I hope that you and yours are all well.

Let me make it very clear that I speak for myself as an individual only, and not for 911blogger or the other moderators at 911blogger. (Although I did mention I was going to do this and no one said "are you out of your freaking mind!?! which I very well may be - joke)

I am one of the moderators at 911blogger. Due to an illness and death in my family I have not been as active at the site as I would have preferred for the past several months, but I am now as fully as engaged as a father of two teenagers can be. I have assigned myself the task of mediating disputes at blogger with the intention of keeping the site as open, civil and dynamic as possible, while trying to maintain consistent standards. I’m sure that you’ll agree that this is no easy task.

We are all individuals and, as individuals, we all have a unique approach to life, including how we each engage in 9/11 research and/or activism. Thus, I hope that we can agree that there is no “one right way” to engage in 9/11 research and activism. Although certain approaches can be argued to be more effective than others, we should all be free to choose what we do and how we do it. We are also all human beings, and thus inherently irrational (some more than others) and imperfect.

911blogger is intended to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible while maintaining certain standards of decorum and credibility. I am also striving to make it as transparent as possible. I want everyone from experienced researchers and activists to those just beginning their 9/11 truth journey to feel they can participate and be treated with respect and civility. Unfortunately, sometimes what should remain a purely intellectual debate becomes personalized and slips into the increasingly muddy waters of irrationality and/or emotionalism. This serves no one except those interested in maintaining the status quo.

I really think that most of the disagreements that I have observed at 911blogger and elsewhere come down to three things:

1) Differing standards of civility (decorum),

2) Differing standards for facts and logic (reasoning), and

3) Basic personality conflicts

I will also concede that there has been some inconsistency when it comes to how rules have been applied, but moderators are human and sometimes overburdened moderators make "quick and dirty" decisions for the sake of expediency. These are all judgment calls and many factors come into play. There has also been less transparency than we all would ideally like, but I think most of this can also be laid at the feet of overworked volunteers choosing expediency over too often cumbersome dialogue.

I hope you will all agree that site moderators should be able to set standards at the site they moderate, as long as these standards are clear and enforced as consistently and as equitably as possible (see "judgment calls" above).

I hope you will also all agree that there is very little moderators can do about basic personality conflicts, except to say "take it elsewhere" and shut down threads that devolve into pointless flame wars. It follows then that moderators are well within their rights to slow down (moderate) or stop (ban) users who seem to be primarily interested in engaging in personal attacks.

I hope that you will all reflect on these points as we undertake this conversation, and consider how they may apply to your particular point of view or grievance.

Finally, I hope that we can all agree that 9/11 truth will not succeed or fail with any one individual, event, site or issue; and that the 9/11 truth movement is stronger because it is as diverse as it is.

I am grateful to this forum for hosting this discussion and look forward to hearing from all of you.

Your brother in truth,

John W. Wright