 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kim
Joined: 25 Jan 2008
Posts: 351
Location: Queensland, Australia
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject: Australian issues . . . |
 |
|
I enjoy posting here at the Truth Action Forum because of the absolute ban on personal abuse and insults, and it's also been a huge learning tool for me in appreciating just how important this is.
Therefore, if there's anyone on the 9/11 Truth Forum (Australia), who wishes to continue discussing with me any of the issues I've raised there, they're more than welcome - provided they (like me), adhere to the etiquette and expectations in place here.
Because currently, due to non-adherence to that basic standard in the Australian Forum (which I hope will change), I'm unable to continue discussions there.
_________________
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." - Arundhati Roy, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Jan 27 2003 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adam1
Joined: 30 Nov 2007
Posts: 144
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Australian issues . . . |
|
|
| Kim wrote: | I enjoy posting here at the Truth Action Forum because of the absolute ban on personal abuse and insults, and it's also been a huge learning tool for me in appreciating just how important this is.
Therefore, if there's anyone on the 9/11 Truth Forum (Australia), who wishes to continue discussing with me any of the issues I've raised there, they're more than welcome - provided they (like me), adhere to the etiquette and expectations in place here.
Because currently, due to non-adherence to that basic standard in the Australian Forum (which I hope will change), I'm unable to continue discussions there. |
Well... after a statement like that, enquiring minds wanted to know what happened at 9/11oz.com
Here's what happened...
| "Kim" at 9/11oz.com wrote: |
Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:18 pm
I quote from the front page of this site:
| Quote: | | The editor of 911oz does not accept the idea that our planet is in the throes of unprecedented resource depletion, an idea which appears to be central to the plot of The Shell Game. It is unfortunate that the book promotes what I consider to be a grand deception - namely that of artificial scarcity - often used in the past by waning Empires to consolidate power and monopolies. |
. . . now fair enough if "The Editor" of this site has an opinion, that can be posted (and challenged), in the forum, but to conflate a site (I assume), that is being promoted as "The Official" voice of 9/11 Truth in Australia, with a controversial point of view that is by no means shared by a large number of people who would be naturally sympathetic to 9/11 Truth, is deeply divisive.
I know many people who, on seeing that, would just automatically click away, and turn off from the subject of 9/11 Truth.
So if "The Editor" of this site wishes to start up a site which promotes his own views on oil depletion, I think that's an entirely justified project - but to utilise the front page of a site that should be about 9/11 Truth, to promote a personal point of view, is just not on.
There's is a World of difference between being a "Webmaster" re a specific, broad-based issue, and controlling a personal blog. What is acceptable on the latter, is very often not acceptable on the former.
http://www.911oz.com/forum/public/viewtopic.php?t=1678&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
|
It appears the owner/webmaster said something negative about "Peak Oil theory" on the front page of his own website and "Kim" demanded the owner/webmaster of 9/11oz website pull down said opinion piece down from his own website.
Needless to say, said owner/webmaster was not amused he was being told by "Kim" to remove opinion pieces from the front page of his own website. And as they say at slashdot.org... Hilarity ensued.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "Peak Oil" theory should have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth in my opinion because it's a massive wedge issue, so if the guys at 911Oz want to leave it out altogether what the hell is wrong with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911oz
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Peak Oil" theory should have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth in my opinion because it's a massive wedge issue, so if the guys at 911Oz want to leave it out altogether what the hell is wrong with that? |
Just letting you know that I agree with the above. The reason I wrote the article to which Kim refers was because I discovered (to my disappointment) that Steve Alten decided to make the Peak Oil concept central to the plot of his novel. So you could say that he is using the novel as a vehicle to promote the Peak Oil theory. You could even say that he is "conflating" Peak Oil with 9/11 Truth.
I have managed to avoid discussing Peak Oil on the front page of the site for two and a half years. but I thought the issue needed to be addressed since Alten has brought it into prominence and because he has a high profile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 911oz wrote: | | Quote: | | "Peak Oil" theory should have nothing to do with 9/11 Truth in my opinion because it's a massive wedge issue, so if the guys at 911Oz want to leave it out altogether what the hell is wrong with that? |
Just letting you know that I agree with the above. The reason I wrote the article to which Kim refers was because I discovered (to my disappointment) that Steve Alten decided to make the Peak Oil concept central to the plot of his novel. So you could say that he is using the novel as a vehicle to promote the Peak Oil theory. You could even say that he is "conflating" Peak Oil with 9/11 Truth.
I have managed to avoid discussing Peak Oil on the front page of the site for two and a half years. but I thought the issue needed to be addressed since Alten has brought it into prominence and because he has a high profile. |
I agree 100%, this is about 9/11 Truth not "Peak Oil" theory or "Man-made" Global Warming. People can say "Peak Oil" was the motive but others can equally say "Peak Oil" theory is Shell Oil propaganda junk and is frighteningly perfect for a twisted Neo-Malthusian worldview. But most of all though IT IS NOT NEEDED AT ALL to advance the case for a real investigation into the attacks and so there's no point arguing over this crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So you could say that he is using the novel as a vehicle to promote the Peak Oil theory. You could even say that he is "conflating" Peak Oil with 9/11 Truth. |
| Quote: | | The editor of 911oz does not accept the idea that our planet is in the throes of unprecedented resource depletion. |
Any of you who think peak oil theory should be left out of the 9/11 truth movement should be as adamant that anti-peak oil theory be left out. But that is not what we see here. We see the webmaster of a 9/11 truth site using that site as a vehicle to promote anti-peak oil theory.
Does anyone else here see the hypocrisy of this position?
I agree that The Shell Game is crap. But, assuming an inside job, the motives for the attack are relevant to our work. Crossing the Rubicon, while flawed, I do not believe to be crap. I also acknowledge the industrial propaganda machine and its intent to manipulate our perception of scarcity to generate profit and maintain control.
However, stating that we aren't presently depleting the worlds resources at an alarming rate is very simply historically and logically myopic in the extreme. It sound like something said by someone who had no concern for the future beyond 20 years from now. Peak oil research does not suggest that we presently have a scarcity of oil. It implies that if we don't better manage our resources, a much greater emergency awaits us. It also implies that those in power who make money off of oil and the war machine that depends upon it would like to control what oil is left.
I agree entirely with Kim's point that the administrators of such a prominent truth movement site have a responsibility to the movement greater than their own personal views, and that anti-environmental positions have no place on a site specifically dedicated to 9/11 truth. That being said, the admins certainly have the right to whatever they please, including alienating people from the movement.
I'm also quite disappointed in the lack of fair moderation demonstrated by the admin of the site in handling this issue. Reading the thread on that forum above, I can see that Kim made only logical remarks and refrained from name calling and innuendo. People posting to the forum did not. They might not have liked her opinion or some of the reasonable statements she made, but not being able to distinguish between attack and debate does not suggest a very logical approach.
The truth does not arise from certainty. Skepticism is the fertile ground in which my theories have grown, and some of those theories now have a strong root. One of those is the need to address over-consumption in a time of dwindling resources and skyrocketing population.
But that's a subject for the TruthMove forum as this one is dedicated to 9/11 truth. Once again, how do you justify admonishing someone for promoting peak oil, when you have promoted the opposite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dem,
Nope. You can't get away with that. Acting like you are the person who thinks that this debate is wasting our time. My comments above relate to this.
How can you, who so often brings an anti-peak oil/anti-environmental message into this forum state that the peak oil debate is a waste of time. You are the biggest offender here. By your own reasoning, the anti-peak oil commentary is also a waste of our time.
Do you acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy of your position? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| truthmover wrote: | | Quote: | | So you could say that he is using the novel as a vehicle to promote the Peak Oil theory. You could even say that he is "conflating" Peak Oil with 9/11 Truth. |
| Quote: | | The editor of 911oz does not accept the idea that our planet is in the throes of unprecedented resource depletion. |
Any of you who think peak oil theory should be left out of the 9/11 truth movement should be as adamant that anti-peak oil theory be left out. But that is not what we see here. We see the webmaster of a 9/11 truth site using that site as a vehicle to promote anti-peak oil theory.
Does anyone else here see the hypocrisy of this position?
I agree that The Shell Game is crap. But, assuming an inside job, the motives for the attack are relevant to our work. Crossing the Rubicon, while flawed, I do not believe to be crap. I also acknowledge the industrial propaganda machine and its intent to manipulate our perception of scarcity to generate profit and maintain control.
However, stating that we aren't presently depleting the worlds resources at an alarming rate is very simply historically and logically myopic in the extreme. It sound like something said by someone who had no concern for the future beyond 20 years from now. Peak oil research does not suggest that we presently have a scarcity of oil. It implies that if we don't better manage our resources, a much greater emergency awaits us. It also implies that those in power who make money off of oil and the war machine that depends upon it would like to control what oil is left.
I agree entirely with Kim's point that the administrators of such a prominent truth movement site have a responsibility to the movement greater than their own personal views, and that anti-environmental positions have no place on a site specifically dedicated to 9/11 truth. That being said, the admins certainly have the right to whatever they please, including alienating people from the movement.
I'm also quite disappointed in the lack of fair moderation demonstrated by the admin of the site in handling this issue. Reading the thread on that forum above, I can see that Kim made only logical remarks and refrained from name calling and innuendo. People posting to the forum did not. They might not have liked her opinion or some of the reasonable statements she made, but not being able to distinguish between attack and debate does not suggest a very logical approach.
The truth does not arise from certainty. Skepticism is the fertile ground in which my theories have grown, and some of those theories now have a strong root. One of those is the need to address over-consumption in a time of dwindling resources and skyrocketing population.
But that's a subject for the TruthMove forum as this one is dedicated to 9/11 truth. Once again, how do you justify admonishing someone for promoting peak oil, when you have promoted the opposite? |
"Any of you who think peak oil theory should be left out of the 9/11 truth movement should be as adamant that anti-peak oil theory be left out."
Sounds all good to me, all bullshit points of contention should be put aside in my opinion by everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911oz
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have an off-topic forum and an on-topic forum at 911oz.
The off-topic forum was created to give people a place to post stuff that they feel strongly about which is not directly connected with 9/11 Truth but relevant to it. for example:
Propaganda and brainwashing
Loss of Civil Liberties
Flase Flag Terrorism
The Middle East Situation
The issue of Global Warming comes up in the off-topic forum often because many people feel that there is a huge amount of propaganda in mainstream media over-hyping the threat. Of course this is influenced by the fact that infowars.com runs stories on the subject, but I am sure it would come up even without infowars.com. My skepticism on global warming, for example, goes back way before i first discovered Alex Jones.
But getting back to the question of what is, or is not a "legitimate" discussion - what I know is that the off-topic section of our forum is useful, because the subject of 9/11 is really not a narrow topic easily defined. We need the off-topic, partly as a steam valve and partly because it provides room for related material.
What I also know is that there are some topics which are "problematic" -
These include:
GROUP A
Holocaust denial
"No Plane" hit the WTC Theory
Jewish Conspiracy Theories
GROUP B
UFOs
chemtrails
The one thing these problematic topics all have in common is that they are extremely speculative in nature. The topics in GROUP A have the added complication that they are offensive to segments of the community. The topics in GROUP B seem harmless enough, and many would say they are a legitimate topic, but due to the highly speculative nature of the claims made they do provide fodder for conspiracy debunkers.
Now lets consider another group:
GROUP C
Global Warming (Skepticism)
PEAK OIL (Skepticism)
GROUP C is different to the other two. The views are controversial but they are evidence based. There is the possibility of resoving the debate because the arguments are not purely speculative.
That is a quick overview of the situation form my point of view, and it does not address the issues of what is or is not "trollish" behaviour, which may manifest in any topic. A few examples of what i would call "trollish":
telling admin how to run the site
questioning peoples' right to express a point of view because they are not "experts" with PHDs (this is in my mind a form of "ad hominem" attack)
SPAMMING the same information all over the place
using obscene language repeatedly
posting personal details about an indiviual
sharing hurtful gossip via PM's
Anyways .. hope this is helpful. I expect we will be discussing some of these issues at the conference this weekend.
(: cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| truthmover wrote: | Dem,
Nope. You can't get away with that. Acting like you are the person who thinks that this debate is wasting our time. My comments above relate to this.
How can you, who so often brings an anti-peak oil/anti-environmental message into this forum state that the peak oil debate is a waste of time. You are the biggest offender here. By your own reasoning, the anti-peak oil commentary is also a waste of our time.
Do you acknowledge the apparent hypocrisy of your position? |
When I state my objections to "Peak Oil" theory or "Man-made" Global Warming I do so not pre-emptively but as a result of the persistent incorporation of those issues into 9/11 Truth, and not solely because they're included at all but because there are sound reasons to disagree with their premise and inclusion. It would be hypocrisy if I was constantly trying to include a subject unrelated to 9/11 Truth and then telling others that they cannot do the same, but making objections as a response is in no way hypocritical. I can tell you right now that if others weren't trying to inject unrelated and contentious issues like "Peak Oil" and "Man-made" GW into 9/11 Truth, I certainly wouldn't feel compelled at all to include my objections to that. It's the initial proponents of it that need to consider putting it aside and quit trying to force it down the throats of others and crying foul when they don’t agree. We need to agree to work on the things that we do all agree on and not constantly dredge up the shit that we don’t. I doubt Alex Jones is going to stop voicing an objection to the Establishment’s agenda over “Man-made” Global Warming, but neither is the mainstream media or the Establishment itself ever going to stop parroting things in favour of it. But we though at least can put all that shit aside and work on being an effective and supportive team, instead of a bunch of bickering idiots.
Last edited by Dem Bruce Lee Stylez! on Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 911oz wrote: | We have an off-topic forum and an on-topic forum at 911oz.
The off-topic forum was created to give people a place to post stuff that they feel strongly about which is not directly connected with 9/11 Truth but relevant to it. for example:
Propaganda and brainwashing
Loss of Civil Liberties
Flase Flag Terrorism
The Middle East Situation
The issue of Global Warming comes up in the off-topic forum often because many people feel that there is a huge amount of propaganda in mainstream media over-hyping the threat. Of course this is influenced by the fact that infowars.com runs stories on the subject, but I am sure it would come up even without infowars.com. My skepticism on global warming, for example, goes back way before i first discovered Alex Jones.
But getting back to the question of what is, or is not a "legitimate" discussion - what I know is that the off-topic section of our forum is useful, because the subject of 9/11 is really not a narrow topic easily defined. We need the off-topic, partly as a steam valve and partly because it provides room for related material.
What I also know is that there are some topics which are "problematic" -
These include:
GROUP A
Holocaust denial
"No Plane" hit the WTC Theory
Jewish Conspiracy Theories
GROUP B
UFOs
chemtrails
The one thing these problematic topics all have in common is that they are extremely speculative in nature. The topics in GROUP A have the added complication that they are offensive to segments of the community. The topics in GROUP B seem harmless enough, and many would say they are a legitimate topic, but due to the highly speculative nature of the claims made they do provide fodder for conspiracy debunkers.
Now lets consider another group:
GROUP C
Global Warming (Skepticism)
PEAK OIL (Skepticism)
GROUP C is different to the other two. The views are controversial but they are evidence based. There is the possibility of resoving the debate because the arguments are not purely speculative.
That is a quick overview of the situation form my point of view, and it does not address the issues of what is or is not "trollish" behaviour, which may manifest in any topic. A few examples of what i would call "trollish":
telling admin how to run the site
questioning peoples' right to express a point of view because they are not "experts" with PHDs (this is in my mind a form of "ad hominem" attack)
SPAMMING the same information all over the place
using obscene language repeatedly
posting personal details about an indiviual
sharing hurtful gossip via PM's
Anyways .. hope this is helpful. I expect we will be discussing some of these issues at the conference this weekend.
(: cheers |
GROUP A
Holocaust denial
"No Plane" hit the WTC Theory
Jewish Conspiracy Theories
^ Honestly man you shouldn’t even give that shit a venue and I think even Truthmover will agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
911oz
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Any of you who think peak oil theory should be left out of the 9/11 truth movement should be as adamant that anti-peak oil theory be left out. But that is not what we see here. We see the webmaster of a 9/11 truth site using that site as a vehicle to promote anti-peak oil theory.
Does anyone else here see the hypocrisy of this position? |
Why don't you direct your criticism at Alten who used his power and fame to conflate Peak Oil with the Septemeber 11 attacks? I am just a humble webmaster of a small website in a far flung region of the world.
Does anyone see the hypocrisy of truthmover's position?
| Quote: | | I'm also quite disappointed in the lack of fair moderation demonstrated by the admin of the site in handling this issue. Reading the thread on that forum above, I can see that Kim made only logical remarks and refrained from name calling and innuendo. |
Kim has repeatedly asserted that indivuals who are not experts in a given field are not entitled to an opinion. This on an open forum and from someone whe is herself not an expert.
Kim has also taken it upon herself to tell the website adminstrator how to run the site.
In short, Kim is on a power trip.
From my point of view I think it would be a good idea if started her own website and forum. Maybe then she would not feel the need to impose her wishes on me.
| Quote: | | I also acknowledge the industrial propaganda machine and its intent to manipulate our perception of scarcity to generate profit and maintain control. |
- this is exaclty my point, and it is why I have taken issue with Alten's central theme.
in regard to:
| Quote: | | I agree entirely with Kim's point that the administrators of such a prominent truth movement site have a responsibility to the movement greater than their own personal views, and that anti-environmental positions have no place on a site specifically dedicated to 9/11 truth. That being said, the admins certainly have the right to whatever they please, including alienating people from the movement. |
Calling my point of view "anti-environmental" is a cheap shot. What is the point of that? It is exactly like calling 9/11 Truthers "anti-American".
| Quote: |
However, stating that we aren't presently depleting the worlds resources at an alarming rate is very simply historically and logically myopic in the extreme. It sound like something said by someone who had no concern for the future beyond 20 years from now...
|
- sounds like you have a powerful ideology driving you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like your post previous to the one above, as it appears to be relatively logical. But it doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny.
One could argue, and it wouldn't be me, that research into UFOs or holocaust denial was based in evidence. The question then becomes something a lot less easy to parse into simple categories as you have above. Kinds of evidence and their relative weight in making an argument.
I do not take my position for lack of having investigated the opposing view. In fact Dem here is responsible for my having looked pretty far into the 'man-made global warming hoax'.
I have very simply not found that the evidence is nearly as strong as that which suggest that humans do in fact impact the composition and characteristics of the atmosphere.
I agree with you that it might be possible to have a reasonable debate on the items in group C, whereas I might not expect to have a reasonable debate with people who advance the items in groups A and B. And I appreciate that you have an off topic area in your forum.
However, you still have not addressed the main concern expressed here by Kim and myself.
Do you acknowledge that anti-environmental positions expressed by prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement could potentially serve to turn people off to what we are trying to accomplish? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| truthmover wrote: | I like your post previous to the one above, as it appears to be relatively logical. But it doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny.
One could argue, and it wouldn't be me, that research into UFOs or holocaust denial was based in evidence. The question then becomes something a lot less easy to parse into simple categories as you have above. Kinds of evidence and their relative weight in making an argument.
I do not take my position for lack of having investigated the opposing view. In fact Dem here is responsible for my having looked pretty far into the 'man-made global warming hoax'.
I have very simply not found that the evidence is nearly as strong as that which suggest that humans do in fact impact the composition and characteristics of the atmosphere.
I agree with you that it might be possible to have a reasonable debate on the items in group C, whereas I might not expect to have a reasonable debate with people who advance the items in groups A and B. And I appreciate that you have an off topic area in your forum.
However, you still have not addressed the main concern expressed here by Kim and myself.
Do you acknowledge that anti-environmental positions expressed by prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement could potentially serve to turn people off to what we are trying to accomplish? |
"anti-environmental positions expressed by prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement" - please cite just ONE example of that.
"I have very simply not found that the evidence is nearly as strong" - sounds a lot like Chomsky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Why don't you direct your criticism at Alten who used his power and fame to conflate Peak Oil with the Septemeber 11 attacks? I am just a humble webmaster of a small website in a far flung region of the world.
Does anyone see the hypocrisy of truthmover's position? |
Ahem. I was actually one of the first people in the movement willing to say that I thought the book was crap. I was a bit nicer about it at first. But after Alten's last pathetic and untruthful plea for support, I laid into it pretty hard.
I am not support of The Shell Game. But not because I think peak oil is some kind of hoax. Exactly how am I a hypocrite?
| Quote: | Kim has repeatedly asserted that indivuals who are not experts in a given field are not entitled to an opinion. This on an open forum and from someone whe is herself not an expert.
Kim has also taken it upon herself to tell the website adminstrator how to run the site.
In short, Kim is on a power trip.
From my point of view I think it would be a good idea if started her own website and forum. Maybe then she would not feel the need to impose her wishes on me. |
I obviously haven't been able to read your entire exchange with Kim. I know its possible to be a bit pushy when you feel like everyone is ganging up on you, as I think she may have felt that way on your forum as people were being very uncivil with her.
I can't justify everything she said, but I do think that people in this movement are free to call upon our leaders to account for their decisions and practices. Its your site, but its our movement, and I don't think you are quite so humble as you suggest.
Do you ever make mistakes? Can you admit it when you do? Exactly what kind of power do you think Kim is trying to wield, and to what end? She seems like a fairly reasonable person to me. Maybe you do need to be put in check. Maybe you have lost perspective, and aren't in tune with the movement's highest principles. Maybe you run a website, have more power than her, and don't always make the most humble decisions. I'm not saying any of that is the case, but are you able to hear it? Can you question yourself?
| Quote: | | The editor of 911oz does not accept the idea that our planet is in the throes of unprecedented resource depletion. |
I'm sorry if you are offended by this or think you care about the environment, but that sounds like an anti-environmental position. Don't you see what were are concerned about? This isn't about what you think in your head. This is all about someone who does have power in the movement paying attention to how their words will be perceived by people in and outside the movement.
We are in a PR battle here to win over the minds of people all over the world. And more people are concerned about the environment than those who think we have nothing to fear. So it is you, in a position of relative authority as the webmaster of your site, who has a responsibility to the movement to not turn people off to the issue. And I think that anyone trying to suggest to you that you might be doing that is generally trying to do what's best for us all.
So we might not be approaching you in the best way, but the issue is a lot more important than the attitude.
In the end, I don't think any of us are questioning our basic commitment to 9/11 truth. But that doesn't mean that we all have figured out the best way to promote it. We need to be able to take criticism from people who may not be so good at clarifying their concerns. We also need to be able to change our mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
