Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series