A few words about the discussion of the London bombing on DU

[Skinner]

I'm not a big fan of the term "conspiracy theory," because I don't think it accurately describes what it is supposed to refer to. I guess I'm just not comfortable with the term "theory," which has a specific scientific meaning, being used to describe points of view that are more accurately described as "speculation," or sometimes "totally baseless speculation." Nonetheless, "conspiracy theory" is the generally accepted term, and that is the one I will use here.

Conspiracy theories present a thorny problem for those of us who administer popular online communities like this one, with a very diverse membership. We are required to balance the conflicting interests of (on one hand) openness and the free exchange of ideas, versus (on the other hand) the desire of members to be part of a community that holds itself to some minimal standard of acceptable discourse. For example, allow me to use an extreme hypothetical: I think it is safe to say that few of us would like Democratic Underground to become widely known as that place where people believe space aliens cause tsunamis. My point being that most of us recognize that we must balance the two conflicting interests of openness vs. minimal standards -- the real difference among us is where we each would draw the line.

Being one of the admins of this website, I am in the enviable (or, depending on your viewpoint, unenviable) position of being able to decide where that line is drawn. Some of you may remember that back in January, I made it clear that Democratic Underground was not the place to argue in favor of man-made causes for the Asian Tsunami. We have also made it clear, over many years, that bigoted conspiracy theories have no place on Democratic Underground. So there is a precedent for us setting some minimal standards for these discussions. And, in fact, it is very easy for us to draw the line in these cases. (Unfortunately, such decisions are not always so easy. Even though my job often requires me to censor people, I have never been particularly comfortable with doing it.)

The issue gets more complicated when we're addressing conspiracy theories that enjoy some level of interest in progressive circles. In this category, I would include the many theories having to do with alleged involvement of the Bush Administration in 9/11. We have permitted a fair amount of speculation along these lines, and we still do here on Democratic Underground. I have read many of the posts here about this topic, and I will be honest with you: I believe that Bush deserves some responsibility for 9/11 due to incompetence, not because of MIHOP or LIHOP. Regardless of my personal views, we have permitted a fair amount of discussion of many 9/11 conspiracy theories, either in the General Discussion forum, or in the special September 11 forum, provided that members avoid discussing bigoted theories and avoid linking to sites that promote bigoted theories. This compromise has not made everyone happy, but that is the nature of compromise.

In the wake of the London terror attacks, a number of new conspiracy theories are starting to take shape. At this point, I don't find any of these conspiracy theories to be particularly credible. They seem to be based either on stories in the media that have since been corrected, or on the baseless speculation of websites that specialize in baseless speculation. The only piece of evidence that seems to have any credibility at all is this one posted on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation website, but my impression is that at this point people are reading a lot more into the story than it deserves. I could write pages and pages on the topic of what it means to be open minded, and the importance of drawing conclusions based on evidence versus starting with a conclusion and then cherry-picking evidence to fit -- but I think that is a topic for a different post.

Since the bombings, there has been a lot of confusion about what is permitted here and what isn't. I have contributed to the problem because so far I have not articulated any clear guidelines -- to you or to the moderators -- about what is appropriate and what is not. The mods and admins have been discussing this issue, and we will continue to do so. For the moment, here is where things stand:

You are welcome to post links to credible mainstream news sources that are related to the London attacks. But we would prefer that you refrain from posting links to highly speculative conspiracy websites in our main forums: Latest Breaking News, Editorials & Other Articles, or the two General Discussion forums. We don't have an official list of such sites at this point, but I think most DU members are capable of distinguishing what constitutes a conspiracy website. If you feel the restrictions on discussing this issue in our main forums are too strict, you are encouraged to visit our September 11 forum, where we give members some greater leeway to discuss more speculative topics.

Furthermore, I believe we should permit members to share personal "gut feelings" about what happened in London, as long as you aren't using it as an excuse to link to conspiracy websites or to pass off baseless speculation as fact.

I hope that this post will give you some idea of where we stand. Don't worry -- nobody is getting banned. But we hope that everyone will make an effort to respect the guidelines we have laid out here.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Thanks for the clarification

I know things got pretty crazy here yesterday and that you folks are trying to do your best.

However, I do hope that you have resolved the problem with whoever it was that was up bright and early yesterday, making threads disappear (not just locked. It really freaked people out and IMHOP made the situation worse, rather then better.

Thanks again.
DYEW

[Skinner]

4. You're welcome.

Things have been pretty crazy, and we are doing the best we can. We really appreciate your understanding.

With respect to disappearing posts... I think everyone needs to understand that moderators rarely act alone. On calls like this, they are required to get a consensus before taking action. So, to be clear, there was no single moderator making threads disappear. They were acting together, on consensus, based on their understanding of the DU rules and the wishes of the DU admins.

It is my hope that this announcement will make our wishes more clear to the members of DU, and will also make the job of the moderators easier and more consistent.

I agree that the situation on DU was made worse because there was no clear statement on this issue. I hope this announcement makes things a little clearer.

[liberalmike27]

117. baseless speculation

Isn't speculation always somewhat baseless? That's what makes it speculation. If it were concrete fact, it would have a base. I guess it is up to each person to decide whether the speculation is baseless or not. Personally, I think the capacity of men to do both evil, and good, is massive. And I don't think patriotism is any excuse for not seeking all variations of possibility.


One more thing, look at definition two of
THEORY
1. a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system.
2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.
3. A belief that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: rose early, on the theory that morning efforts are best; the modern architectural theory that less is more.
4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

[Goldmund]

2. Are you saying that space aliens DIDN'T cause the Tsunami?

Yeah, and I suppose the CIA didn't kill Lennon either... :eyes:

;)

[Skinner]

5. Now don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not saying space aliens didn't cause the tsunami. All I'm saying is that I don't want people *out there* to think we think that. :D

[Goldmund]

7. My bad, chief!

Alpha Charley Foxtrot, like a duck in a noose. ;)

[frictionlessO]

13. Bwahahaha!!!! LOL!

:spray: :rofl:

oh no! My brand new pearly white iMac g5!! its been becoffee'd.

Damn you Skiiner, and your wry humor (or was it pumpernickel?)!

[Barad Simith]

47. Yeah, because they're in on it

The freepers put microchips in the space aliens' brains so they can control them remotely and make them start tsunamis.

I seen that shit somewheres.

[hootinholler]

52. So you want the people out there to think that we think...

Space aliens DID cause the tsunami? :evilgrin:


Oh, on a more serious note, you don't have to look far to see all the problems you can get into when a group cherry-picks facts (unless you're a freeper).

Oh, almost forgot, THANKS Skinner!

-Hoot

[Jara sang]

8. The Catcher in the Rye, Goldmund

The Catcher in the Rye :P

[proiowadem]

3. Your point is made thank you.

[Walt Starr]

6. Thanks Skinner!

Appreciate it greatly.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. Thanks Skinner

Appreciate your thoughtful response.

[Skinner]

11. You're welcome.

:thumbsup:

[frictionlessO]

10. THAT!!! Is all I have been asking for, thank you Skinner.... Thank you

ever so muchly!

I was praying, hoping fervently all weekend that you wouldn't take up that call to purge us. That you wouldn't broad brush us, that you would let us have a fair say within the boundaries of the stated guidelines... I am so incredibly relieved that you are not going to try and be dKos and instead be DU.

Like Ive been whining loudly all weekend....

DU is not broke, quit trying to Fix us.

Sorry its the way I feel. DU is awesome and the controls that are in place for the average poster usually more than ensure that bad crap gets trashed.

Thanks again for the site, and very heavy heavy thanks for letting me speculate here from time to time.

:toast:



on edit: Hoping my spellcheck might entice Skinner to comment! lol... thanks again Skinner and Mods!

[WilliamPitt]

12. "pass off baseless speculation as fact"

Thanks, Skinner.

[greyl]

14. Bravo. Sober and superior reasoning as usual.

I've got to hand it to you.

I particularly liked this "I could write pages and pages on the topic of what it means to be open minded, and the importance of drawing conclusions based on evidence versus starting with a conclusion and then cherry-picking evidence to fit -- but I think that it a topic for a different post.

[Nightjock]

15. So that explains what you did to the election 2004 forum?

You believe it is "wild speculation" that we no longer have fair and free elections?

[Lex]

17. Whoa.

:wtf:

That's kind of a leap of logic, imho.

[Nightjock]

23. It's a question

not a statement. I think Skinner is a righteous guy. I'm just looking for an answer. As many people here who are hurt, offended, disillusioned and dissapointed in the burying of the most important topic in the country.


*edited for the worst spelling of disillusioned in grammar history.

[Skinner]

I have never said anything of the sort.

This is completely unrelated to the the 2004 forum. I do not consider the issues in that forum to be "wild speculation" so please do not put words in my mouth. The 2004 forum is being treated in exactly the same way we treat the forums for all the other issues. The "Admin picks" section was never intended to be permanent. After eight months where that forum had prime placement in our "Admin Picks" section, we felt it was time to put something else there.

I would appreciate it if this thread did not go off-topic and turn into a discussion of the 2004 Forum. Thank you for your understanding.

[Nightjock]

25. ok.

[bloom]

16. It seems to me

that there has been quite a shift in sites that can be linked to.

It seems like whatreallyhappened.com has been linked to a bit what with election stuff and 9/11 and today I saw that it was the basis for locking a thread that had been moved into the 9/11 forum earlier.

I noticed that one poster (on other threads) was particularly opposed to that site - but I don't know that because this one poster objects to some of the content on the site that the whole site is doomed. It's just like DU. Someone could always find something that they disagreed with unless the whole site became milktoast. And even then - some us would object to milktoast.

So I hope the site restrictions are not too tight - because I personally think that would take all the fun out of it. :)

[Minstrel Boy]

20. It would be nice to have a list

of proscribed sites, though undoubtedly subject to change. Even if we disagree with some sites being listed, it would take some of the guesswork out of posting.

[Skinner]

28. We have discussed the possiblity of making such a list available.

The obvious concern is that, in an Internet with billions of websites, we're never going to be able to have a complete list. Still, the mods are discussing the feasibility of doing so, and we have not ruled it out.

[Eloriel]

54. I think it's a necessity -- IF you don't want to continue to seem

simply arbitrary about these things. Arbitrary and unreasonable, if that's not redundant.

I also hope that this DELETION of threads -- not locking and moving, but DELETION -- simply because they're from "the wrong sort" of internet site, will come to a halt no matter HOW MANY (or how few) of the mods happen to be around to form some sort of "consensus."

I can't tell you how much harm it does to the reputation of DU and to the faith and trust we DUers have in DU to be deleting threads that happen to contain a disapproved source.

Yes, we need to know which are the disapproved sources, even if it isn't and will never be a "complete list." I've seen one or another named here and there, but I've not made my own list, so I forget -- AND, the REASON they're disapproved isn't at all apparent to me, which makes it all the more difficult to "remember" that they're disapproved.

I do thank you for making a statement about all this. I presume mine was jus one of MANY PMs to you about the matter. Good.

And, oh yeah:

BRING BACK ATA!!!

[Minstrel Boy]

59. Worse was the deletion of threads citing only approved sources.

It was inexplicable and disheartening, and I hope I never see it again.

[bloom]

65. Yes - I absolutely agree... eom

[hiley]

70. me too

[geek tragedy]

93. I've started a proposed list at this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4086895

I agree that putting some meat on the bones of the DU rules would be a good idea. It would be a very useful tool to have.

[bloom]

26. and one more thing...

I never went to whatreallyhappened.com all that much - but the person objecting was objecting on the basis of supposed anti-semitism. This is the response to that charge posted at the site:


WRH and Anti-Semitism

The charge of anti-Semitism is one that Israel flings at anyone who criticizes them. Israel intentionally blends itself with the world's Jewish people in order to be able to hide behind Jewish people. If you ask Israel any question they do not like, you will be called anti-Semitic. It's a real fraud and the irony is that Israel is setting up the world's Jewish people as targets by acting as if they share the responsibility for Israel's actions.

But the reality is that Jewish people are no more responsible for the crimes of the Mossad than Americans are responsible for the crimes of the CIA, or the people of Great Britain responsible for the crimes of MI5. But by intentionally equating Israel with all the world's Jewish people, the Israeli government sends out that message, that all Jewish people ARE responsible for Israel's actions. That makes them targets for those whom the government of Israel has angered.

As for me, you will not find anything inside my site that talks about Jewish anything. I write about Israel and the crimes of the Israeli government. I write about Rachel Corrie. I write aboutJames Miller. I write about Tom Hurndall. I write about the USS Liberty and the Lavon affair and the Israeli spy who was inside the very Pentagon office from which the lies about Iraq's WMDs that sent our young people off to war came from. I write about nuclear weapons being built under the Dimona reactor and radiation leaking from the complex into the surrounding soil. I write about ongoing defiance of United Nations' resolutions.

There is nothing anti-Semitic about opposing reckless deaths and deceptions that lead to wars. There is nothing anti-Semitic about opposing nuclear weapons or supporting the work of the UN. Colin Powell stated the matter quite clearly; Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. Israel would like you to think it is, but it isn't. Anti-Semitism is based on Israel's race. Criticism is based on Israel's deeds.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/index.html

-----

And not only that - the particular poster who was complaining also was accusing a prominant progressive Jewish person of being anti-semitic. Just so you know.

[Skinner]

29. I would prefer that this thread not go off topic...

...into the discussion of the relative merits of various websites. Thank you.

[Cleita]

18. I guess I won't tell you then about the creatures

from other dimensions that the voices in my head are telling me about.

:-)

[Auntie Bush]

19. Thanks Skinner. We can all see you gave this a lot of careful thought

and consideration. You have come to a fair conclusion.

[LibertyorDeath]

21. "You are welcome to post links to credible mainstream news sources "

Cool so I can link to Fox News all I want and PR releases from the DOD & the Pentagon. :)

Is the Whitehouse a credible source. LOL

You do great work & it's an unenviable position trying to sort all this out .

Cheers & thanks.

[nashville_brook]

22. BIG thank you, Skinner for shining a light on this!

you are quite the saint of DU and speaking for myself, i don't envy your job! we a big bunch of people (70,000+) and events are happening so fast that it's nearly impossible to keep up.

please know that we appreciate your work and your thoughtful message.

[SteppingRazor]

24. Don't you people get it? Don't you know what this means?!!!

THEY'VE GOTTEN TO SKINNER!!

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[yurbud]

57. I linked the CBC story and still got moved.

You don't have all the evidence when you are starting to look into an issue.

I was looking for something else in Sean Hannity transcripts, and came across something where Hannity was berating someone for even SUGGESTING that we had warnings about 9/11, and that those warnings were actionable.

I'm sure people were talking about it here, and it seemed like a conspiracy theory to some people--until they saw the warnings discussed at the 9/11 Commission, including the August 6 PDB and Condi Rice saying she had no idea plans could be used as missiles.

Part of how we even got that much information out was talking about it in forums like this and sharing wild conspiracy theories with our congressmen and senators.


A lot of the time, people call something a conspiracy theory when:

A) the facts are not widely discussed

B) the implications are too unpleasant

With the current state of our media, A) can cover a hell of a lot.

A lot of us here said Bush seemed to be making up his whole case for Iraq, and if you tried to talk about it to someone who just sat on their ass and watched network news, they would look at you like a nut.

I sought out sources and forums like this after 9/11 because what I started to see diverged so far from what I knew to be true that I felt almost insane.

On some issues, I would replay them over and over in my head like a sum I got wrong--"Dan Rather can't be lying to me," I'd think. But I couldn't make certain facts square in my head, and a lot of them were about 9/11 itself.

You cannot under normal circumstances, hijack a plane and flew it off course for up to two hours without being intercepted. F-15s and F-16s can climb to altitude in about a minute and a half, and travel 3-4 times as fast as the only two planes that were scrambled were going. I used to live next door to an ANG base, and you could watch them accelerate going nearly straight up. They have had these interception procedures and used them for decades.

For them not to catch up with those airliners is beyond the range of incompetence.

I don't like to be thought of as a nut, but if we don't look at how far these guys are capable of going, if we ever get them out of office, we won't be prepared for the next assault, and when it comes it will be far more effective, just as this one was more effective than the Newt one, and it will be that much harder to fight back if we can at all.

We shouldn't do here what the Democrats have done in Congress, pretend this is a regular partisan squabble and not a calculated assault on our democracy. The results will be fatal for us and the rest of the world, and that's not a conspiracy theory if read about China, Russia, and those former Soviet republics asking us when we are going to leave Asia. The stakes are too high to look away.


Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[LibertyorDeath]

104. Excellent post yurbud

Thanks!

[helderheid]

119. couldn't agree more

bravo!

[Taxloss]

27. Hear hear. nt

[beam me up scottie]

30. Thank you.

[hiley]

31. Thank you Skinner and a list of sites

not exceptable would really help a lot. I know it is not possible to keep up with the huge amount of sites on the web.
This is the problem sometimes one may find a very interesting article and who really has time to check out the entire site and all of the author's other writings ?
Thank you for the 9/11 forum BTW !
Hiley

[SteppingRazor]

32. What you say is certainly true, however...

I'd point out that a quick glance over a Web site and a good dose of common sense will probably keep out most of the sites Skinner refers to.

[Eloriel]

60. I completely disagree

Some of the sites complained about are not in any way clearly anti-Semitic. I'm not convinced they're anti-Semitic at all, but then I've not made a complete study of everything on those sites. I just know that previous links to articles on some of them haven't been problematic at all. And even when I specifically asked one person who complained a few days ago to point out what was anti-Semitic about Justin Raimondo's site or Juan Cole's (two he had specifically complaine d about), he either could not or simply would not point to anything specific. That wasn't any help, was it? NOR do I know whether those two sites are on the unofficial, so-far unpublished "disapproved" list or not.

No, this is far from an obvious problem that common sense alone can address satisfactorily.

[Minstrel Boy]

63. You make an excellent point, Eloriel.

We need specific examples why certain sites are prohibited. I think the simple and awful accusation of anti-semitism-by-association is such a powerful libel that we need specificity.

[hiley]

69. Eloriel

A list would be the right thing to do. I don't think there is a "However" and when I noticed the post it was answered.
the anti-semitic label is very upsetting and hurtful also being called a gay-basher. I have had this happen to me and it was a very painful accusation and frankly am not over it yet ! I can get over being called ct or conspiracy nut because i could careless about that even though it is rude but somethings just stick.

[frictionlessO]

74. Juan Cole???!!! Thats absolutely ludicrous! Juan is extremely careful to

delineate between the zionist objectives of the hard liners and the Jewish people, I know about half dozen liberal Jewish friends (and well me) who read Juan Cole quite regualarly because he without a doubt has pretty much one of the most cleanly critical objective views on ME affairs.

I dare say that particular DU'er is an aplogist for Sharon.

[Swamp Rat]

91. He seems OK to me too. n/t

:shrug:

[hiley]

95. Come on Juan Cole and the CBC ?

This is getting out of hand.
I think the bush administration does enough of this censuring and it is getting really old.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. It was ludicrous and totally unsubstantiated...

From the point Eloriel mentioned it disintegrated into a link to a post at a bigoted anti-Muslim blog being provided as *proof* that Cole is anti-Semitic, and then a claim that the blog wasn't bigoted. Try and work that one out...

Violet...

[frictionlessO]

114. See this is going to be a problem,

I am hopeful that Skinner wont stand for that kind of shite anymore than Tsunami weapons.

However it does do us good to know what certain DU'ers real agenda may be.. then again it may have been an honest mistake, was it?

[hiley]

67. all a matter of opinion really

personally, I can make my own judgements and censor myself.

It is very different from trying to guess someone else's idea of what is approved and what isn't !
I don't have to approve of everything someone writes or reports on to find an article worth checking out.
So I do not feel there is an "however"...
A list would definitely be what is called for, I feel.

[Lannes]

33. Classy move Skinner

Cheers.

[dzika]

34. Many thanks for addressing the issue. n/t

[rman]

35. Fair enough, but i think the requirement of "mainstream" is to much

or would say, Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org) count as a mainstream news source? How about zmag, Truthout, Common Dreams, From The Wilderness?

[helderheid]

37. agreed

and there WERE mainstream media sources sited on this issue, namely BBC and ITV.

[bloom]

43. If some sites can have stuff

that is so wacky that that they become "non-credible" - then I would submit that any source that acts like anyone from the American Enterprise Institute IS credible is NOT credible. Are they not the most ridiculous people out there? Supporting torture and all that. Disinforming about nearly everything. Any source that lets the Bush&Co. get away with it's crap without question is NOT credible.

Whether it is CNN, ABC, FOX, Cspan, the New York Times... take your pick.

I think that Democracy Now is more reliable than most news.

[Eloriel]

64. At the same time,

I've seen people complain about things posted here from WorldNetDaily, FoxNews, and the WashingtonTimes. There are occasions when these sites either have information just as credible as any other source, or have important spin or other information we need to know.

I'm personally very leery of outlawing ANY website, but apparently there are sites too dangerous for us to post access to. Thank God for Parental Controls, eh?

[bloom]

115. I do think that any source or website

including DU or any other sites that I like or don't like have things that I agree with, things that I don't, things that I find questionable.

To have blanket restrictions except for sites whose purpose it is to be racist - seems like a bad idea.

Mainly - I think people need to be more concerned about the slick media that
"seems" credible and is anything but.

[marions ghost]

51. Yes I choked on the word "mainstream" too

which seems to give greater weight and legitimacy to corporate mass media over any other. Personally I take ALL sources of any kind with a lot of skepticism these days. If there are going to be approved websites to reference on DU, it would be helpful to provide a listing--at least as examples. We need to know clearly where DU admins stand. At the same time, it seems reasonable for the admins to require that posters not present pure speculation as fact, and to check over websites before posting (otherwise their topics could get moved or deleted). Since the moderators always have the nuclear (delete) option, it would seem to me that they have the means to control the situation entirely.

Re. the London terrorist acts, I would not like to see complete censorship on topics about that, even ones currently labelled 'conspiracy theories.' As someone said elsewhere in this thread, there is a severe erosion of public confidence in this country and much speculation that "comes from distrust and contempt." This DOES quite literally reflect the current crisis in media and govt in this country, a crisis which may not even be understood or appreciated by our British friends, as their media is not so severely hog-tied.

Maybe the best way to handle this is--as you have done--is to allow discussion on certain hot-button topics in a designated forum, rather than general forums. That way it's less likely to offend the sensitive or be taken for prevailing opinion. We live in turbulent times where much of what we thought was legitimate has been proven false. These issues are cropping up everywhere in our culture and deserve expression. But of course we must go with whatever decisions are made about this at DU. I hope that reasonable compromise can be reached.

[omega minimo]

97. Information is Power

This post echoes comments by marions ghost and offers thanks to Skinner for being "the Man Behind The Curtain" and for stepping out on this occasion.

I have not been part of the broujaja and missed the threads because they had already been disappeared-- and saw the threads about the threads about the threads.

While the emphasis is on the distinctions b/w fact and speculation, gut feelings and cherry picking, there is another aspect that is important.

In the context of DU, Skinner is a benevolent leader, seeking moderation (pun intended) while avoiding an aluminium reflection on DU's reputation.

While in the larger context:

--DUers frequently refer to "Through the Looking Glass," "1984" and the surreality of these interesting times

--In recent weeks, DUers have frequently remarked on Bush's poll ratings, the DSM and hearings that refuse to go away, the recent WH acknowledgement of the "unwinnable" war on Iraq, polls showing increasing numbers of Americans don't support the war, the blossoming story that Rove outed Valerie Plame, Fourth of July approaching and "it was about time for something to happen...." Nervous laughter, sadness and cynicism-- and it DID happen. That was last week-- do we forget so easily that is was anticipated?

--Ideas that were radical a few years ago are now commonly and openly acknowledged by non-radical, salt o' the earth Americans.

marions ghost:
"As someone said elsewhere in this thread, there is a severe erosion of public confidence in this country and much speculation that "comes from distrust and contempt." This DOES quite literally reflect the current crisis in media and govt in this country, a crisis which may not even be understood or appreciated by our British friends, as their media is not so severely hog-tied."

"We live in turbulent times where much of what we thought was legitimate has been proven false. These issues are cropping up everywhere in our culture and deserve expression."


At work I am able to listen to AAR and speak DUish with staff-- although I do not rant or try to influence them. I learn more listening to them. The employer I consider my weather vane-- I ask if she is aware of certain stories (via the MSM) and listen to see if RW talking points come through her.... She is a semi-rural Democrat surrounded by Republicans, very concerned about the environment and not a radical.

We work with a young woman who came here from India to an arranged marriage several years ago. I learn a lot from her perspective. She is politically aware and calls * "Mr. Bush" out of respect because, after all, he IS the president.... also not a radical.

Last Thursday, as we discussed the bombings in London, I mentioned that (non-tin foil hat thinkers) had been predicting that a "spectacular distraction" was due right before this happened. Without skipping a beat, they both looked at me and said,

"I could see the government doing that."

:smoke:

While we pride ourselves on solid data and certified sources, let's not lose touch with the pulse of the American people, the gut feelings, the common wisdom and the deradicalized awareness most Americans have that their ship of state is being steered by scurvy pirates.

[Sterling]

131. Great post what I want to say...

But in a way I could have never said it. Thx.

[omega minimo]

139. George. The tribe has spoken.

It's time for Bushco to go.
:evilfrown:

YOU'RE FIRED.





(Much obliged Sterling. I thought no one wanted to say it :evilgrin:)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

36. Thank you x 1000, Skinner

We British DUers have found the wilder conspiracy theories of the London bombings to be difficult to deal with. Our attempts (and other DUers' attempts) to correct the (lack of) information in the conspiracy theories have been met with us being accused by some of being "fooled" by the conspiracy and in extreme cases to even to be equated with the right-wing.

It is a tremendous relief for me to have read your articulate post and I'm tremendously grateful you have stepped-in. Thank you, Skinner and thank you Moderators.

[anarchy1999]

38. Thank you Skinner for your thoughtful post.

a conspiracy only takes two. WHO KNOWS?

[whirlygigspin]

39. "that place where people believe space aliens cause tsunamis"

...and a warm welcome from the reality based community to you too.

It may be convenient and comforting to shrug off primary speculations about events as just so much "aliens cause tsunamis" rantings, but consider:

The current administration cares little about "reality";stating very honestly that they are only interested in "creating" their own reality, for profit.
(see the PNAC agenda)

And so Wars are fought on the basis of lies, "clear skies" belies more pollution; fake energy crisis are engineered; election results become questionable and even the rules of law no longer apply, as in the case of the Geneva conventions and the new "Gulag" at Guantanamo *see (Amnesty International)
--all for the benefit of a small faction who serve no public interest, indeed who do not believe in a public interest.

A key problem in governance recognized by James Madison and the other Founding Fathers of the US Constitution, on the rise of factions or special interests, which, "try to use the processes of government to further their own differential or partisan interests". These interests engage in seeking by transferring of rents from the public trust, or more simply put, are only interested in ripping you off.

All these things and not only erode public confidence in government but lead and contribute to people not believing anything in the main stream media. (how many of you believe anything they say anymore?)
Hence the wild speculation that comes from distrust and contempt.

America can bomb the hell out of Iraq for the next thousand years if it wishes, it won't make the least bit of difference. The terror comes not from Al Quaeda, but from the self imposed nightmare the Bush administration has chosen to live in by not facing reality, but rather by choosing to live in a neocon dream.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050620&c=1&s=bergen

[pauldp]

128. excellent point! Thank You! n/t

[mr blur]

40. I'd like to add a Brit thanks,

We've been trying to make sense of what happened last week and we've appreciated the support from DU. To be honest, it doesn't make it easier to read through some of the more ridiculous ideas I've seen here.

So thanks.

[Sterling]

132. So don't read them?

I just don't see why you should be able to dictate what we should discuss.. There are plenty of places where you can control input. Even here. Why can't people on a message board in the US give their opinions on world events, even if you think they are crazy.

The idea that what some posters think makes everyone look bad is silly. In fact we could save a lot of time if Skinner just makes DU invitation only and only lets in people with opinions he will not find offensive.

I found DU because after 9-11 as a NYer I had the feeling I was being lied to about what happened that day.

I typed "9-11 conspiracy theory" into google and that is how I found DU. SInce then I have donated money and been a long time member. I discuss lots of topics. I knew Jeff and Andy personally because we met to discuss our "conspiracy theories" and what to do about them.
It saddens me that after they are gone they are the greatest DUers ever to the whole site yet the site now wants to dictate policies that would prevent the kind of participation they enjoyed here and I dare say needed DU for.



Skinner please let me know if it is time to stop being a member because I am a thought criminal.

[mr blur]

146. I have no desire to dictate what you should discuss

and you are free to believe in and perpetuate whatever ridiculous garbage you wish. And no, I don't have to read it. But when my country has been attacked by terrorists (you remember what that's like, right?) I would naturally be interested in how people that I usually respect are reacting to the news. To find people brushing aside 50 deaths in order to join in with trying to find a reason to blame my government (because they hate their government and are powerless to do anything about it) is distressing and distasteful. But so what - you're not concerned with peoples' feelings, right?

No-one has been more critical of this war than the British so I'm also pretty fucking pissed off with having people reminding us that 50 dead Brits is nothing compared to the number of people dying in Iraq.

I think you completely missed the point of Skinner's OP. Too bad, you might have learned something.

Now you're suggesting some kind of Skinner Conspiracy directed at people who disagree with him? Get a grip.

[applegrove]

41. Excellent Skinner. I think people should own up to speculating when

they are doing so. I agree that we should not encourage theories not based in fact.

You've done well.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

42. Thanks for letting us keep the tinfoil hats Skinner!

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

and not purging us out....

[robertpaulsen]

44. I applaud your stand on this matter, Skinner.

Just for clarification, where do you stand on Greg Palast? He's an award winning BBC reporter, but I wouldn't describe him as mainstream.
Is he acceptable in the General Discussion forum?

[Skinner]

45. We approve of Greg Palast.

I would consider him a permissable source in GD.

[Frederik]

68. Wayne Madsen?

[helderheid]

79. is yahoo news acceptable?

[pinto]

46. kick

[NMDemDist2]

48. kick for the afternoon shift n/t

:kick:

[donco6]

49. Yes, thanks.

Very sensible approach, as usual.

[Jersey Devil]

50. No problem for me because I am wearing an AFDB

You might want to consider substituting Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanies for bumper stickers for new contributors!

Some ideas for them here: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

[Moderator]

53. kick

:kick:

[proud patriot]

55. Thanks Skinner

:hi:

[Domitan]

56. Good move

It's hard pleasing everyone, but I think you're doing the right thing.

[screembloodymurder]

58. Thanks for the clarification.

I would just like to say that I come to the DU for my news. I have lost faith in most of the MSM.

Many people have asked me how I can trust the web and not MSM. The answer is I don't trust the web. One of the great things about the DU is we can post stuff we find out there in space and let an entire community examine it, verify it, refute it, support it, prove it or disprove it. It's a place where wisdom usually prevails and everything is subject to the dissenting opinion.

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead
And the white knight is talking backwards
And the red queen's off with her head
Remember what the dormouse said
Feed your head
Feed your head

It's logic and proportion I seek.

[SmokingJacket]

61. This is fairer than I expected....

I'm a fan of tinfoil in terms of pure speculation -- I think it's valuable to consider **everything** as long as we don't mistake speculation for reality.

So thanks for allowing space for that here.

I can see the problems with becoming another Rense.com, where anything remotely truthful is drowned in a sea of bullshit. But I like to be able to read crazy theories and watch them fall, or not. I've learned a tremendous amount from this site. I would hate for it to become an echo chamber for accepted wisdom.

:hi:

[paulthompson]

62. Good start, but...

I understand DU faces conflicting pressures here and needs to find a balance. I appreciate this clarification statement as a good start. However, there are things that need to be addressed that I haven't seen addressed.

First off, I think there needs to be a policy or clarification of policy on the complete deletion of an entire thread instead of just locking it. What is the official DU policy on this now? The night before last I had a new thread about the CBC story deleted seven times on both the LBN and General forums. I kept trying to change and shorten it to figure out what I was doing wrong until finally I was doing nothing but posting one paragraph from the CBC story on the General forum, but even that new thread was deleted completely without explanation. Further, no one PMed me or emailed me to explain what was unacceptable, despite me repeatedly asking in posts and emails what I was doing wrong.

I think deleting a thread is a sort of "nuclear option" that should only be used in extreme circumstances. When a thread is locked an explanation for the locking is usually given, which is useful so the poster can live and learn. When a thread is deleted, there's no explanation. It's very Orwellian. I hope DU will state a policy that complete deletion of a thread should only happen as a last resort, for instance if someone makes a post laced with racial insults. I still can't understand why a thread based on a CBC story would be deleted, much less simply locked.

I've got to take off so I'll post more later.

[Eloriel]

66. I agree, Paul.

150%. I think it is BENEATH DU to delete threads.

There ARE threads that need to be deleted -- usually few and far between, thankfully, and IMO they would fall into these categories that I can think of (and welcome others' suggestions):

* ractially bigoted in the extreme (and misogynist, and homophobic -- and we're not talking garden variety bigotry here, which happens here all the time, sadly, but really hate-filled stuff)

* anything that could be construed as a threat to Bush or other government officials

* posts that could be construed as calling for the overthrow of the government

* posts threatening specific physical harm to any DUer or other person by name

* posts giving too much personal information on any DUer or other individual


That's all I can think of.

[paulthompson]

84. Yes

I agree. It looks like Eloriel has given some thought to this, and that at least is a good starting point to guidelines on when threads will be locked.

It would be nice if when one tries to post at the Latest Breaking News page, one is given the list of rules that are there, and then say your thread will be locked if you break these rules. Then, a SECOND list of rules similar to Eloriels, saying your thread will be completely deleted if you break these rules. Then there won't be the mystery of just seeing things vanish and inconsistencies from case to case or from moderator to moderator.

[Beam Me Up]

87. Thank you paulthompson and Eloriel.

I agree. I find it very disturbing when a thread gets completely deleted without any explanation. What ARE we to think in such instances? I appreciate the ideas you and Eloriel are putting forward.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. I thought that starting threads on LBN did give you a link to the rules

until you click an option in your profile saying "don't warn me again" - in which case you are acknowledging that you know the rules properly.

I think the rules in LBN are rightly stronger than elsewhere - 'news' should be sourced from an organisation that does it for a living, and therefore has to maintain their reputation.

When there have been several threads all trying to post the same thing, I can see why moderators just start deleting them from LBN - otherwise LBN just fills up with identical locked threads. Also, sometimes it does seem that people aren't paying any attention to the words 'late', 'breaking', or 'news' - just because one website puts up a new page, it doesn't make it news. It that case, however, moving it to GD or somewhere would be the appropriate thing.

In general, the things that Eloriel lists are basic rules of the whole forum - any indiviual post with that content would get deleted, and if the opening post contains it, or links to it, then I'd have thought it was obvious the whole thread would be deleted.

[paulthompson]

133. Yes, there are rules, but...

They are general rules and say nothing about when you might have your post deleted compared to when you might have it locked. It only says on this point:

"Be aware that we delete, lock, or move discussion threads from the Latest Breaking News Forum that do not fulfill these requirements. We will not send you a message explaining where your post went. Thank you for your understanding."

So a thread you started might be deleted, and unless you keep a close eye on it, you might not even notice that it had been disappeared.

[Swamp Rat]

90. me too n/t

[whirlygigspin]

96. Re: on banning "* posts calling for the overthrow of the government"

I most heartily dissagree

--see the Declaration of Independence

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

[mtnester]

108. I totally agree with you Eloriel

Total deletion of threads with no explanation or due process reeks of what is done on another site that we despise here. We are better than that.

And the mods ought to remember that SOMETIMES, just the tiniest bit of fire does not in reality indicate the EXTENT of the fire. A little bit of smoke coming from the inside wall of a house may not seem so bad, until it reaches that total combustion point where you realize the fire has crawled through the walls, smoldering slowly until it burst through everywhere and your house burns to the ground in about 21 minutes. I look to the Toledo Blade on this one as a prime example....they were considered to be "out there" with their weeks of investigation on Ohio's Coin-gate, and FINALLY, the fire broke through and it was a major deal. The Plame outing is another...more than a year of speculation and "theory" out there, and finally BAM.

I agree that there are some instances where a thread should be removed...gross racial/gender/sexuality slurs; threats of extreme violence to individuals, and other similar topics that all of our DU members clearly understand and recognize should be deleted, with an explanation to the OP of course, if the OP cares to hear one. Otherwise, locking a thread with the last post being an explanation of WHY it is being locked is better.

Sometimes, you have to look under the rock to find the key dammit. And sometimes, that rock is in a crazy place or looks weird.

[Henny Penny]

141. I agree! n/t

[NoSheep]

71. Thanks Skinner.

:loveya:

[Technowitch]

72. A little kick to the top of the page...

:kick:

[Zomby Woof]

73. Thank you

I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "It is good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out."

When people started SERIOUSLY putting the idea out there that Karl Rove masterminded the recent spate of earthquakes in California, my teeth itched and my brain quivered.

Outing Valerie Plame is one thing, but engineering earthquakes to secure approval ratings for Bush is WAAAAAAY different. Somewhere in that difference is the heart of your very welcome point. :thumbsup:

[Maddy McCall]

75. Well, he may not have engineered the earthquakes...

but he's using lasers to warm the oceans, and thus create and guide hurricanes to Florida so that Jeb Bush can play hero, thus garnering national attention which will propel him to the White House in 2008.

But you knew that already, didn't you? :hi:

[Zomby Woof]

77. May a school of frozen salmon...

Haunt your baked potato dreams. :evilgrin: :hi:

[Maddy McCall]

78. I'm headed out to fire up the grill right now.

You and I are NOT about to hi-jack Skinner's thread, are we???

:hi: :D

[Zomby Woof]

80. Make sure to wrap that salmon in tinfoil!

:tinfoilhat:

We? Hijack Skinner? Never! O8)

[etherealtruth]

76. Thank you n/t

[Nimble_Idea]

81. Conspiracy theory???

Dear god man, where have you been?! We all know the aliens did it.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :freak: :freak: :freak: :wow:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

89. It wasn't aliens

It was Mossad and George H W Bush!

:evilgrin:

[Endangered Specie]

82. It might be good to make a partial list...

list some of the most obvious and 'fringe' examples (prisonplanet, etc) and then go on to say "and other sites like this"... to allow both a rough guideline, as well as leeway to amend the list.


In any event, I think the best compromise is to rename "Sept 11" forum to include the 7/7 bombings.. (perhaps the name could be the "Conspiracy forum"). By having a forum where people are allowed to discuess the more 'colorful' conspiracy theories/speculation, but by having it in a 'smaller' forum, and not in the'mainline' GD/LBN/GDP/ED forums ; seems like a good compromise.

-ES

[stickdog]

102. Yes. Ghettoizing independent inquiry and any other form of thoughtcrime

is far more considerate than banning it and far easier than actually prevailing in a logical discussion against it.

[Endangered Specie]

127. Im not sure what that is supposed to mean?

:shrug:

[woosh]

140. BLACKLIST?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulthompson]

86. Another problem

In addition to the problem about deleting whole threads which I mentioned above, I see another problem that has been rankling me and many other DUers for some time now. That is, the extreme inconsistency in moving threads from places like the General forum to the 9/11 forum. There seems to be no telling if and when a thread will be moved. Many times, a thread will get a hundred or more posts before some moderator finally decides to move it.

Personally, with my Harper Collins book and my website, I source everything from "mainstream" news articles, and I try to avoid speculation. Yet, in recent months especially, more often than not, most of the time when I start a new thread in the General forum, it gets moved to the 9/11 forum. If DU's policy is that only threads based on a source from a "dubious" website gets moved, that's fine, but that has hardly been the practice until now. I've complained and so many other people have complained about DU's inconsistent practices regarding 9/11 topics for more than a year now, and that has led to periods of more thread moving and less thread moving, but that's not how it should be. There should be a clear policy that everyone understands, instead of a tug of war.

Second, it is my understanding that the 9/11 forum is just that - it is about topics relating to 9/11. It is NOT the "conspiracy theory" forum. If that's how DU moderators are treating it, they should either stop treating it that way or rename it. But what's happening now is silly. If you look at the 9/11 forum today, it's filled with moved threads relating to the recent London bombings. The London bombings are the London bombings and they are not the 9/11 attack. Such threads have no place in the 9/11 forum! By putting them there, you're making a making an implied statement that all discussions about 9/11 are "conspiracy theory," when that clearly is not the case, and you're stereotyping that forum. People who want to discuss any aspect or theory of 9/11 should feel free to do so in that forum.

If one wants to move threads based on articles from more speculative sources, such as Prison Planet or Rense or whatever, there should be a separate forum just for that. I think "conspiracy theory" is far too loaded a term to call a DU forum. People's definitions vary wildly. For instance, remember that in 2002 Tony Blair said that the idea of the Iraq war having anything to do with oil is a conspiracy theory, but how many people at DU today would agree with that? I think having a new forum using the words "speculative sources" in some way would better explain what it's all about, and give a home to a lot of threads that get locked now.

But moving such things to the 9/11 forum as has been happening is a bad idea and is not sustainable in the long run as strange things continue to happen, year after year. Before long, there won't be anything about 9/11 in the 9/11 forum!

Please allow 9/11-related topics which are properly sourced and which the thread-starter feels deserves a larger audience to survive in the General forum and other such forums. Please keep the 9/11 forum actually focused on 9/11-related topics. Please move non-9/11-related threads that you find too speculative into a special forum just for that, and don't fill the 9/11 forum with threads that clearly don't belong, such as these London bombing threads that have been moved there recently.

[fujiyama]

94. Good post

Some ideas certainly worth going over. I hope the admin gives it some thought.

[helderheid]

120. THANK YOU

This is EXACTLY how I feel.
:applause:

[JackRiddler]

123. Thank you Paul

I've addressed exactly these concerns repeatedly in threads. They get locked and I am directed to ask the administrators.

So I wrote several times to Skinner & Co., without ever getting a response to questions with the following gist:

What is the criterion by which 9/11 threads are banished from GD to the all-purpose conspiracy dungeon?

(Note: I phrased it more diplomatically than that.)

This place has been incredibly important as a clearinghouse for research and debate. The process has involved thousands of the members and resulted in many breakthroughs thanks in large part to the cumulative effort. That applies most of all to the areas of 9/11 and vote fraud. I wonder if the 2004 irregularities would have ever uncovered as well had there not been a DU.

To a large percentage of the people here, these are the most important issues of our time, because 9/11 and the election results are used to define the reality in which every other issue plays out.

Democratic Underground should be proud of these achievements and recognize the importance of building on them. There was a time when even to suggest criminal negligence around 9/11 was considered "conspiracy theory," though at this point you won't find anyone here who disagrees, and it's largely thanks to the research finds that were generated here.

DU does not just have an obligation to "look credible" so that it can be influential. In a real sense, having changed history just a little bit, it has an obligation to continue living up to that standard.

Please let us be tolerant or at least find ways to co-exist. Those who don't like the research into these themes (and the requisite speculation) could very easily concentrate on other issues, other threads, and avoid attacking researchers ad hominem as "conspiracy theorists" (or "CTs"), and stop complaining that the mere presence of speculation "discredits" the site.

There is no defense against right-wing cherry-picking of ridiculous-sounding claims (there are 70,000 people here!), so let's not even pretend.

I wish policy would err more on the side of tolerance and let the members (and contributors) decide what issues are worthy by how they post, kick and recommend threads.

The defense against Freepers and direct disruptors has been great, and I know it takes a lot of work and I appreciate that and all the other effort put in here.

But ultimately you should trust that the membership is now numerous and strong and in a very real sense sovereign.

I honestly can't afford a "star" at the moment, but all those who have one: they are keeping this site going. This great collaboration belongs to them as much as to any other part of the effort.

[paulthompson]

130. I agree

I hope DU will err on the side of caution for free speech. The idea of the US or Britain staging a false flag operation is so far removed from space aliens causing the tsunami that it isn't even funny. The problem is, people don't know history. For instance, people should know about Operation Gladio, the decades long effort for the US to manipulate European politics with far-right paramilitary groups. There were numerous false-flag operations, which went on up to 1990, and this all came out of the front pages of the Washington Post and New York Times in the early 1990's. For instance, the Italian government officially concluded that elements of US intelligence were involved in a bombing in Bologna, Italy, in 1980 that killed about 80 people, and was blamed on the Communists at the time. Some people very much involved in Gladio, like Richard Perle and Michael Ledeen (the guy who said "In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to 'enter into evil'") are very inflential with the Bush Administration today. So there have been many precedents and this is very recent history. In fact, just a few days ago, the BBC ran a story about the Italian government investigating a curious "alternate" police force in Italy today that has at least some ex-Gladio people in it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4640247.stm

Whereas, there's no evidence of space aliens causing tsunamis that I know of. ;)

Since World War II, there have been literally dozens of false flag operations by Western goverments that were blamed on their enemies. If DU had existed a couple of decades ago, would all evidence of such attacks that later turned out to be unquestioned facts have been deleted or consigned to some obscure forum so most readers wouldn't have to put up with that kind of "wackiness"? Let's not forget the lessons of recent history.

[JackRiddler]

137. But let's be more optimistic

What if places like DU, where researchers can pool their resources, had existed in 1980? What if people had access to the power of today's Internet, with links to all of the world's media and databases?

One possibility, as you say Paul, is that DU mods might have censored people who suspected the CIA was linked to events like the 1980 Bologna bombing (which killed 80 people and was thus the worst modern-day peacetime terrorist attack in Europe until last week).

And as happened in real life, it would have taken 10 more years beore the confirmation that the CIA-created Gladio paramilitaries were indeed responsbile for that and many other atrocities.

But let's be more optimistic.

If there had been a DU in 1980, and the moderators were sufficiently tolerant, it's equally possible members like yourself, stickdog, Octafish and others might have been able to uncover the revealing links, dig up stories in Italian and German and make them known to a large English-speaking audience, and establish what really happened within weeks, instead of decades.

I believe this is in fact what DU has done on the electronic voting and 2004 election issues. Without DU, there might not have been a Conyers report. Things would be even darker today.

DU has been an important presence in the similar cooperative research of 9/11.

DU has also had a major impact in a variety of PR and media campaigns to promote otherwise suppressed stories, like Plame and Gannon.

There is a great power in places like DU, one that image-conscious monitors should approach with respect.

That is why I speak of DU's historic role and continued responsibility to err on the side of tolerance. It becomes far likelier that we can collectively uncover important facts and connections that would otherwise remain obscure.

When all seems darkest, you should all realize how mutable conditions are, and how the snowflake that starts the avalanche can come from the least significant-seeming places.

If tolerance means a larger number of threads that are annoying or bizarre to many of the members, still I hope they will be happy simply to ignore what annoys them, and roam among the hundreds of other threads of interest to them.

If tolerance means Rush Limbaugh or John Gibson have an easier time finding ammo, so what? They may discover they are aiming the bullets at themselves.

There is room enough here for this site's varied missions, without entering into unncessary conflict and without diminishing the potentials.

And that is ultimately to the credit of the administrators who have worked hard to create such a powerful and flexible space. May they be wise in preserving it!

[pinto]

88. kick

[rasputin1952]

92. Good Msg Skinner...

:hi:...:D

I always despise the speculation, I need facts...:)

Sometimes though....specualtion is based on truth...:hide:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

99. Karl Rove is a living, breathing conspiracy theory.

Just saying. ;-)

[lonestarnot]

100. and thanks for yours!

[pauldp]

101. Thank you Skinner, great post. But I must say, people who ask questions

about disturbing facts or bizarre coincidences in these times are often told they are conspiracy theorists even if they have not presented ANY theories, just merely asked legitimate questions. I think we must keep in mind that one of the main tactics of the Republicans during the debate when Boxer objected to the Ohio electors was to scream "Wild Conspiracy Theorists!" even though the Democrats only brought up things like the voter supression and the long lines and didn't even touch the electronic voting machine issue. Folks on the right scream "Conspiracy Theorist!" about as much as they do "Liberal!" these days, and we should be sure to NEVER let name calling keep us from asking questions that need to be asked.

[stickdog]

103. On the same topic: If we decide upfront that our dear Western leaders are

simply incapable of violently harming their own fellow citizens and we require any such contentions to be fully accepted by the vast consensus of mainstream historians before we even consider their potentiality -- who benefits? :tinfoilhat:




;-)

[Sterling]

135. That is what this adds up to unfortunately.

It is obvious that this place is being altered to fit some agenda that is different than the one in place when I found the site.

It is a shame because I have learned a lot from the people who post here. It is shame that others in the future will have less and less of that opportunity with the direction things are now heading in.

[ROH]

107. Very good point! (n/t)

[Minstrel Boy]

125. excellent point!

All I can do is repeat it:

I think we must keep in mind that one of the main tactics of the Republicans during the debate when Boxer objected to the Ohio electors was to scream "Wild Conspiracy Theorists!" even though the Democrats only brought up things like the voter supression and the long lines and didn't even touch the electronic voting machine issue. Folks on the right scream "Conspiracy Theorist!" about as much as they do "Liberal!" these days

[gandalf]

105. Seems to be very demanding to be consistent here

"Highly speculative conspiracy websites" should not be linked to. OK. For instance, one year ago, there was an intense discussion about the Plame indictments, with many very speculative posts and links to highly speculative websites (like onlinejournal). None of these threads was deleted, even though the quality of the sources and the quality and rigour of the arguments was, on average, not (much) above the threads in question here.

So, the question remains, what is a speculative conspiracy website? If this rule is not enforced consistently, this policy can amount to thought police. Everybody here wanted Rove indicted, so speculation about this in the Plame threads is ok, but speculation about government complicity in the bombings is not ok. That is inconsistent.

And, as a side effect: A strict limitation to "reputable sources" automatically limits the discussion severely, because exposure of government crime -- even though these crimes exist -- will hurt the careers of journalists (see the book "Into the Buzzsaw" by C. Borjesson), so there are only very few reputable sites discussing government crimes like Gladio. But that does not mean that Gladio did not exist, or was not supported by governments.

[symbolman]

106. This reminds me of some of the emails I've gotten

Like, "You know of course the Nazis had Flying Saucer in the 1940's.."

So I wrote back, "Hey pal, if the Nazis had flying saucers back in the 40's, we'd all be flying BUICKS right now.."

I hope I don't get banned, or my site just because I came up with "Bush is not a Nazi, so Stop Saying that.." Drudge slammed me for that during our being chosen as one of the Bush in 30 seconds videos at MoveOn.org, but the best part was he had ME mixed up with some people that had actually submitted Bush/Nazi videos to the MoveOn contest.. it wasn't me, I'd made my about two years before that.. I submitted ARMY OF ONE..

[zoids]

109. I'm new posting here

but I agree with your post. I know from working on my RW brother-in-law that the more I appeared centrist the more I could talk with him – the more I could talk with him the more I could plant seeds of doubt. I used to work with victims of cults and I learned a lot from cults on how to deal with people - they are pros! Many people, when hit with a truth that counters their “truth” immediately shut you out. But, given gradual doses of reality they can be turned around. Am I saying that conservatism is like a cult? You bet!

[Sterling]

134. Yes that is a great idea , lets make this place some where

that NEO cons can feel comfortable. They will never spend time on a place with people who think they are bad.

[zoids]

142. Hey, thanks for the warm welcome

Sarcasm noted. Did you bother to read what I wrote or were you too busy judging what you thought I was saying? Did I say welcome them with open arms?

[Sterling]

144. I don't really see the need to coddle them at all at this point.

It is unfortunate that you do. Maybe after a little while longer on this board you will realize why what you are suggesting is insane.

[King Coal]

111. Skinner, that was great. It is so good to get words from the horse's mouth

It was troubling, though. One thing that should be brought up is the fact that one of the people involved in enforcing the guidelines was very rude, and in fact, was being a condescending smart-ass. I know that it is against the rules to criticize a moderator, and that presents a very troubling catch-22. When a moderator takes part in the discussion, and posts that merely disagree and do not violate any rules get deleted for doing so, the level of tension is raised. It created a lot of stress during a troubling time. This is a big tent, and we will have disagreements, and so, civility must be a two-way street. I appreciate that you have said that deleting posts and threads are usually made by the decision of a group, because it shows me that you recognize that heavy-handed power can create discontent and dissent at a time when unity is so important. Again, thanks Skinner.

[southlandshari]

113. Kick

for the morning crowd.

:hi:

[dogday]

116. My 2 cents

Since when did it become so politically incorrect to ask questions? Right off the bat with the London bombings, Blair himself was throwing out conspiracy theories of Extreme Fundamentalist being responsible, before he had any evidence.

The point is we don't trust our government and we don't trust what is happening in London because of Blair's affiliation with Bush and the Iraqi war. If anyone thinks that we are getting the true picture, they are nuts, we are not.

Wasn't there an article over the weekend about Iraq and Iran signing a security treaty where Iran was going to help Iraq with their army? I have not seen that in the MSM anywhere. Question is: Is this true? Do they want us to know this? What makes this speculation? Because MSM chooses to share or not makes it the truth or not?

Let us remember it took weeks of email to get the DSM in the MSM, so if they don't want us to know they don't print and this is the media we so lovingly rely on? I am not sure this is the right move knowing what we know...

[DemExpat]

118. kick

n/t

[JackieO]

121. Corporate sponsored speculation is OK

Independent speculation is not.

That policy wouldn't bother me so much if it was limited to the LBN section where a desire to be seen as sourcing only "established" and "respectable" outlets is understandable, if questionable. To limit areas labelled General Discussion to mainstream (ie corporate) sourced topics is, frankly, deplorable.

I hope you continue to think about what it means to censor discussion in the current time and political climate and continue to clarify your policy.

Eloriel and paulthompson raised issues and made suggestions that deserve your time, consideration and response.

Good luck, and thanks for starting an open discussion about this.

[gandalf]

126. Agree

Speculation about things nearly everybody here wishes to come true is also ok (eg, Plame indictments), even though the reasoning is not more rigorous than the London bombing speculations.

The policy as it is enforced now seems completely arbitrary at best, or amounts to censorship if only more dangerous topics are called speculation. Hey, this is not a scientific forum. Most of the posts here are opinions or speculations, many of them not very well explained. But that is ok. That is the precondition for an open discussion.

If one has to think twice before posting on "dangerous topics", open discussion will vanish here, together with lots of resourceful, intelligent, well-educated and idealistic people.

How often, do you think, will Paul Thompson see his posts, based on a mainstream media source, simply deleted, before he leaves DU forever?

[Colorado Blue]

122. Hallelujah! Thank you. Especially in light of the fact that

the London bombers have apparently been identified as home-grown individuals of Pakistani descent, the conspiracy theories involving SPACE ALIENS (ahem) are particularly ridiculous.

I am grateful for this post, Skinner. The bigoted conspiracy theories and the sites many posters link to have no place on a progressive discussion board. Not only are they offensive on their face but they are preventing intelligent discussion of the very serious issues confronting us.

We can NEVER arrive at any solutions to our problems if we're constantly battling bigotry, demonization of particular groups of people, and Byzantine attempts to afix blame for practically every event that occurs on this planet on a certain group of people or their national home.

We will always have to battle against bigotry and outdated, medieval stereotyping - but we shouldn't have to do it on a website that stands for liberal, progressive thinking. We have plenty of opportunity to battle these evils on the Neanderthal fringes of the far Right.

I want to try and solve problems, and discuss the issues confronting this world, in an unbiased and REALITY BASED forum. I do not want to be forced to spend my time debunking bigotry, lies, reading endless insults and speculations about my relatives and wading through the most disgusting hate sites.

Truly, this stuff is absolutely ruining DU for me, as a lifelong Democrat, an American who believes in American virtues and ideals, a true believer in a liberal society - and as a member of a minority community - so I'm grateful for this post and hope that people will take it to heart.

Otherwise I'm afraid the Left will be splintered. Thinking people WILL desert any political party, group or philosophy that indulges in such meanspirited and misleading speculation.

[Sterling]

136. What are you talking about?

What threads were racist about the London bombings?

[The Magistrate]

124. For Any Who May Have Missed This

[redqueen]

129. Thanks, I did. n/t

[baby_mouse]

138. You job is more difficult than some of us imagine, sir, respect to you.

:yourock:

[paulthompson]

143. Kick for the mods

I hope the moderators will reply to some of the points myself and others have made here.

[JackieO]

145. kick

:hi: