|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 19, 2010 8:00:49 GMT -4
Thanks for all the comments. It's quite apparent how when Fetzer gets backed into a corner, he attacks with bluster and insult. Like White, he just immediately casts slurs and dispersions upon anyone who dares to disagree with them. Have people watched how the White behaves of the Deep Politics (I use another word) Forum? It's quite alright for White to insult people like Matt but heaven forbid anyone ask White to support his claims with such an outrageous demand like, you know, evidence? To do so is obviously a banning offense. Your time there is limited, Matthew! www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=a54462d307631087999d6c23ef922d22&t=3934
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 19, 2010 9:27:01 GMT -4
But wasn't it Jack who in multiple instances outright refused to discuss his own material? Pot, meet kettle. And this happens on a Forum which claims to be for "teachers and educators" and people still take those Jack and Jim serious, and see nothing wrong with their method of "debate".
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 19, 2010 12:29:02 GMT -4
Oh, I don't know. I could point to a few real life journos that make Elliot Gould's character look like a potential Pulitzer prize winner. I bet they at least know the "letter with a friend" trick.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Aug 19, 2010 19:36:18 GMT -4
Thanks for all the comments. It's quite apparent how when Fetzer gets backed into a corner, he attacks with bluster and insult. Like White, he just immediately casts slurs and dispersions upon anyone who dares to disagree with them. Have people watched how the White behaves of the Deep Politics (I use another word) Forum? It's quite alright for White to insult people like Matt but heaven forbid anyone ask White to support his claims with such an outrageous demand like, you know, evidence? To do so is obviously a banning offense. Your time there is limited, Matthew! www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=a54462d307631087999d6c23ef922d22&t=3934At least I have some support. All I've done is try to have a civil conversation and it looks like it hasn't gone unnoticed. I was apalled when they actually said they were protecting White though. Is he fragile? For as busy as he claims to be he certainly has enough time to sling some mud around. It seems at least half of his posts are designed to attack the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 20, 2010 1:35:08 GMT -4
Gary, the moderator, proposes going back to the original format (unsure if he realised this). jack & Jim are unwilling to compromise. My reply:
Gary,
That is a return to the original format Jack wanted and I rejected because it is pointless; it is not a debate. Let me foretell what will happen if I were to agree to that format:
Jack: Study #1.
Jim: Good work, Jack - I agree.
Me: But what about this, the fact that your second point is impossible, or that you have confused A with B?
Jack: Study #2.
Me: This is misidentified as shown here, and here is a reference to show why claim 2 is totally inaccurate.
Jim: Evan is wrong; Jack is right.
Jack: Study #3.
etc
etc
What's the point? Where is the debate? I am quite happy with civility - indeed it should be demanded - but what of presenting evidence, having that evidence questioned and scrutinised, Jim questioning me on my evidence, me questioning him on his?
This should be a debate where all the interested parties (and there are quite a few - have a look at the number of page views) can see all the evidence, listen to the debate, see the questions asked, etc. In order for them to decide who is right, they need to be able to see the robustness of each side's assertions and how they stand up to close examination.
I have great confidence in my assertions, am sure of their validity, and invite others to test me on them, to vigorously probe the evidence and see if it can withstand the harsh light of examination.
Shouldn't my debate opponent be willing to do the same? Wouldn't they WANT to show how strong their claims are?
THAT is what a debate is all about. What Jack proposes is a sideshow.
Let me give another example: both Jack and Jim believe that the events of 9-11 were not as been generally published, that there is involvement by persons or forces not yet acknowledged (generally believed to be either a government or some type of influential, powerful cabal). Let's say they wanted me to debate 9-11. What sort of debate would be the following?
Me: The events of 9-11 were carried out by Islamic terrorists.
Jack: Dr Jones shows evidence of thermite being used at the WTC.
Me: The 9-11 Commission Report says you're wrong.
Jim: Where? What evidence does it show to explain the trace elements?
Me: The 9-11 Commission Report says you're wrong.
And lastly, if Jim feels that I cannot be trusted then I offer the following:
For the duration of the debate I be placed into the ordinary members group, having no moderator powers, and be placed on post moderation. That way my posts must be reviewed by Gary BEFORE they are posted. It is impossible for me to break the agreement of civility, impossible for me to edit, move, delete, etc.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 20, 2010 2:22:02 GMT -4
I really like your suggesting of being put in the ordinary members group, but I haven't seen you propose an alternative to Gary's suggestion for how to do the debate.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 20, 2010 3:06:43 GMT -4
I thought I had - a debate! Lets test all the theories, examine them.
BTW Matt - goo on ya. You have been civil but dogged. If Jack makes a claim, let him support that claim with evidence. If he supports a claim with evidence, he should be able to show why that evidence is valid.
Jack will do neither, though. He'll just complain and want his acolytes to defend him regardless, as always.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Aug 20, 2010 3:36:25 GMT -4
and when the claim gets torn to pieces it still not "been refuted" because the debate wasn't with him.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 4:19:34 GMT -4
I think the real loser in this issue is the Education Forum.
Here is a chance to have an educational debate, properly conducted, on a subject that would be of interest to a number of parties and may increase the credibility of the Education Forum itself.
On the other hand if the EF is just seen as a vehicle for folks to just post their drivel and refuse to accept challenge to it, then it doesn't deserve its title.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 20, 2010 6:25:28 GMT -4
I wouldn't dis the EF itself. John Simkin is extremely fair, not wanting to silence anyone. It may not fit in with our standards of decorum, but he provides a forum for anyone who cares to speak... within the rules (stand fast Jack White).
I don't agree with John's stance, nor his views, but I will stand up and defend his conduct at all times. he believes that everyone should be able to express their views as along as they conform to a basic sense of decency. He has never been anything but fair, and I'll stand by him for that. What's the quote?
"I disagree with your views but I will fight to the death for your right to express them".
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 6:49:41 GMT -4
I wouldn't dis the EF itself. John Simkin is extremely fair, not wanting to silence anyone. It may not fit in with our standards of decorum, but he provides a forum for anyone who cares to speak... within the rules (stand fast Jack White). I don't agree with John's stance, nor his views, but I will stand up and defend his conduct at all times. he believes that everyone should be able to express their views as along as they conform to a basic sense of decency. He has never been anything but fair, and I'll stand by him for that. What's the quote? "I disagree with your views but I will fight to the death for your right to express them". I agree. btw I think it was Voltaire but I'm probably wrong. My point was that this would have been a good "showcase" for the EF and it would attract others and lurkers into the EF where they could potentially learn about other stuff. I think they are missing an opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by dickshane on Aug 20, 2010 8:06:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 20, 2010 19:41:30 GMT -4
I think the real loser in this issue is the Education Forum. I hope and pray that this individual is neither a teacher nor professor! The Jarrahs and Bart Sibrels of the world strike me as arrogant jerks. I mean no exaggeration when I say this guy strikes me as someone that is mentally ill (IMHO).
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 20, 2010 19:55:16 GMT -4
If being an arrogant jerk were all it took to be mentally ill, a lot more people would count as mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Aug 20, 2010 20:13:10 GMT -4
What's the quote? "I disagree with your views but I will fight to the death for your right to express them". I agree. btw I think it was Voltaire but I'm probably wrong. Commonly attributed to Voltaire, it appears to be Evelyn Beatrice Hall's summary of his attitude : Bill Chapman's Classroom Tools, items 7 & 8.
|
|