wasn't you that I had in mind for allowing him to run rampant all over the rules - and the whole place, for that matter.

 

Precisely!!!

 

It's certainly true that I wanted a place where all aspects of 9/11 other then the WTC collapses could be discussed. The real question is, is there merit in discussing these issues? I think so.

I also wanted a place to discuss the WTC collapses in a place that could be a little more civil than pseudoscience, which is why I created a WTC collapses discussion as well. However, it seems that the WTC collapses thread is simply too entrenched over in pseudoscience; so unless Stryder gets tired of it, I have a feeling that the main action regarding that subject, atleast, will remain in pseudoscience.

 

The 2 debates I engaged in where only against 1 person each. As far as I know, it could have been expanded to include more then one person per side, but in the first case, MacGyver didn't want anyone else involved, and in the second case no one else stepped up to the plate (the debate with Uno Hoo). However, that's the debate part of the equation. The second part is the discussions.

I really have no idea where you think the free for all was in the debates. The discussions are more free-for-all, but there is -1- important difference between a formal debates discussion and a normal one- one can stipulate a few conditions at the beginning of them as well; as in, certain insults are not to be used. When discussing things that are very emotionally sensitive, such as 9/11, I think this can be very useful.

You claim that I'm running rampant, but the truth of the matter is that the -only- reason that my threads get any time at all is that people actually respond to them. If no one responded they'd get deep sixed without any mod having to lift a finger; which may be the fate of the WTC collapses discussion thread, but I hope it can lie dormant to cover the possibility that Stryder gets tired of hosting the WTC collapses thread at one point and closes it down. Here, atleast, there would be some hard rules on what insults aren't allowed, which could arguably make the thread somewhat less toxic.

Anyway, I think you were referring to Fraggle Rocker; but while Fraggle may have admonished (Q) for using an insult that was proscribed for use as stipulated in the first post of this thread, James certainly didn't deny that this is things should be. And seriously, is it so wrong to want to have a more formal or civil discussion? Finally, I think there's no question that James is quite present in this forum and I seriously doubt that he's not capable of shutting me down, so even if you were referring to Fraggle Rocker I think it's clear that James could just as easily fit the bill in terms of allowing me to have the 2 threads I opened here.

 

I was hoping that the same restrictions regarding insults could apply, atleast, to that there would still be something to the idea that the discussion is somewhat more formal then a regular sciforums discussion. There are many "guidelines" that personal attacks shouldn't be done, but I was hoping this is the one forum where atleast -some- personal attacks could actually be proscribed.

 

Yep, I read them just before posting - and I read them again just now. Perhaps I was being more restrictive than required, but one thing I noticed was that the number and identity of the participants was not agreed on in each case and others joined in - sometimes completely off-topic. And there was no proposal post which was closed as soon as the debate began. :shrug:

 

No, it wasn't Fraggle either - what is this anyway, a game of 20 questions?????

 

By the above, I take it that you agree that you agree that the discussions can be somewhat more formal then elsewhere on SF. If so, good stuff

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

As to the your second point, I read the sticky post you posted and this, I believe, is the relevant part:
When a "Debate" thread is created, a "Discussion" thread with the same topic heading should also be created. This is the place where members who are not involved in the formal debate may make comments or discuss the debate.

I had been under the impression that we could bring up any issue related to the debate- in this case, whether 9/11 was an inside job, instead of only the points that were brought up in the debate thread itself. Why should we limit ourselves to what the 2 debaters had to say? I was one of them and I never felt that I was bringing up all the issues; 9/11 is an enormous topic, one that has spanned more then 4500 posts over in pseudoscience- I just wanted to get the debate over with so that we could proceed to this discussion part. If this isn't allowed, I would atleast hope it was possible that a thread could be created in some sci forum where a discussion concerning -all- aspects of 9/11 other then the WTC collapses could be discussed.

 

If you're talking about the debates, there was most certainly proposal posts for both the WTC collapses thread and the "Was 9/11 an inside job?" threads. I was also clear to me that the participants were definitely resolved in both cases.

In the WTC collapses thread, it was between me and MacGyver.

In the "was 9/11 an inside job?" thread, it was between me and Uno Hoo.

I believe the only response I made to one of these people was essentially 'you're not supposed to be here'.

The fact that a few others posted in there was due to their lack of understanding of the rules, not due to the fact that the rules hadn't been set.

 

I would absolutely -love- to have a conspiracy forum opened; I would also love to head it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Failing that, Fraggle Rocker or yourself sounds good. I hope it can be a place where some rules concerning insults can actually be enforced so that the conversation doesn't spiral downwards. I also would like to be assured that the approved threads don't get killed at some point just because a moderator gets tired of them.