Maple Leaf Forum

[August1991]

Okay, that difference is obvious to you, but quite honestly it's not obvious to me. Can you elaborate?

Not obvious?

Figleaf, I enjoy reading your posts here. Why? Because I have an open-mind (I hope) and I don't always know where your argument will lead.

An argument that George W. Bush organized the destruction of the World Trade Center leads to a dead end. Life is too short to waste time going down dead ends.

We have all met people who make such pointless, dead-end arguments in our life. We listen once, and then ignore them.

----

Here's another tack - of relevance to Greg, and this thread's OP.

Anyone who has opened and read letters sent to a newspaper, indeed anyone who has ever opened letters sent to a public address, knows about the strange letters. These are letters with strange script, along and up the side of the page, envelopes with an address scrawled to the edge. Some times the letter concern radio implants into teeth but sometimes they are coherent.

Or another tack. Most university campuses have groups who seek redress for some injustice or another.

The Internet provides a place for such people to state their case. Unless guided, this forum could become a series of folding tables typical of a sidewalk in front of any large liberal arts college.

Is this what MLF should be?

[Riverwind]

But an Internet forum cannot cope with lunatics with an agenda. The Moonies, the Jim Jones, the Lyndon Larouche types of the modern western world.

I am not sure that I would call Hugo any more sane than PolyNewbie. Hugo was/is also obessed with the 'evil powers' that controlled his life and he absolutely refused to accept any evidence that government had a useful purpose. I gave up on discussions with Hugo because it was repetitious and led no where.

I respond to PolyNewbie's posts on 9/11 and bankers because I find it entertaining and I have gotten tired of the traditional discussions on political policy. I don't think is it worthwhile banning such people provided they follow forum rules regarding civility.

I think the 9/11 conspiracy is here to stay and will take its place with roswell, JFK and elvis sightings in the popular culture once Bush is out of office and the US is out of Iraq. Until then it will attract a following from people who are simply angry at Bush and his policies. For that reason, I think it is important to provide a rational counter argument to 9/11 conspiracy nuts lest the conspiracy take on a life of its own.

[August1991]

I think 9/11 conspiracy is here to stay and will take its place with roswell, JFK and elvis sightings in the popular culture once Bush is out of office and the US is out of Iraq.

Once Bush is out of office?

Elvis died in 1977. Riverwind, take your Elvis-sighting arguments elsewhere. If you want to argue 9/11, Roswell or JFK, go and confront the people who believe this elsewhere - without imposing a cost on anyone else.

Like Roswell, 9/11 might be here to stay - on supermarket shelves. I give them a passing glance, but I come here for interesting debate about Canadian politics. Not explosive devices and George W.

Riverwind, are you aware that your silly arguments/response with these posters have destroyed my enjoyment of this forum? (Don't indulge them.) If you want to have endless arguments with such people, go elsewhere.

BTW, Riverwind, I have always enjoyed your balanced postings here but I have been tempted to suggest that you be banned because you "feed the conspiracy trolls".

[geoffrey]

Riverwind and I both have endulged in a little bit of attempted reeducation of these people, but tend to do so only in specific threads. I don't see that being a problem, just avoid those threads.

[Riverwind]

I think 9/11 conspiracy is here to stay and will take its place with roswell, JFK and elvis sightings in the popular culture once Bush is out of office and the US is out of Iraq.

Once Bush is out of office?

Yes. Once Bush is out of office you won't hear celeberties talking about 9/11. It will become a complete non-issue much like roswell, JFK and elvis sightings. Until then you will find people who are angry at Bush looking at 9/11 conspiracies.

Riverwind, are you aware that your silly arguments/response with these posters have destroyed my enjoyment of this forum? (Don't indulge them.) If you want to have endless arguments with such people, go elsewhere. BTW, Riverwind, I have been tempted to suggest that you be banned because you "feed the conspiracy trolls".

I skip over threads that don't have much interest for me - Afghanistan, Iraq, Evil Harper, Evil Dion.

I like this forum because there is a wide range of opinions and people discuss the issues. Too many other forums are echo chambers that only have voices on one side of the debate.

You did not seem to have a problem with the endless threads that Hugo was involved in despite the fact that Hugo's arguements were often as loonie as and repetitive as PolyNewbie's. Different people have different interests and I don't see why the topics should be restricted provided they have something to do with politics and current events.

[August1991]

You did not seem to have a problem with the endless threads that Hugo was involved in despite the fact that Hugo's arguements were often as loonie as and repetitive as PolyNewbie's. Different people have different interests and I don't see why the topics should be restricted provided they have something to do with politics and current events.

First, Hugo's debates were confined to a specific category and thread. Second, Hugo's arguments concerned fundamental debates about government, society, collective and country. Have you ever heard of Arrow's Impossibility Proof? Such was the discussion with Hugo. I enjoyed taking time to argue with Hugo - I learned something and I was forced to think.

Polynewbie is/was a lunatic. S/he believes (if I understand correctly) that the US President ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center. Long ago, I spent time talking with people like PolyNewbie - I learned nothing except that they are self-centred, self-obsessed idiots. I waste no time with them anymore. Elvis is dead.

The difference between Hugo and Polynewbie should be obvious.

[Riverwind]

Second, Hugo's arguments concerned fundamental debates about government, society, collective and country.

I found the discussions with PolyNewbie about banking fascinating because I learned a lot about how our system works (how it really works - not how PolyNewbie thinks it works). The debates on 9/11 get into the nature of science and what constitutes a proof vs. a hypothesis. Do you realize that no one has 'proved' why those buildings came down? We simply accept the government explanation because it is the most plausible and fits with the evidence - but that does not mean it is 'proven'. This is not an irrelevant issue. The US got sucked into a war based on 'proof' of WMDs that did not exist. There will be many times in the future where our leaders will offer us 'proof' of things when we should be sceptical. Arguing about 9/11 is pointless in itself but one can learn a lot about how to evaluate scientific evidence and understand the difference between an unfounded assertion backed up by technical language and a real fact.

Such things are as fascinating to me as 'Arrow's impossibility theorem' is to you.

Second I learned nothing except that they are self-centred, self-obsessed idiots.

I have the same opinion of Hugo.

[ScottSA]

Riverwind, are you aware that your silly arguments/response with these posters have destroyed my enjoyment of this forum? (Don't indulge them.) If you want to have endless arguments with such people, go elsewhere.

BTW, Riverwind, I have always enjoyed your balanced postings here but I have been tempted to suggest that you be banned because you "feed the conspiracy trolls".

I learned a lot from that thread, and it was a most welcome contribution by riverwind. I would never have taken the time to look closely at the specifics of these nonsensical truthie claims, but I'm glad I did. Watching riverwind and others taking the time to refute comprehensively each and every silly claim was an affirmation of common sense and reality. It's nice to see in detail just how flawed, faulty and patched together the truthies nonsense is. Wouldn't want to see a dozen threads like that, but I sure enjoyed it.

[August1991]

I found the discussions with PolyNewbie about banking fascinating because I learned a lot about how our system works (how it really works - not how PolyNewbie thinks it works). The debates on 9/11 get into the nature of science and what constitutes a proof vs. a hypothesis.

....

Such things are as fascinating to me as 'Arrow's impossibility theorem' is to you.

How to respond? I gave you more credit, Riverwind.

Life is such that when some lunatics first claimed that the US government organized 9/11, I ignored such nonsense and was only interested in why Westerners could take time to believe it. (No one in Japan believes that Hirohito invented the Atom Bomb to drop on Hiroshima. No one in Russia says that Stalin organized the attack on Stalingrad. Why do some Americans believe that Bush attacked New York?)

Then, after a few brief arguments to understand their point of view, I lost patience to understand why these lunatics believe what they believe. I concluded: there are lunatics who believe Elvis Presley is still alive, UFOs created life and Adolf Hitler has grandchildren in Uruguay. So what?

[August1991]

I learned a lot from that thread, and it was a most welcome contribution by riverwind.

Please. If you need to learn about 9/11, go to Wikipedia. Or an isolated thread on some international forum.

This forum is the modern equivalent of a "Letters to the Editor" column, an open democracy. Don't turn it into your personal education correspondence.

Winter is not cold because the sun is further away from the earth. Your discovery of that fact may have been your first revolutionary discovery of the universe but you have no right to make the rest of us suffer because of your "original" discovery.

Go learn in your own thread, or in your own forum - on your own time.

----

ScottSA, Figleaf, Riverwind - I have no argument with your right to post here. I enjoy reading your posts - even if I often disagree.

But your naive, well-intentioned belief that anyone in the world should have the right to post here is mistaken. There are six billion people in the world. Would you want them all to post here? Are you prepared to spend the rest of your life reading their posts?

Greg (and we) must pick and choose who participates here. It is simply wrong to believe that anyone can.

[ScottSA]

Don't turn it into your personal education correspondence.

I'll try not to learn anything further.

[Figleaf]

Okay, that difference is obvious to you, but quite honestly it's not obvious to me. Can you elaborate?

Not obvious?

Figleaf, I enjoy reading your posts here. Why? Because I have an open-mind (I hope) and I don't always know where your argument will lead.

An argument that George W. Bush organized the destruction of the World Trade Center leads to a dead end. Life is too short to waste time going down dead ends.

We have all met people who make such pointless, dead-end arguments in our life. We listen once, and then ignore them.

I just don't get how that differs in any way from the distaste I get in dealing with Ricki Bobbi -- it seems like his mind can never change, he's always totally predictable, and he doesn't appear to mentally interact with the challenges made to his positions. But can this be a basis for censoring him? I don't think so, unless we're more comfortable than I think is safe with a very slippery slope.

[blueblood]

I just don't get how that differs in any way from the distaste I get in dealing with Ricki Bobbi -- it seems like his mind can never change, he's always totally predictable, and he doesn't appear to mentally interact with the challenges made to his positions. But can this be a basis for censoring him? I don't think so, unless we're more comfortable than I think is safe with a very slippery slope.

I think the onus is on those who want to be idiots for leaving. They should realize that if they want to be taken seriously they should be posting something somewhat intelligent. If the conspiracy theorists want to be taken seriously and want to engage in "debate" over their what I think is nonsense, maybe they should realize this isn't the forum to do it in and get off their ass and go elsewhere themselves. IMO this forum is a place to debate left vs. right politics and thinking, which I enjoy and get a lot out of, both sides have their extremists but that's something we have to put up with. Figleaf has it right here, (holy crap I agree with him on something). The "wingnuts" should censor themselves if they want to be taken seriously and realize when their opinions are not "welcome".

[jdobbin]

Moreover, as you said, there are several conspiracy threads and before that First Nations threads that have run rampant. I have avoided the conspiracy thread, contributed a bit to the First Nations threads as they pertained to federal and provincial politics but withdrew when it became apparent that it wasn't a discussion.

That's a good point too. The Indian threads were not tiresome really - although the posters were one-trick ponies.

I can live with people who have an agenda. The forum can cope with that, if it has to.

But an Internet forum cannot cope with lunatics with an agenda. The Moonies, the Jim Jones, the Lyndon Larouche types of the modern western world.

Such posters have the patience to dominate a forum. They will not break any rules of civility and can't be banned on such a basis.

I am not suggesting that such people be censored. On the contrary. I'm just arguing that they should not have the right to take over my morning newspaper and become my editor.

----

I started this thread because I wondered where MLF was going.

IMV, I drop in here, read and then post because it's a way to find out what attentive people (in Western Canada in particular) think about Canadian politics. I have had some fascinating discussions with people that I would never have met otherwise: Hugo, Army Guy and even you Dobbin.

I don't come here to read about the latest 9/11 theories.

I think the fewer people replying to those type of threads, the better. I figure someone will lose interest if there is no response. They only come to dominate a forum if they are engaged.

I have met some very interesting people here and I expect I'll see more over time. Is it possible to delete a thread from your interests and only see the ones you want to read?

[Remiel]

Don't turn it into your personal education correspondence.

I'll try not to learn anything further.

My personal feelings about you character aside, that was pretty funny. Also, it addresses the core problem of August's statement. There is no point to discussion and debate other than to learn and to teach. If two people have identical knowledge, interpretation and opinion on a subject, there is no reason for them to waste their breath talking about it. I think they call it " preaching to the choir " .

[ScottSA]

My personal feelings about you character aside, that was pretty funny.

Let me congratulate you on an almost perfectly executed backhanded compliment. Noticing my humour is a pretty astute observation, in spite of my personal beliefs about your mental capability.

[Remiel]

My personal feelings about you character aside, that was pretty funny.

Let me congratulate you on an almost perfectly executed backhanded compliment. Noticing my humour is a pretty astute observation, in spite of my personal beliefs about your mental capability.

There are plenty of people of this forum too biased and bitter to give even backhanded compliments. I just wouldn't want it to be confused that I was somehow warming up to your charming demeanor.

[BC_chick]

August, why single out the anti-American conspiracy theorists? Why not the OTHER conspiracy nuts like this?

(pay attention to the third statement)

[Riverwind]

Why do some Americans believe that Bush attacked New York?

Because he used lies and trickery to get the nation to support a war that quickly turned into a disaster. I don't think the conspiracy would have had the legs it has if Gore was president at the time or if Bush had enough sense to stay out of Iraq. That is why I said the issue will disappear after Bush is gone.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because he used lies and trickery to get the nation to support a war that quickly turned into a disaster. I don't think the conspiracy would have had the legs it has if Gore was president at the time or if Bush had enough sense to stay out of Iraq. That is why I said the issue will disappear after Bush is gone.

Theories about FDR's complicity in the Pearl Harbor attack continue to this day...FDR has been dead since 1945.

The US supported war against Iraq long before #43 was ever elected. See Gulf War I, Iraq Liberation Act, and Desert Fox.

9/11 conspiracy kooks were going full tilt long before Congress voted for war in October 2002 or invasion the following March.

[Riverwind]

9/11 conspiracy kooks were going full tilt long before Congress voted for war in October 2002 or invasion the following March.

I think it would have died out without the Iraq War. The Bush's duplicity with the Iraq War simply provided a much more fertile ground. I acknoweledge that is simply my opinion so we should probably just agree to disagree on this point.

[Figleaf]

Why do some Americans believe that Bush attacked New York?

Because he used lies and trickery to get the nation to support a war that quickly turned into a disaster. I don't think the conspiracy would have had the legs it has if Gore was president at the time or if Bush had enough sense to stay out of Iraq. That is why I said the issue will disappear after Bush is gone.

I would also point out that Bush surrounded himself with the 'New American Century' cabal whose website set out specifically how they thought their project would benefit from a disastrous surprise attack on the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

I would also point out that Bush surrounded himself with the 'New American Century' cabal whose website set out specifically how they thought their project would benefit from a disastrous surprise attack on the United States.

Correct...the exact same PNAC embraced by Clinton/Gore:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

Iraq was attacked at over 100 sites in December 1998 after Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act.

Ergo, a President Gore would not have escaped conspiracy kooks after 9/11. Indeed, it wouldn't matter who was president.

(The OKC Bombing Conspiracy still has legs after more than 10 years. I'm watching Discovery Channel's "Conspiracy Test" on this very topic as I type.)

[PolyNewbie]

I wonder if the Pentagon Discovery Channel will show that OKC was an inside job.

[Figleaf]

Pauvre August pitieux.