"Vague" | 47 comments (47 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: "Vague" (4.00 / 4)

Your qualification of it being a 'necessity' is the same as the 'necessity for distortion' - but let's not get into semantics again ;-)

But the far more important point here is that several ETers seem to be interested in persuing the meaning of dysfunctional organizations and the ends to which they may go to to fufill their agendas. These organizations, for me, include all 'fundamentalist' organizations such as Neocons, Jihadists, the NRA, the Roman Catholic church, Disney or the Sudanese government- among many others. Your list may be different. Everyone's list is different.

I was both pissed off by, and conciliatory toward J's repeat of "but I find the topic tasteless, pointless and mindless" in the Friday thread. I find that comment boorish in the extreme. It is, I assume, related to how it reflects on J personally, and, since it is his website and he is paying fpr it, that he is entitled to set whatever conditions he likes. Including conditions whereby contributors are forced into self-censorship.

But if he expects continuing contributions from people like me under those conditions - then I am out.

Referring to the Friday thread: Manon raised some technical questions about a small aspect of 9/11 based on personal professional knowledge and experience. These questions were debated by others with knowledge of the science, and others with no professional knowledge, except for common sense, and an interest in the discussion. That is how these matters should be handled at ET IMHO.

I feel that J is wrong in this, especially as 2 or 3 gnomes also contributed to the discussion (as did J hímself eventually, possibly sensing his remoteness)

In all other areas, such as culture for example, we have our vigorous discussions conducted from many different worldviews. Many of them are not resolved but evolve into running debates. But in general they are debates without limits.

So I would like a clear statement from the proprietors of this forum. If, as J adamantly maintains, a certain subject has been debunked and is no longer worthy of discussion, why is it that long term members continue to refer to it? It clearly hasn't been debunked at all. It has only been debunked in the mind of the proprietor.

The clear statement I would like to see is as to whether the rules of debate between consenting adults apply - with the ultimate sanction of troll-rating if the debate is intruded upon by one-way unsupported declarations, OR are we only allowed to discuss energy and economics?

Our present governments have lied to us about many things - as they have been doing since the beginning of so-called democracy. ET is a useful forum for discussing those lies, distortions, spins, ignorance and corruption. Economic analysis is a vital tool in exposing all of these things. Scientific analysis is just as important (oops I just made economics non-science). Cultural analysis is also crucial. Cultural analysis is what interests me.

I'd like to know that this forum will continue to support such analysis.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sven (3.25 / 4)

There is no censorship on ET, and all topics are welcome.

But please let's not call 'analysis' wild unsubstantiated assertions. Several of us waste a full evening trying to bring rational or factual elements in the discourse, which were dismissively rebuked.

I have not seen a single serious argument against that.

But feel free to indulge in all the wacky theories you think need proper consideration, but do not ask me to trat them seriously if they are not actually backed by facts, smart arguments or other reasonable evidence.

I'd be sorry to see you go.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 10:57:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sven (4.00 / 4)

You can ignore them. You can make jokes about them. You can, as head gnome, put on every such diary that you dislike, a large caption that says "This is wacky and does not represent the management view"

But don't call them mindless please. That is an insult that I take personally.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 12:41:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

in addition (4.00 / 3)

the original discussion was between two apparent experts in plane engines and physics, respectively. I thought both relevant. Neither were trying - as I understood it - to promote any wider view of conspiracy or anything else. Simply discussing something that both knew something about.

Now I'm not sure of the timeline here, but in my opinion the level of debate changed after your comment about it being 'mindless'. But I may be wrong, I often am.

What started as a discussion of the professional interpretations of facts or evidence, became something else. However it could well be that our own views rorschach into how we interpret any discussion here.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 12:54:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh come on (2.50 / 2)

No, my comment was one of the early ones, coming just after 3 comments by manon which claimed not only that there was no plane hitting the Pentagon, but no plane in Pennsylvania either, and then that the first WTV hit was not a big plane either.

My mindless comment is was started the "debate", and I'm sorry I did.

There was no subtantiation, just doubt that it happened, and then requests for proof from the doubters. I was actually the first to provide any kind of substance which was instantly dismissed without any comment, but with abundant use of low ratings. DoDo provided more input as well, each time to be debunked with unsubstantiated arguments ("what you show me in that photo fits in a suitcase" or "you don't show me the whole plane so it's not enough").

There was one expert provding expertise, and one claiming expertise and saying that everything said by others was not correct or not convincing.

If manon had come up and said, a kerosene fire is such and such temperature, and tests show that such metal used in planes only vaporises at such (higher) temperature, then you'd have a discussion.
Sorry, but "this is not convincing" is not an argument.

You'll note that manon has troll rated me yet again. Yes, it is mindless.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 01:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on (none / 0)

Jerome, you doubt my credentials?

You really are too much.

Firstly, I can state whatever I want as my thoughts or my doubts about anything. I just wanted to share something interesting I had seen and in no way wanted to convince anyone of anything.

It was the reaction I got from people here, supposedly open-minded and intelligent people, that really got my back up. They asked me to convince them and I really had no intention of doing so, but I became defensive about some thoughts I had shared.

Then, you stated that such thoughts were mindless, yada yada yada

Then I started getting challenged and troll rated by responding to those challenges.

Now, some people here might have degrees in Astrophysics, but I have a Masters in Mechanical Engineering and have worked in the field for over 10 years. I have been involved in some investigations about engine failures that have resulted in loss of lives.

And, you somehow think that someone with a degree in astrophysics is somehow more qualified than I am in this field? Tell me, for what reason?

Then, when questioned about my qualifications, I questioned my questioner about his. It turns out that his understanding of the physical forces and mechanical engineering principles at work is not up to par, not to his discredit, as he is not a mechanical engineer.

Again, you saw fit to throw yourself into the melee and throw gratuituous insults my way, all because your professional reputation might be tarnished by publishing something you consider unserious on your blog.

Meanwhile, two days later, my professional credentials are still being questioned in a sly, underhanded way, while your own consipiracy theories about $100 oil are being discussed seriously for the second year running, I believe.

by manon (m@gmail.com) on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 01:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0)

Your graps of facts is tenuous. Not a single one of YOUR comments has been troll rated, and definitely not by me. I NEVER EVER troll rate someone I'm discussing with. MY comments, including this one again, have been repeatedly trollrated by you.

I don't doubt your credentials, I just say that you have not used them to provide the kinds of arguments that you should be able to muster easily, thus the assertion that your claims are 'unsubtantiated'. With your knowledge, backing what you say with hard facts should be easy enough, and yet you keep on doing it.

I have zero mechanical engineering competence, beyond a decent education in maths and physics. I have provided the kinds of backing for my assertions that I could, i.e. pictures that I googled.

I was the only one to call you mindless; several others encouraged you, so it's not like there's a nasty cabal against you. Yet you chose never to respond with arguments, instead reverting to feeling insulted.

I feel sorry for you.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Sep 17th, 2006 at 02:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Top Diaries

Recent Diaries

Occasional Series