Was 9/11 An Inside Job ?

[dougplumb]

One more attempt at this.

[Brant Gaede]

One more attempt at this.

shut him down

[BaalChatzaf]

One more attempt at this.

Mr. Moderator. This has gone from slightly nutty to just plain old spam. Please do the necessary thing. Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Folks,

It doesn't work that way. The civility policy is for all.

So long as Doug is civil and does not spam the forum with a large quantity of posts all over the place, let him have his chance to present his case. He seems to be toning down the hysterical preachy style. Also, I have read posts by some regulars here on OL interested in what he has to say.

What I see right now is a person trying to post a poll and not understanding the software. There is no harm in that. If anyone is bothered by conspiracy topics when they are discussed within the bounds of civility, don't read the thread.

Doug,

Please send me a private message on the kind of poll you wish to post.

In addition to doing the technical part correctly, let's try to put this in an objective form where it stands a chance of giving an accurate depiction of how many of our readers think this matter has merit, how many don't, and how many are not interested. Since this is an emotionally charged issue, I am interested in keeping the language as neutral as possible, not telegraph an agenda one way or another, and not present false dichotomies or lack of important choices.

That's the purpose of polls, correct?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'll trythe poll. It'll be up to the questions.

--Brant

[galtgulch]

I'll trythe poll. It'll be up to the questions.

--Brant

Et al,

I just wonder if the Campaign For Liberty, composed as it is with citizens of the U.S. but with a smattering of people from dozens of countries all over the world who have joined (see www.campaignforliberty.com under States then Countries), might be considered a "conspiracy?" They appear to be of one mind in their intention to do something they call "restore the Republic" although they do have different opinions on certain important issues, e.g. a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

The Congressman who started the thing has said he will not tell any of the members what to do, saying "I don't want to run your life!" but has left it up to each of them just what makes sense to do in particular. The mission suggests enlightening the populace with a focus on the intent of the Founders in creating the Constitution and limiting the powers granted to the Congress to those enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 and the fact that virtually none of our elected congressmen adhere to those limits despite taking a solemn oath to do so.

Their numbers are growing and their members are telling others about the existence of Campaign For Liberty and its objectives. In my experience people are intrigued to learn such a movement exists and express an intention to look into it. The movement now exists on over 125 college campuses across the country and a companion organization Young Americans for Liberty now exists, see www.YALiberty.org

There is another organization, the We The People Foundation, which addresses the same problem, the current state of our society regarding a government which ignores the petitions for redress of grievances, see www.GiveMeLiberty.org

The WTPF is planning a Continental Congress for later this year with representatives from each state to discuss the situation for several weeks and to come up with a plan for how to proceed.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me but a good one.

Isn't this part of what Ayn Rand was up to as well? John Galt and his friends, Ragnar and Francisco, conspired to secede from society in order to live in freedom.

As Victor Hugo famously said, "No armies can stop an idea whose time has come!"

It is our birthright to conspire. Its in the Constitution itself in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

www.campaignforliberty.com 24May 5AM 154,110, 10PM 154,203; 25May 2PM 154,292 thus the cavalry is coming to the rescue!

gulch

Edited May 25, 2009 by galtgulch

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Note,

The other failed poll attempts were moved to the Garbage Pile. This one is staying because there is pertinent discussion.

I am still waiting to hear from Doug about the poll. In fact, I might make one myself.

Michael

[dougplumb]

Bill,

I wanted the poll to look like this:

Was 9/11 An Inside Job ?

(1)No

(2)Yes

(3)Don't know

(4)Don't care

I think your poll dilutes the issue too much.

I would want people who voted to state their reasoning for their vote.

I have been PMing too much - the software won't let me do it any more today.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Doug,

My name is Michael, not Bill.

If you think my poll "dilutes" the issue, then I was right to think you wanted to present a slanted poll at the outset (whether intentional or not).

I removed the predigested "inside job" slant and let people choose the different options to the best of their abilities, not to the best of your ability to slant the questions.

Your poll was the equivalent of making one like this:

Does Doug Plumb beat his wife?

(1) No

(2) Yes

(3) Don't know

(4) Don't care

With my way, we will get actual information. With your way, we would get excuses for victimization and playing the martyr if we did not like the results.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; I am absolutely sure Doug beats his wife.

[dougplumb]

"My name is Michael, not Bill.

If you think my poll "dilutes" the issue, then I was right to think you wanted to present a slanted poll at the outset (whether intentional or not).

I removed the predigested "inside job" slant and let people choose the different options to the best of their abilities, not to the best of your ability to slant the questions."

All I am saying is I wanted a simpler poll. Sorry for the name mix up.

I think Chris should be removed for that remark about me beating my wife. That is very stupid and pathetic. I will stop asking Chris for the evidence that backs up his belief in the official version of 9/11.

[dougplumb]

" Does Doug Plumb beat his wife?

(1) No

(2) Yes

(3) Don't know

(4) Don't care

"

I think I have had enough of this forum.

Goodbye.

[Chris Grieb]

Doug; Does this mean you are not going to be on OL?

My comment about you beating your wife is known as a joke. You might read a book on humour.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I have had enough of this forum.

Goodbye.

All I did was illustrate what a rhetorical device vested as objective presentation looks like from the other end. Apparently the person who uses this kind of rhetoric was not pleased with the result.

He shouldn't be, either. It is grossly misleading in a really sneaky way. My suggestion is to abandon it.

OL is a place to discuss, not preach.

I have found (over time and after a painful learning curve) that making this policy clear—in practice—goes a long way to cutting down on childishness. And by childishness, I mean nonstop emotionally-charged oversimplified wide-scale accusations, not simple quips or banter.

I certainly believe we can profitably discuss (not preach) the issues raised by conspiracy theories and should.

But I do notice that only 10 people have voted in my poll as of now (after 2 days up), which supports my view that only a handful of participating people are even reading this stuff. More people should slowly come in over time, but I don't expect an avalanche unless there is an effort to skew the results. And even if that happens, I believe the thing will fizzle out.

My antenna also gets wiggling when a newcomer arrives and starts telling people how things should be on the forum, usually laced with strong suggestions and insinuations that he or she should set the standard and that regular members should be moderated or banned. That is something I do not let grow.

(I admit to being a bit tribal like that. I cut my friends a hell of a lot more slack than I cut new people in my life. I consciously choose this, too. And I am right to do so.)

I prefer to keep OL as a discussion forum and discourage efforts to make it a venue for a small number of people on opposing sides (of any issue) to yell at each other and fling accusations right and left.

Doug,

Goobye.

Be well.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Michael; I am absolutely sure Doug beats his wife.

You know what? Throwing something like that is flat-out fucking monkey-shit.

Tone is one thing, but that there just makes you a DICK.

Hah-hah-hardy-har-har. What's next, fart jokes?

rde

Jeezus.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

Rich, that's an over-reaction on your part. Chris was being humorous, and was in context, and was making an implicit comment on Doug's absolutism regarding his conspiracy theories.

As for Doug I hope he stays gone. I don't mind trolls per se; they can be entertaining and informative. But a fanatic? No, no, no.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael; I am absolutely sure Doug beats his wife.

You know what? Throwing something like that is flat-out fucking monkey-shit.

Tone is one thing, but that there just makes you a DICK.

Hah-hah-hardy-har-har. What's next, fart jokes?

rde

Jeezus.

Thhhrrrrruppppt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Rich Engle]

That's not the point, Brant. A cheap shot is a cheap shot.

Unless it's about Perigo...and even then. As much as I lampooned that abhorrent piece of gelatinous goo, ran him up the pole, I don't drop low and start picking on him for being a queer. Different category, same etiquette requirements.

Actually, now that I think of it.... (no, see, what's left of my moral compass still works after the water leaks, even).

It's knuckleheaded. It's like when you were in high school and you watched the jocks sitting around trying to make funnies.

[Brant Gaede]

That's not the point, Brant. A cheap shot is a cheap shot.

Unless it's about Perigo...and even then. As much as I lampooned that abhorrent piece of gelatinous goo, ran him up the pole, I don't drop low and start picking on him for being a queer. Different category, same etiquette requirements.

Actually, now that I think of it.... (no, see, what's left of my moral compass still works after the water leaks, even).

It's knuckleheaded. It's like when you were in high school and you watched the jocks sitting around trying to make funnies.

"Cheap shot" is much better, Rich. Thanks. Doesn't mean I agree with that. It seemed more like a quick shot quip. Maybe that's a semantical difference only. It fits Chris's style of expression. Not mine.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I agree it was a quip.

Chris was even agreeing with this guy on another thread at about the same time.

At any rate, the proper response is to make sure before going ballistic. That's reasonable.

The idea that people on OL would seriously think a newcomer beats his wife is silly. So all we're really talking about now is thin skin and attitude without content.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, unless you are Doug.

You look at end-sum-net. Even look at it through the oh-so-important business eye.

Finis, you look at why someone cleared the field. Often, these reasons are ponderous to a man.

Duplicity is a virus.

Empires, even, have been thrown over the final trigger-trip.

Well, that monkeyshine was what did it for Doug. And he was trying.

rde

"You have offended my family. You have offended my honor. You have offended the temple of a Shaolin Priest."

Got it now?

[Chris Grieb]

I agree it was a quip.

Chris was even agreeing with this guy on another thread at about the same time.

At any rate, the proper response is to make sure before going ballistic. That's reasonable.

The idea that people on OL would seriously think a newcomer beats his wife is silly. So all we're really talking about now is thin skin and attitude without content.

Michael

Everybody; I find it hard to believe Doug is married.

When Doug appeared on OL I thought he had possibilities. I changed my mind quickly. I think everyone should take a breath.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

There goes another quip!

Be careful. You might get shot...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Got it now?

Rich,

No I don't get it.

For as much as I dislike President Obama, I don't like discussing wacko things like whether or not our president is a psychopath as if this topic were serious discussion—and then having to walk on eggs to keep from offending an accusation junkie.

There is a huge Internet out there with well over a billion users. Let this dude try to drum up his own audience for his preaching instead of using this one. And he is not banned here, so what's the issue? His feelings got hurt over a quip?

Gimmee a break.

Did you even read what he wrote once he started on a roll? He did it over and over. (Besides, his spelling could get atrocious. Builderbergs indeed! )

If you start offending people ("Go on. Don't look at the truth!" etc.), many are going to push right back.

I do admit there was some undue snarkiness on the other side, too. Which is why I tried to intervene and stop it all.

I suspect that the real issue here is that it got proven (through my poll and not this dude's slanted one) that the real audience for this topic was only about 10 people—and none of them were convert material. You can't do much conspiracy and world-shaking with that, one way or the other.

But it sure trashes the hell out of delusions of greater impact.

In my experience, people like this person do not want a discussion. They want converts.

I'm not up for hosting that.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

All that being said, Doug still didn't manage to go as low as that.

Not my problem if someone can't figure out why their mouth tastes funny the next morning because they don't know who (or what) spelunked it.

rde

Wah, I woke up and my hair is sticky...who DID that?