 |
|
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
User loginNavigationFeatured Content WTCD Wiki WTCD Compendium WTCD Podcasts Glossary 9/11 TV News Archive 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud David Chandler's YouTube Channel Council for the National Interest Popular Mechanics: Money Masters Orwell Rolls in His Grave Reel Bad Arabs Recent blog posts
WTCD User Comments
|
Open invitation to Frank Ho to discuss his disagreements with this site. Frank, firstly I like your twitter feed site, it has a good selection of 911 related news. Secondly, can we agree a common objective before we discuss tactics. Are we working to increase awareness of 911 because we believe this issue is one where the oligarchy is most obviously culpable, and we hope that by increasing awareness, we increase the chances of change? |
PollWho destroyed the WTC on 9/11? Al Qaeda 0% The Guy who made billions from its destruction 100% Total votes: 1 Disqus Comments |
Frank, could we get past
Frank,
could we get past first impressions and start a civil discussion anew?
On a side note I have to say that your use of Dawkins meme theory is a little off in relation to the main contributors of this site.
There are several different types of learning, the concept of meme only relates to one type.
"Some experts say there are as many as seven different learning styles; but it's easier to narrow it down to three types of learning . . . we'll call them:
1. Listening learners
2. Seeing learners
3. Touch / experience learners
It's simple really. Think about one of life's earliest lessons - often taught by our mothers: The Stove Can Burn You.
1. Listening learners heard their mother, believed the information, and never touched a stove.
2. Seeing learners watched their brother touch the stove, and never touched it.
3. Experience learners touched the stove; but only once!"
The concept of the meme only applies to type 1 learning above. To use it in context for people who have learnt by experience is absurd. If a group of people who have independently evolved the same opinion based on their own experience, happen to accumulate and be in the majority in a particular discussion, it is not because they have been indoctrinated with memes and are following a sub cultural stereotype expected of them, and to suggest they are in blind faith of a meme is really quite insulting.
I found my way to this site as have many others here after I tried to contribute to discussions at 911 blogger in opposition to John Gold's stated aim to "change the focus of the 911 movement away from CD".
My argument was that although there should be many different aspect of 911 evidence, he and 911 blogger had no right or authority to arrogantly change the direction of a movement without attempting to canvas and reflect the interests of what appeared to be the majority.Furthermore at the same time they were making comments which they refused to elaborate on or discuss saying that CD was not conclusive, and anyway you have to be an engineer to understand it. (They were also discrediting DRG at the same time.)
However DRG and AE911 truth were and probably still are the most credible aspects of the truth movement (To most people) and to take this line, whilst also heavily plugging weaker Islamo fascist orientated evidence instead, set my alarm bells ringing as this course would in my opinion be counter productive to 911 truth.
I started a thread there with a vote asking " Do you think the movement needs to change its focus away from CD, and most people were in agreement with me and in opposition to this stated aim. Shortly afterward with no explanation I was banned from commenting at blogger. I then found this site and read many other similar tales of people who were here after similar experiences, and the pattern was always the same, they were censored after they spoke out against a Lihop type agenda at 911 blogger (To put it simplistically)
I cant speak for the rest of the users on this site, and was wrong to suggest a consensus, because on most issues there probably isn't one here.
However given our shared experiences and censorship at 911 Blogger, we generally accept that certain people in the movement (Particularly at 911Blogger, the most important site for 911 related news (Supposedly)) were acting in ways and promoting information that was counter productive to the movement.
Whether that is because they are dumb, or shills does'nt really matter .
Because of this common experience, and independently evolved beliefs that certain factions of the movement were counterproductive (For whatever reason), and because there are other sites including your own that function as more comprehensive 911 news and information sites, one of the interests of this site became to air and discuss the motives and credibility of people in the movement merely because it was not ALLOWED anywhere else.
You say yourself that there are disinfo agents (You mentioned Cass Sunstein etc). If you believe that to be the case, then you accept that there are people working from within the movement who are trying to hinder its success?
In this case does it not seem prudent that we should discuss the credibility and more importantly EFFECTIVENESS of people who put themselves forward as focal points of the movement?
If people promote obviously flawed reasoning/evidence whilst taking the limelight as 'representing the movement'
should these people not be highlighted and discussed? Or you would allow a myriad of easily dismissed and debunked "Truthers" to represent the public face of our movement.
Should these discussions not take place? Where else apart from here is there any such scrutiny?
If people raise questions about, and discuss the credibility of certain people in the movement, it does not necessarily mean that we all think they are disinfo, the recent thread on DRG is a case in point.
However in other cases the evidence is pretty conclusive.
(That someone is counter productive to the movement).
No doubt occasionally speculation is misplaced, but this is not an exact science.
To some extent you have to abandon absolute truth and start to think in terms of probability .
I hope that you can see that this strategy is a genuine one that does have the best interests of the movement and more importantly its effectiveness at heart.
Getting passed? I see no roadblocks in front of me...
@Allende Admirer
I skip an academic discussion about 'meme'. That will distract from the topic. I just used the essential thought behind that theory that people in groups with a strong mutual consensus will be unconsciously adapting pasterns of information.
It was suggested multiple times that I was arrogant with violating the consensus. The meme can be quite an eye-opener for some who are unfamiliar with the mechanism.
AA:
"You say yourself that there are disinfo agents (You mentioned Cass Sunstein etc). If you believe that to be the case, then you accept that there are people working from within the movement who are trying to hinder its success?"
Yes, I accept this of course. I several times explained myself thoroughly on this.
AA:
"In this case does it not seem prudent that we should discuss the credibility and more importantly EFFECTIVENESS of people who put themselves forward as focal points of the movement?"
Yes, but not focused on the persons in particular. You just have to debunk their wrong information straight (but worthily) in their faces, or make clear their wrong logic. Or do you think you can terminate those messengers? If you're subscription is being disabled you do the same from here, but always focused on the real stuff, 9/11. Visitors should be able to learn even from this information.
All efforts should be in advantage of the visitors who come here in look for the evidence that we are claiming against the official account.
AA:
"No doubt occasionally speculation is misplaced, but this is not an exact science."
Therefore my reason to depersonalize critics and stay polite. The directness according to the criticized person should be canalized through the substance, not upon the person. Rude behavior or personal disdain will strengthen that person within his own area of consensus. If you got mad it's your problem. Visitors are watching over your shoulder.
But for the nth time I didn't suggest that critics are taboo. I think that critics are very important, also or even specially in the own habitat, otherwise I should be a hypocrite ;-)
AA:
"However DRG and AE911 truth were and probably still are the most credible aspects [..]"
When I have worries about AE911Truth I contact them or ask questions. No problemo. Everything can be questioned. That was never my point.
FH I skip an academic
FH I skip an academic discussion about 'meme'. That will distract from the topic. I just used the essential thought behind that theory that people in groups with a strong mutual consensus will be unconsciously adapting pasterns of information.
It was suggested multiple times that I was arrogant with violating the consensus. The meme can be quite an eye-opener for some who are unfamiliar with the mechanism.
AA- If you say 'Conformity' or 'peer pressure' or 'pack mentality' then your point is more valid, a meme is different (Tho one could be reinforced by the above mechanisms), but in any case regarding the people here who commented, then I dont think this is true either, we are all independant thinkers, who have seen enough damaging and fake unity to be able to talk for ourselves.
---------------------------------------------
AA:
"However DRG and AE911 truth were and probably still are the most credible aspects [..]"
FH When I have worries about AE911Truth I contact them or ask questions. No problemo. Everything can be questioned. That was never my point.
AA.This point was relating to the previous paragraph about 911 blogger, and not directed at you.
-------------------------------------
On the other points regarding criticism to others, you may have a point but this is a judgement call. To a large extent Gretavo's posts are sometimes irreverent dark humour which may come over as less humourous and more personal to you. I dont think you can really separate the person from the evidence either when they have a consistent track record of dubious input.
The way you were received on the DRG post was partly because you had no understanding of the history and evidence of foul play in the movement which has been extensively documented here, so if you just pop up and demand unity without that background it shows little attempt on your part to discover our concerns or reasons here before criticizing us.
It is also true that from time to time people appear here who are intent on attacking the site from the off and they receive little respect.
Finally I will concede that from time to time people here may go a little over the top (You should have seen the savaging I got when I first turned up and suggested that I did not think that pairing Holocaust denial with 911 truth was a good idea). But that is their concern not mine. I dont think this is intended to be a widely read open public forum on 911 truth, so to assess its public relations skills as such is not fair.
If you do want to find out any reservations people have stated about disinfo and factions in the movement however the WTCD Compendium is the best resource I know of. Whilst
I dont agree with everything, I think that the quality of analysis is generally unusually perceptive.
I feel I need to elaborate a
I feel I need to elaborate a little on my comment about being dismissed on my opening comment here that 911 should not be paired with Holocaust denial. (for public perception reasons)
After reading a lot more here on previous and subsequent articles I became satisfied that Gretavo and others stance on this issue was adequately considered , and the anti-Semitic tag associated with this site by its attackers was more to do with their agenda than this site's actual content and concerns.
ah, thanks for that...
...I was going to say, I don't think anyone here actually endorses "pairing 9/11 with holocaust denial", just that the subject should not be verboten and that there are similarities worth considering between the way these two types of "historical revisionism" are villified...
You keep making false assumption and using double standards
"It was suggested multiple times that I was arrogant with violating the consensus."
Please show us where anybody said anything about "violating the consensus". The only person who said anything about that is you. You keep repeating over and over again that there is an enforced consensus here and that you are expected to agree with the consensus. Nobody ever said anything like that, so this is another example of you making stuff up in your head. That is called making false assumptions.
The reason it was suggested that you are arrogant, as has been explained over and over again, is because you your attitude in assuming that because most people here did not agree with you from the beginning that therefore we are all incapable of understanding the complexities of the issue and incapable of being reasonable and incapable of admitting we are wrong. You seem to be saying over and over again that the mere fact that we have not all agreed with your point of view is somehow proof that we are just limited to "preformatted set of ideas" and lack independent thinking, etc., etc. You gave a whole list of reasons why our points of view must be wrong and that only your thinking is correct. But never have you given anyone's arguments or points of view here any fair consideration. Instead you consistently dismiss any view points that do not agree with your own. Can you understand now why you might appear arrogant? Again, try to put yourself in other peoples' shoes and consider how you are looking from other peoples' perspectives. Can you do that?
A perfect example of your double standard is the following quotes from you:
"The kind of consensus is the real problem. It's the opposite of scientific culture and just functioning as something religious."
And then you said:
"It's funny how you're trying to assure me that through the years many before me have spoken the same words as I do ;-) I belief you. You're not the first person today who is telling me that. So maybe I'm right for a tiny little bit?"
Do you see how you are using a double standard here? On the one hand you use as evidence the fact that multiple people here are agreeing with me but disagree with you, so therefore you must be right and we must be wrong because you are the only independent thinker while the rest of us must be part of a church/religion. But, when multiple people speak the same words as you, well, that proves that you are right and I am wrong?
You logic is a bit lacking.
So maybe I'm right for a tiny little bit?
@keenan
I'll see tomorrow who or what to answer, because like I said, with this new thread things become very time consuming. Your reply to me is not what I am longing to begin with. I will just do some meta-communication on this.
I think I can not beat your attitude of being personal attacked and I don't want to spend senseless energy with trying to neutralize it. I'm afraid it won't work. BTW, I can indeed understand why I appear to be arrogant. I also guess that this appearing has something to do with the presumption that I'm claiming to be right and others wrong. it seems extremely difficult to explain that I'm not interested in that part.
I see you're spending some time to search for mistakes to pin me on. Also you're talking again (guess it was you before) about Agreeing and Disagreeing.
You didn't like me saying "So maybe I'm right for a tiny little bit?"?
Come on, don't be so bloody serious and willing to find something. It makes you blind for what I'm carefully trying to say. It was half a joke, see the smiley in between, and it was half serious. I mean: when I have many predecessors who have said the same, it indeed won't guarantee any proof of being right. But at least it says something that can make a man more reflective.
I don't care about agreeing or disagreeing. Being agreed is not my intention, not my wish. It's not important either, it's not a game, set or match. It's not about persons in the first place, but about truth and trying to present it and having it acknowledged.
That's the reason I'm not personally attached when you're trying to pin me on something. But you're acting as if I try to force you into my mindset. If I'm right on this it is your problem or complex or whatever. I'm just hammering on the aspect of depersonalizing critics to prevent these annoying misunderstandings between persons in general.
It's the matter that counts. The insights that we can generate by exchanging ideas. That's only possible without defending our backyards all the time.
My investment in time and energy to explain this again and again is only because I hope that some will recognize it and help to practice the insight. This new thread tickled me to proceed but I can't go on this way with each reply.
How do you define personal attack?
I pointed out how you were using false assumptions and double standards. I gave specific examples. You have failed again to address my specific points and instead accuse me of using personal attacks and that I must only be bothered by you saying "so maybe I'm right for a tiny little bit?".
It seems like you have a difficult time reading and understanding my points. Instead you keep ignoring my points and continue assuming things that I never said.
A major point was the way you were using a double standard and inconsistent logic. That is not a personal attack. Just because people criticize your logic or argument does not mean that it constitutes a personal attack. Perhaps you take things too personally.
So, let's try to stick to the substance of the arguments and try not to unnecessarily assume things. The inconsistent logic that I pointed out was repeated again by you in your last comment:
"I mean: when I have many predecessors who have said the same, it indeed won't guarantee any proof of being right. But at least it says something that can make a man more reflective."
So, your logic is that if other people say the same thing as you, then that means that there is a good reason for me to reflect on it and not dismiss it. OK, I'm ok with that logic. The problem I have is that you are not being consistent with this logic, because you say the opposite when applied to me. Do you not see your double standard here?
Your logic is that if other people share my view point, then that is proof that we are being religious and not admitting we could be wrong, are not capable of thinking independently, etc. Don't you see the problem here? Can you at least concede this one point that your logic is not being applied fairly and consistently? Your logic is that if multiple people share your view point, then that makes your view point more valid. But if multiple people share my view point, then that makes my view point less valid. Do you see the problem here?
If you can at least address this one point and answer this question, then it will show that you are able to have a 2-way conversation and we can make progress and we don't have to just talk past each other.
If you want people to take your arguments and view points seriously, the way to do it is to engage people with the substance of what they are arguing and disagreeing with you about and avoid making assumptions or baseless accusations or automatically taking things personally. It's a two-way street. You have to treat people exactly the way you expect other people to treat you. You understand this concept, right?
If you want us to come around to agree with you, you need to use consistent logic and good reasoning and show us that your logic and reasoning is better. Lecturing us and brow-beating us about how we aren't capable of thinking independently and don't fairly consider other points of view will not win us to your point of view.
good points Keenan...
I'd like to say that I agree with you but I don't want to give the impression that this is some kind of religious cult where that is required/expected... :)
"So, your logic is that if other people say the same thing as you, then that means that there is a good reason for me to reflect on it and not dismiss it. OK, I'm ok with that logic. The problem I have is that you are not being consistent with this logic, because you say the opposite when applied to me. Do you not see your double standard here?
Your logic is that if other people share my view point, then that is proof that we are being religious and not admitting we could be wrong, are not capable of thinking independently, etc. Don't you see the problem here?"
No politics, but just providing the facts
Thanks @Allende Admirer for your open invitation and thanks for your kind words about W911 Twitter.
I think that most of my arguments can be known already, therefore I presumed that the discussion was on his end. I was also finished because most replies were quite negative towards my way of analyzing the issues I brought in. Last reason is that it's time consuming and I have a lot to do for Waarheid911.com.
About your question: It's hard for me to tell how we should approach the issue of 9/11. The truth movement is an open 'movement'. Diversity is necessary to be able to convince as much people as possible. Of course 'diversity' can also be a problem, but nobody is able to control an open organization. We need the luck of having some distinctive figures inside the movement. People who're able to personalize the face of the movement towards the public.
We should try to not only criticize these people if necessary, but also protect their status within the movement. Because we all make mistakes. We should always be factual and ban criticism that is personalized, cynical, etc. We need to protect the integrity of the "truth movement". With this we also protect the whistle blowers on 9/11. Those who risk their neck.
I can't tell what to do. Diversity will prevent every outcome. But I can try to explain what we should not do.
YOUR QUESTION ABOUT --- our beliefs concerning the cause of 9/11 and how we increase chances of change?
I don't think that investing in the real causes behind the events of 9/11 will increase chances of change. Not on this moment. First we have to increase awareness about 9/11, the day itself. That's the easy part, cuz 9/11 can be analyzed without politicizing. Challenging the oligarchy isn't possible without politicizing. Fortunately we don't need 9/11 to fight the oligarchy, but it's smarter to keep those subjects separated.
You can't stimulate awareness for one thing by being against another thing. Being against something will certainly politicize the whole question about 9/11.
Please don't get prejudiced now because I ain't finished.
I know my words will irritate some activists or anti-globalists who wants to change the world in a day, but you can't have to much eggs in one basket and also expecting results.
9/11 WAS A SYMBOLIC EVENT. Symbolic in it's viciousness, brutality, enormity and ability to be a watershed in time, [geo]politics and in the military doctrine.
Sometimes we forget that we, as a bunch of people who have MUCH more knowledge about the facts of 9/11 compared with the enormous mass of people (who count on the authority of msm), have a totally different idea about the reality of society. My world changed the day when I realized that the official account of 9/11 could not be true according to all the facts available.
I remember how sad I was, not being able again to have my morning coffee and my morning paper combined as one thing that gave me certainty.
I know that for you guys this worked out generally the same. BUT, we can't project our reality towards all those people who are believing in the old school, the old media -- the reality as shown by the mainstream media.
All our ideas about the oligarchy and so on, sound as poison in the ears of most mainstream educated people. It sounds like being immoral, unsatisfied, projecting personal problems or failure to something that is bigger than ourselves.
They ain't stupid, those 'mainstreamers'. They are just in different situations, have other positions or don't want to believe that dimensions of this world are as rotten as they are. Because it will change everything.
By fighting an enemy or the msm we can't win the public. By being against we will get diverted. We should fight FOR something, not against. For truth, not against people. One victory at a time. Search for pictures on Waarheid911. Even Bush is portrayed respectfully.
No politics in combination with 9/11. First we need the world to open it's eyes for the hard facts. That's about 'confronting the evidence'. The official 'evidence' is what the world will recognize. That's what the world already knows about. Via this 'evidence' we can synchronize with the old mindset and prove the world that this is false.
AND THAT'S ALL, for my concern. We inform, not polarize. The people can make up their minds. That's why we should be differently than the mainstream media.
JUST USE THE SYMBOL AGAIN
One thing at a time. Changing the consciousness of the audience with hard facts is much easier than challenging the mainstream-driven false morals. With all the real evidence concerning what happened on 9/11, the symbolic strength of the whole event will topple into another direction. Many questions that WE are carrying for years will float to the surface when this symbolic key is turning.
What we need to convince the public is some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. That's the event they already know about. That's 9/11 ! We should just keep confronting the evidence and inform the public -- not only each other with all this mainstream abacadabra.
Why working our asses off, when strategy shows us how things can be solved much easier with more chances for success?
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
Frank, it is apparent that
Frank,
it is apparent that we have a lot in common after all.
Though you suggest you may personally agree with me that our ultimate objective is change, I also agree with you that this is merely our motive and probably should not be part of our message unless 911 truth happens to become a political issue in the future. Therefore bandying words around like 'oligarchy' would not be a smart idea, but I was talking about motivation and objectives and not our message here.
Sorry to others to keep blowing the same tune over, but you may like to see two articles I wrote here to elaborate on my next point to you, as they are very relevant to this discussion
Could website functionality improve the effectiveness of, and divisions within 911truth?
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2583
Is the Movement Divided and Disorganised? :Reply to LW Point No.1
http://wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2597
the upshot is the following, and does touch on issues that you mentioned before about cultural stagnation website purpose etc.
--------------------------------
There is a widely accepted model for evolutionary change which goes by the catchy title of the Lewontin-Campbell Heuristic. It says that the process of evolution contains three distinct concurrently repeating phases; diversification, selection, and amplification. It applies not only to biological, but any form of evolutionary change including cultural, economic, and political.
Change=Diversity x Advantageous Selection x Amplification
--------------------------------
Again you seem to be on my wavelength when you talk about diversity being a double edged sword and I think this equation demonstrates the problem. An easy metaphor is the bibilcal tower of Babel, where everyone speaks a different language , has different concerns & interests but as there is no consensus or common ground, there is chaos.
911 truth is a very big subject , and although I knew enough about the way of the world to suspect what happened at the time, it was not until about 2005 when I spent a whole month reading everything pro and against 911 truth until I knew 100% in my own mind that the facts were conclusive.
Not everyone can afford a month off to study all the evidence Frank, if we could arrange and prioritize evidence TO SOME EXTENT & include diversity at the same time it would help our effectiveness,
There is also a lot of information promoted by supposed 911 truthers which is not conclusive, and weak, and if you want to increase awareness of 911, then you owe it to your public to give them the best most verifiable evidence. If you dont they will easily be debunked and set back when they try to pass information on.
To this end, and according to the above equation, it is really important to monitor feedback on diverse evidence, and by using polls consensus etc to derive and promote a shorter list of the most persuasive and watertight arguments. SELECT (democratically) and AMPLIFY that selection. This would be the best way of making our awareness mission more effective.
HOWEVER in contrast what we have with 911 blogger at least is a site which has acted against the majority interests of the movement, and decided to select and promote its own agenda unilaterally & undemocratically.
What is more, if you promote weak islamo fascist information & Lihop arguments I guarantee you that due to preconditioning by MSM etc, If 100 punters got this information a LOT of them would conclude that if Islamic terrorism is a fact and such a threat, then even if 911 was let to happen, then if it subsequently catalyzed action against them it is an inevitable & necessary thing, Fog Of War etc, and the net effect is to turn them off 911 truth altogether.
Finally , Frank I must ask you to respond to the question which has been put to you over and over again in these discussions which you have ignored so far, which is that if disinfo within the movement is a fact, and you seem to accept that, then what defense does the movement have against hijackers misleading and damaging the effectiveness of the movement if we are all supposed to be non critical of each others efforts? Is it not prudent to be discussing these possibilities. After all this site is not a mainstream 911 site, so the effect of this prudence is not going to have much effect on the public face of the movement.
I appreciate you have limited time for responses etc, but dont feel you have to drop anything to reply.I can wait for when you can get around to it, but I do think think this discussion is well worth having, and especially with someone from the 'outside' of our circle, so I would be very grateful for your considered reply.
(Also I appreciate your second language may make this discussion harder for you, but your English is a lot better than my Dutch, and I honestly feel this is a valuable exchange)
Not rude but authoritative
@Allende Admirer
I reply on this passage from your last contribution. Later (perhaps tomorrow) I respond on other parts. It's really to much to do all. My schedule is too tight & indeed the language is sometimes slowing me down.
AA:
"Finally , Frank I must ask you to respond to the question which has been put to you over and over again in these discussions which you have ignored so far, which is that if disinfo within the movement is a fact, and you seem to accept that, then what defense does the movement have against hijackers misleading and damaging the effectiveness of the movement if we are all supposed to be non critical of each others efforts?"
Well, two things:
1) I said so many times that critics are not taboo and even necessary. Guess you missed my previous reply on you. My next point is about what we should not do.
2) Personal attacks will always damage the messenger and the movement as a whole. As simple as that. Now you seem to ask me what to do with, or how to respond to people who hijack certain regions within the movement. Do want to terminate them?
We are quite powerless against the existence of certain people. Only thing you can keep doing without damaging yourself and the movement by poisoning the environment by anger and gracelessness, is keep telling the truth and debunking what is obvious untruthful. See also my previous reply.
I think you're still frustrated by the fact that I have no solution for the figures that hijack the movement. My 'solution' is what I already said. There is no hard solution without damaging more than you seem to heal. By informing and debunking with dignity and substance you'll damage those 'hijackers' indirectly. You create room for them to fail more obvious with their false information than by attacking them personally or with anger or disdain. Delivering cool facts can be deadly, otherwise you are the fool and they the winner in their own crowd.
If serious enough you can even question someones position without being rude. Not rude but authoritative. But the line will be thin, I mean you need to feel your own conscience when going as far as that. Only when you're integer and authentic you can do that without subtle fighting your own personal war. Everybody can sense that. The damage will be the same.
AA:
"Is it not prudent to be discussing these possibilities. After all this site is not a mainstream 911 site, so the effect of this prudence is not going to have much effect on the public face of the movement."
Is that a fact? That the 'truthmovement' can only do harm on a mainstream 911 site? I don't think so. Everything can be picked up by everybody. For the real hunters who're looking for trouble these kind of websites are much more valuable than the middle of the road kinda sites where knowledge is less distinctive.
Back to your question, I don't think there is any problem to discuss the possibilities you're trying to investigate. But that's isolated from the question if we are a mainstream kind of a site, in my opinion.
OMG finally...
...we seem to be getting to the crux of your argument, Frank. This is it, right? "Personal attacks will always damage the messenger and the movement as a whole. As simple as that."
So what exactly constitutes a personal attack? Sure, if I make use of Jon Gold's weight in my critique of him, that counts as a personal attack (a pretty tame one I might add.) Another example of a personal attack, and a more pernicious one at that, would be to find outrageous lies about someone on the internet and repost them as if they were fact. This I have never done to anyone, but it has been done to me by the crew at truthaction.org. Jon Gold himself has accused me of being a Nazi - meaning of course that I believe in the ideology of Adolf Hitler's national socialism and presumably in his alleged desire to exterminate all the world's Jews. I'd say that my response and reaction to these and other personal attacks has been pretty measured, Frank.
Getting back to our own guilty consciences however--do I think I would be a more effective activist and advocate of my views if I resisted the urge to sling back what amounts to a small fraction of the mud slung my way? Sure, but I'm not perfect nor do I strive to be. If a bit of tit for tat helps to keep me happy and sane and truthing another day then I would argue it actually helps the movement for me to do so--because you see Frank, to reduce me or anyone else to the sum of our flaws isn't really fair. As Allende Admirer mentioned, where else are people allowed to question the motives of certain people, if not here? I'll tell you where actually--EVERYWHERE. The difference is whose motives you're allowed to question without being disappeared. On truth action and 911blogger you can question the motives of David Ray Griffin and CIT, but not the motives of Jon Gold or John Albanese. On THIS site, people are free to question my motives--in fact I encourage it, because I'm not in the least bit afraid of what such a discussion might reveal about me.
Perhaps we need a balance--a site that forbids personal attacks and direct accusations but that at the very minimum a) does not ban people for the mere fact of being known to also post on any other site and b) applies its standards fairly and equally to everyone. The "New York Times" to WTCD's "Mad Magazine" if you will, ignoring for a moment the NYT's real agenda...
"So what exactly constitutes a personal attack?"
@Gretavo
Äsking: "So what exactly constitutes a personal attack?"
You don't mean asking me this, after all my explaining don't you? OMG, I really sense this is a real question....
Read my words above? That's a little bit cynical. Because I have a feeling that it won't help a bit whatever question is asked. It's like being labeled as an enemy, or whatever name you want to give it, but the listener is always defensive. I assure you honestly that from the beginning this was not vice versa.
When becoming cynical it's becoming personal. When becoming personal it's time to rethink the strategy or stop trying what you try to achieve. Becoming personal in a negative way is ALWAYS counterproductive.
An attack on the substantial matter of an issue, directed at a person, is NOT a personal attack and can be respectful. I'm telling you that many attacks to others on this website, yours included, are very personal and not respectful at al.
Some may call that 'dark humor' or something, but I don't see any difference. Of course, humor has great value, but that's not the point here. Your dark humor is not balanced at all with the authoritativeness of your substantial part of the matter.
The strangeness of all is that people who feel quickly offended after receiving (substantial) critics from others, should know better than anyone how to pack their own critics when aiming at others, IF THEY REALLY WANT TO REACH THOSE FELLOWS constructively!
But, I'm unable to explain to you, and some others who (in many cases) support each other loudly against the same 'intruder', what the significance is of all my efforts to make some kind of connection here.
ABOUT GOLD AND HITLER, when he made that accusation to you being a nazi I think it was wise to have that 'measured response'. The best way to underscore somebodies mistake is to leave the attention to him, not taking it away by getting mad. You sensed that very well and I should have done the same. I'm just responding on what I'm passing through by being part of this discussion for a couple of days, even weeks, by now.
BTW, you said 'of course', but it doesn't mean that Gold MEANT that you "believe in the ideology of Adolf Hitler's national socialism and presumably in his alleged desire to exterminate all the world's Jews." That's just nonsense.
By saying this you're trapping in the same fault that I tried to make visible all the time. People who treat each other with negative personal accusations can't listen to each other, they just keep damaging the case they intend to support.
@Gretavo:
"[...] you see Frank, to reduce me or anyone else to the sum of our flaws isn't really fair. As Allende Admirer mentioned, where else are people allowed to question the motives of certain people, if not here? I'll tell you where actually--EVERYWHERE."
Yes, I'm free to politely question YOU. Thank you, I appreciate although I didn't have had one moment (well, I thought I had for a while but than I wasn't critical) that it made a difference because there is just that (almost) collective state of being hurt. But IMHO you make a big logical mistake by saying that I reduce people to the some of their flaws. What do you mean by that regarding to me?
Working to enlarge the awareness of 9/11 is a great thing. Informing people properly on complex and important issues is a great thing. Having meta-communication and trying to make our goals even more effective by being substantial and critical is a great thing. What's your problem? Why are you defined by your flaws? These are your words, not mine!
You're trying to compare yourself with the bad behavior from others. Why should you do that? I'm not interested in their behavior on this very moment & and not defining you as a bad person. You are going into that direction, I'm just speaking out about effectiveness when dealing with problems or even jerks.
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
Same here
EDIT: this was in response to Allende Adm. where he talked about not finding anti-Semitic members here at WTCDemolition.com.
I think my first blog was "Will all the Jew haters please stand up?" I was practically promised by Jon Gold that this place was infested and I found none.
As for Frank Ho's argument...you seem to be saying it's not good for the movement to call people out and associate them with labels like 'disinformation' or 'agent'.
I say screw that. These people (and we all know they exist) would love for everyone to stop associating there names with the keywords 'agents, provocateurs, disinformation, cointel-pro, government stooge'. They would love it if when someone did a google search for "Loose Nuke + 9/11" they would hear nothing about his truth censorship operation at 911Blogger.com.