9/11 NORAD tapes released...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And it's not that you just 'ask some questions', it's that you consistently discredit anything coming from one side (from which you demand iron-clad proof of veracity) but accept as credible anything coming from the other (until completely proven wrong).

---

I take exception to that.

I acknowledge that I am "authority-blind," in that authority is meaningless to me perhaps in the same way that "blue" might be meaningless to a color-blind person. But that doesn't mean I automatically "discredit" anything from one side and jump witlessly onto any bandwagon from the other. As a matter of fact, since I am "authority-blind," BOTH establishment authority AND alternative authority are meaningless to me. I treat both sides with equal skepticism. You just haven't seen me argue against "the other side" yet.

I believe other people PERCEIVE me as discrediting their side and accepting the other side without reservations. Probably because people are so emotionally invested in their ideas that any kind of challenge is seen as discreditation and an endorsement of the opposition.

For example, have I ever said, "The towers didn't fall on their own, but were demolished?" Or, "Global warming doesn't exist, it is all hogwash?" No. But that is exactly what people hear, even though all I say is, "I question the evidence, or there is insufficient evidence..."

Think about it. If I really were discrediting one side and fully accepting of the other side, I'd sound a lot more like Antimason, wouldn't I?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
For example, have I ever said, "The towers didn't fall on their own, but were demolished?" Or, "Global warming doesn't exist, it is all hogwash?" No. But that is exactly what people hear, even though all I say is, "I question the evidence, or there is insufficient evidence..."

---

You said that demolition is more likely, and when I tried to point out it wasn't you accused me of calling you a conspiracy nut and spewing propeganda, as well as not being capable of following a logical thought process. I have nothing against you answering questions, I have at least tried to answer yours, what I have a problem with is being portrayed as the bad guy because my answers don't rubbish the offical story.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
You said that demolition is more likely,

---

That is a far cry from discrediting one side and accepting the other without question.

Quote:

---

you accused me of calling you a conspiracy nut and spewing propeganda,

---

I believe, in so many words, that is what happened. You accused me of embracing conspiracy theories, so I accused you of embracing propaganda.

Quote:

---

as well as not being capable of following a logical thought process.

---

I said your logic in that instance was flawed.

Quote:

---

have a problem with is being portrayed as the bad guy because my answers don't rubbish the offical story.

---

It goes both ways, buddy.

[Edited to add: I have doubts about the official story, but I don't have a problem with people who support it. In fact, they are the ones who can help explain inconsistencies and answer my questions. What I do have a problem with is being ridiculed when I asked questions. In this instance, I snapped and ridiculed back. It wasn't my finest moment, and I apologize.]

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I believe, in so many words, that is what happened. You accused me of embracing conspiracy theories, so I accused you of embracing propaganda.

---

No I didn't.

Quote:

---

I said your logic in that instance was flawed.

---

No you implied I couldn't follow a logical thought process.

Quote:

---

It goes both ways, buddy.

---

Accept you're the one making accusations and saying "poor me, all I'm doing is asking questions and I'm attacked."

Well you aren't just asking questions, and you aren't prepared to accept or listen to the answers unless they say what you want, so how about you get off the "I'm the only one who can look at evidence in an unbiased way here" trip.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

CTS,

Here is where we part company, close to your entry into the topic:

Guy may not have time to put together the links, but here is a good starting point for looking at the inconsistencies.

What about CONSISTENCIES?

It isn't the first time that the official story doesn't make sense. Read what a military explosives expert had to say about the OK City bombing.

What about times where the official story DOES MAKE SENSE?


If it looked like a demolition job, acted like a demolition job, and sounded like a demolition job, we should consider the possibility that maybe there were demolition explosives involved, eh? It doesn't automatically mean Bush put them there--but would indicate the plane terrorists had some help. Who from is another question.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

It's not that you 'ask questions'. It's that you ask biased questions from biased assumptions. If you were evenhandedly looking at the data, you'd be looking at both data in support of and contra to. I don't see that.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

It helps me to think about what happened in this thread, and other threads, as a tension between divergence and convergence.

In working on design projects it is extremely valuable to have people on the team who prefer to diverge. Most importantly early on in the project when the team is trying to expand the problem space and the solution space. For team members who prefer to converge this is a stressful time because they are operating outside of their comfort zone.

But a team cannot diverge indefinitely. At a certain point the team needs to start converging towards a few potential solutions. This is where those who prefer to converge need to start taking the lead. And this is also where those who prefer to diverge start feeling the stress of operating outside of their comfort zone.

Both preferences are valuable and necessary. If a team converges too early they may be working on the wrong problem or towards a less effective solution. If a team diverges too long they may be wasting resources and are in danger of not having a deliverable in an acceptable amount of time.

I see CTS as someone who prefers to diverge. I may be wrong but it kind of helps put things in perspective for me and explain some of the tension. I prefer to converge. The divergent portion of the design process is quite often the most stressful time for me and I really have to work at it.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Another way of looking at it is simplex optimization. By taking initial points too close together, you may end up at a local maximum rather than the true optimum.

There are times when I diverge - strongly - and from a vast, vast majority, or from authority or custom. As examples, I was one of the few people saying dubya was evil both before AND AFTER 9/11. In my union duties, I have to bring up unpleasant, contrary facts that people would rather ignore - on both sides. But I like to think of myself as open to FACTS no matter where they come from. And I frequently change my position with the weight of facts as they develop.

On this particular topic, I really have no strong inclination either way, so I don't think of myself as toady to authority or as a rebel - a converger or diverger. All I'd like is some even handed consideration of both pros and cons from people who portray themselves as open-minded.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I see CTS as someone who prefers to diverge. I may be wrong but it kind of helps put things in perspective for me and explain some of the tension. I prefer to converge. The divergent portion of the design process is quite often the most stressful time for me and I really have to work at it.

---

Very insightful. Yes, I am definitely a divergent thinker. Thank you! (I can't believe I forgot all about the convergence-divergence dichotomy.)

Although I see myself as a wishy-washy and on-the-fence, I tend to end up talking about ideas that are not mainstream. From my perspective, I don't need to present mainstream views because there are plenty of people who will provide that balance. There is no need for me to be redundant.

I can see why that seems biased to Rue and Citizen. But not presenting the other side doesn't mean I dismiss that side altogether. I would present both sides if I were the only voice heard, as in a journalistic piece. But with all the other voices on an internet forum, I just make sure the divergent side gets represented.

Thanks again, Soup.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME