Closed thread

[Bromius]

Last night I was perusing the forums and I came across the 9/11 video thread. I watched about five minutes and thought it looked interesting, but I had a term paper due today so I put off watching the rest until today. I came back here to find the link had been removed. I agree that if you post a link like that, you should at least give a justification for why you posted it. Otherwise at the very least the poster is giving the impression that they have bought into the message without giving it any serious thought. Taking any idea on faith alone is dangerous. History has demonstrated the truth of that a frightening number of times. The heart can be easily swayed and has a tendency to subdue rationality. That is where I find fault with Michael Moore. He finds bits of information that a correlated in some way, puts in a bunch of material designed to generate an emotional response and then leaves our heart to connect the dots, when it's our brains that should be doing that job. I find it just as insulting when he does that as when people on the other side of the political spectrum (whatever the hell that is) do it, despite the fact that I probably support some of the same causes he does. I believe the link to the video that was posted attempted to do something similar. To be fair I think the conventional news media does this as well.

At the end of the day I believe very little of what any side has to say. To quote a film (total fiction) that I admire, "I suppose once you start questioning, there's no end to it." Maybe it's because I have been interested by science my entire life. I think a big part of it is from reading "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan at a time when I was starting to question religion. Probably another big push to this kind of thinking came from tripping - feeling like I was thinking everything possible at once, trying to string together a sentence and having it veer off into incomprehensibility because everything I wanted to say made about equal sense. I have to consider that my skepticism may be a bias.

The skeptic in me doubted what was being said in that video, but it also wanted to hear what was being said. Maybe I'd overlooked something. Maybe I'd bought into some ideas that were wrong but were coloring my thinking. In a sense, the people that made that video are questioning my ideas, since I don't agree completely agree with them. If I can dish out the questions, I should be able to take them too. In the end I thought there were some good points and also some points that seemed like a total stretch. So I guess that about brings me around to where I wanted to go with this. I was disappointed that the link was taken down, although I understand why. Or at least I think I do. THat's where I was trying to go up above. We're all adults here. We can think for ourselves. I have faith that I can separate the wheat from the chaff, and that most of the people here can as well. To do that though, we have to be given the chance first.

Like I said before, by not posting anything to either support the case the video was making and by not offering any critique of the information presented, the poster hurt their own case, at least in my eyes. The video seemed if nothing else, like a pretty good summary of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories floating around. Stuff we've seen here plenty of times before. Chances are if nothing new is offered, then the thread will get ignored and wind up as compost.

[Hippie3]

by not posting anything to either support the case the video was making and by not offering any critique of the information presented, the poster hurt their own case

exactly my point.
without commentary and interpretation
it's just propaganda.

[Master_Shake]

hey you know what, i was bisy and didnt have the time to type out all that i would have. he pulled it... what ya gonna do?

am i mad about it? sure.
do i think it was wrong to pull it before it was given a chance? sure.
do i think hip comes down too hard on people talkin about bush? sure.
am i going to worry about it? no.

when all is said and done, its hippies board.
he does as he sees fit. i have no further interest in this topic.
nuff said.

[Hippie3]

hey you know what, i was bisy and didnt have the time to type out all that i would have.

hey you know what, that's no excuse.
there's no posting deadline that must be met.
so don't just throw slop out for us
and go on about your business.

[Master_Shake]

that is not what happened and know it. >>slop<< nice touch hip.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________
no Bait and Ban for me... thanks but no thanks.
ill have my fill of this topic where i am heard unabated,ei not here...
again i say, "i have no further interest in this topic."

[lyqwyd]

man, i wanted to say something useful (hopefully) but now i feel its unwelcome...

[hogwild]

more on this subject? I dont know about the rest of you but ive heard quite enough about 9-11. I respect the individuals who were lost in the tragedy, cant we just leave it at that?

[Hippie3]

i'd be thrilled
to never see another post on the subject.

[Stenciler]

Just an simple idea, but if you're too busy to give commentary, what are you doing posting messages on a forum?
And if you're too busy to think of commentary, then why should we waste our time on something that wasn't even worthwhile enough for you to spend a few minutes on?
I see any community as give/take, and that's why you ought to give at least a context behind your post. Anyone can link, not everyone can think. Prove yourself to be in one category, not the other.
Be concious that other people have to sift through your post. This is why we don't post pages upon pages at once, why we don't post in annoying colors, and why all CAPS is considered rude. For me, it means going back an re-reading my post so I don't spell things wrong or forget words. Truly if I'm trying to communicate an idea, I don't do it in my own language. I do it in everyone else's.

[Bromius]

I really like the edit feature. I usually wind up reading what I wrote after I posted it... I frequently catch errors or things I should clarify, so the edit comes in handy.

[Hippie3]

editorial afterthought makes for better posts.
also review sometimes reveals certain defects
or missteps which should be retracted/redacted.
nothing wrong with it,
although i have seen a few cry 'foul'
when they craft a reply and post
only to see their reply is now
less meaningful
since the text which spurred the reply
is now missing/altered.

[Bromius]

Concerning the first post I made though, I tend to get upset when anybody tries to restrict my access to information, regardless of its quality. I started lurking on this site in early 2002, so I know the score. If it was my site I'm sure there would be things I wouldn't allow as well. A little constructive criticism can never hurt though, so I suppose that was the spirit of my post.

I have major respect for this site, its owner/administrator, the moderators and everyone who makes a positive contribution. Any criticism about restricted info can't be too harsh because this place itself is a source of mountains of knowledge. Considering what a lot of that knowlege is about, I think a certain amount of risk is involved in keeping a place like this running. Thank you for having the courage to make it available.

[Hippie3]

i don't really seeing it
as restricting your access to info,
the whole internet is at your fingertips
and there is no power in my hand to
control you in any way.
instead
i see my policy
as a setting of a certain minimum quality standard for
posting here.

my focus is not on you, the viewer,
but rather upon the poster & his post/s.
and it's easy to understand that
certain minimum standards must be imposed
to maintain an atmosphere conducive to our
free interchange of ideas.

if i relent
and allow the unfettered posting of copy/pasted material/links
i would be handing this forum over to the
political partisans, conspiracy theorists, crackpots, etc.,
for agitation-propaganda.

soon after,
the loudest and the most aggressive element,
those willing to abuse and shout down any who disagree, etc.,
would dominate
and the quiet thoughtful ones would leave.
in my opinion
that is not an option.

[dbzeroone]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

editorial afterthought makes for better posts.
also review sometimes reveals certain defects
or missteps which should be retracted/redacted.

Here here!
I wish more people would proofread for spelling, grammar and tone in everything they write.
Interestingly, I rarely notice poorly written posts here.

[Bromius]

Intentionally changing your post to undermine some one elses argument is disingenuous, sort of akin to saying "I didn't say that" in a verbal argument, when you know you did. I just try to leave my being proven foolish to others, instead of doing it myself.

[Bromius]

Now hypothetically, what if instead of posting that video link, the poster paraphrased it instead?

[Hippie3]

that's a horse of a different color.



if someone wanted to mount an argument pro or con
or even just provide commentary
we welcome such
so long as it's kept civil
with tolerance for diversity of opinion
and respect for each other's view.

[Bromius]

That would have been kosher then?

[Hippie3]

i can't commit
in advance of actually seeing
what gets posted
but if i am interpreting you correctly
in your use of the term 'paraphrase'
then i think a situational judgment
would have to be made.

just changing a few words in a long agit-prop piece
isn't quite what i have in mind.

a preamble of
'here's something i think you should read'
is also insufficient,
as would be a conclusion like
'i found this interesting and thought you might, too'.

in such cases
it's obvious the intent is really the same
as a simple drive-by copy/paste.

but if by 'paraphrase'
you mean to
editorially summarize with extensive commentary
then yes,
that would indeed be 'kosher',
acceptable.

[Bromius]

What I had in mind by paraphrasing in my statement above was something like 3 or 4 paragraphs summarizing the arguments made in the video in their own words. Judging by what you said above, that still might not make the cut. From what you are saying, it seems like you would be looking for maybe a "I believe that statement is true because..." or maybe some "This is a good point, but could use more evidence to support it" type statements accompanying the basic summary.

[cherkropper]

To "editorially summarize with extensive commentary" would be OK as long as it is not rammed down the throat of the audiance in a holyer-than-thou fashion.

[Hippie3]

Originally Posted by Bromius

it seems like you would be looking for maybe a "I believe that statement is true because..." or maybe some "This is a good point, but could use more evidence to support it" type statements accompanying the basic summary.

indeed.
otherwise it's just an exercise in english lit,
a translation of a sort,
not original thought.

without some original thought
the post is entirely without merit, imo.
it would still in essence
just be pasted
in slightly different words.

the end result
is we end up arguing
with someone who was never here,
i.e.-the original source.
how can we debate someone who isn't
the one posting the material ?

and if the poster is just paraphrasing,
then in effect
he has no responsibility for the material,
he's just repeating what he heard.

we've seen that tactic used here before,
plausible deniability so
there's no real interchange,
the net result is still
hit-and-run agit-prop.

[Starscream]

i for one am a believer of what the film has to say,
but we are a large group of people
who can not handle mature confrontations
at such a political level.
(I speak of all of us together not single minds)

Such is the reason that politics, sports, and religion are not allowed in bars.
Because like hip just said
Who the F*** care about how long we argue
for in the end nothing will change,
Except, hostle intentions towards people that dont have the same views

Now that being said i do believe that everone should sit and watch it,
just like everyone should read the Old and New testimate
and the Koran (please excuse my spelling, i really dont mean to butcher it)
And have an idea of what the Old Ways mean
or what the Budah was trying to tell people

For no argument can have any strength unless you know/have and idea of where people are comming from.
And like i said im a believer of the goverment working against us but when it really really comes down to it this place is still the best place to live, for christs sake i could be starving, with out clothing, without a home,
Or even worse....

<gasp>

with out Mushrooms....

[Hippie3]

i do believe that everone should sit and watch it,
just like everyone should read the Old and New testimate
and the Koran (please excuse my spelling, i really dont mean to butcher it)
And have an idea of what the Old Ways mean
or what the Budah was trying to tell people

and it's just
that kind of thinking
that my policy seeks to void.

the whole notion of
'i think you need to read this'
is propaganda.

you want to plant ideas in peoples' heads
the easy way,
instead of actually persuading, arguing and convincing
one merely sends over a 'recommended reading' list
and voila! a new convert is born.

mind control by proxy.

[Lefty]

Rage Against the Machine had a recommended reading list...Very true, saturating the audience with like minded material not only makes an easy sell but attracts the like minded.
As for the Old and New testicle, I'll have to take a closer look.

[Bromius]

Originally Posted by Starscream

Such is the reason that politics, sports, and religion are not allowed in bars.
Because like hip just said
Who the F*** care about how long we argue
for in the end nothing will change,
Except, hostle intentions towards people that dont have the same views

I work in a bar. We have sports. We talk about politics. A lot. Now on the politics end, there are some people that tend to get wound up. When I talk to them, I sometimes hold back certain arguments because I know it will escalate the situation. I generally avoid discussing such things with people that launch into a monologue. These seem to be the same people that like to cut you off in the middle of what you're saying. So annoying. I think the best you can do in a situation like that is inject some questions with the hope that maybe they'll actually think about what they're saying.

Arguing is important. Even if you don't convert somebody to your way of thinking, you are probably gaining a better understanding of the issue being argued about, and also of yourself. Arguing should make you ask why you think something. You know yourself better as a result. True, words and ideas don't have much bearing on the real world unless they influence and action. Hopefully if you debate or argue, when you do act it will be the result of well considered ideas.

[cherkropper]

Originally Posted by Bromius

Arguing is important.

Arguing might be important to people who want to express there belief of what is "truth" but it tends to tear apart Web communities like this one, so I can understand the moderators reluctance to let it run wild.

[lyqwyd]

""i for one am a believer of what the film has to say,""

me too. And, since we are all on the topic of aruguments, I feel that the film was presented in a very reasonable fashion, making of itself a very solid bank of evidence to back up the argument that we don't know the truth and the truth has been covered up by high ranking governement officials... almost all the questions i raised while watching it were answered within a few minutes of my thinking them. The movie doesn't prove that a cruise missle hit the pentagon, it proves that a 757 didn't. it proves that the towers came down due to a planned demolition, not a short burning jet fuel fire. It proves that the american public has been and still is being lied to.

I understand hip's decision to remove a post he deemed agit-prop, but realize that this decision was based on the actions of the poster (no comments, just a link) and not the material posted (i hope). political arguments usually tend to get out of hand; there was an article recently in a scientific journal that said that political arguments, more than any other argument subject, incites arguers to switch from logical reasoning to emotional outbursts. i wish i had the link available.... oh and some quick trivia.... that horse of a different color from wizard of oz was coated in different colors of jello to change its color. if u look at the scene in the film, you can see the horse shaking its head to loosen the reins so it can lick the jello off.

[Hippie3]

the material itself was not a consideration,
i enforce the same policy, as best as i can,
on anyone who pastes without commentary.

of course
one seldom sees moderates posting such,
it's usually the extremists on both sides
that seemed compelled to
evangelize others with their message,
often repeatedly, like that video
which has been posted here
every few months for the
last couple years.

just as things finally start to quiet down again
along comes yet another
who thinks we all need to see
the same damn video again...

[lyqwyd]

aha! i didn't realize what the whole story was. I agree, I can only watch so much of that shite. it is a well made movie for some guy with the internet and a video editing software, however.

and what'd u think about the horse of a different color trivia?

[anticheffy]

if someone wanted too they could make a film prooving that umpaloompas did it,

most items presented on the tube, in print etc are paid for by someone that wants to sway sheeple to a way of thinking like their own

and so many folks sponge it up so easily, its amazing...........

[Starscream]

Im going to go back a couple steps...

Yes arguing is very important, and dont get me wrong i love to do it,