Reply #133: "When you can't prevail...

[William Seger]

... in your argument you just call those who don't agree with you names, you lump them into a box of your own choosing and assume that makes you right and anyone who dares to hold the opinion that it was an inside job is somehow more defective than yourself. And then you claim that to be 'rational.'"

Defensive much? What argument? What "assume that makes you right?" You asked a question, twice, and I gave you an honest answer, twice. Take it or leave it. I did so because you specifically stated that you believe that "people who don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job" didn't have an answer as to why. (Were you trying to imply that "anyone who dares to hold" that opinion is "somehow more defective than yourself," or do you really believe that?) But if you want to now START an argument... well, not tonight, please. Already been here too much lately, but I guess I asked for that by posting at all.

But why do you consider "CTer" to be insulting and "name-calling?" I consider it to be standard shorthand or jargon for "people who DO believe that 9/11 (or JFK assassination, etc., depending on the topic at hand) was an inside job." It sounds like YOU'RE the one saying "CTer" means someone "defective." But whatever, if you're a "Conspiracist, but don't have a Theory yet," I don't know any jargon for that, but I will refrain from calling you (or anyone else who requests it) a CTer if you find it offensive.