You guys have to define the purpose. I think a group that discussed all things that could be labeled Alternative News/Information or Conspiracy (I know that label is not liked by some). Just think longterm, and keep the name pretty clear and generic to avoid confusion.
So it goes
Well, if 911 pans out the way the JFK assassination has, "What led to 911?" would have plenty of longevity. :)
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
MY purpose, as I have stated and as the prospective members have agreed, is a free ranging discussion of the 9/11 unofficial stories. The stuff that has been suppressed in media, but still saw the light of day at one time or another. In addition, the interactions leading to that tragedy and the aftermath, leading the world into warfare, tyranny and hate. 9/11 Official Story believers need not apply.
I am setting a deadline for naming the group: June 20, 2005. My choice at present:
9/11 and Tyranny
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
How about 9/11 Speculations.
人の振り見て我が振りなおせ。十人十色。
:( :) :confused:
:rolleyes: :eek: ~ Debate Party
I'd like to join this new group! sounds like fun
When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered
Martin Luther King Jr.
Far from speculations. I'm in. We should call it "9/11 Truths Vs. 9/11 Lies".How about 9/11 Speculations.
That is the best suggestion so far.Quote by: Lou Minotti
Fixed ideas are like a cramp in the foot - the best remedy against it is to tread on it.
-Søren Kierkegaard
So you guys have decided to not have this forum as a general conspiracy/alter-news group but rather a 9/11 theory-focused forum? The latter would be more useful to the forum as a whole, but it is all fine by me. Let me know when you guys hammer this out.
Oh and guys, while I am flexible on names and I want to encourage you to come up with idea, I am not going to accept something like "911 and Tyranny" or something that seems to imply a bias on the site-especially since I feature each group on the site. Simply state the purpose. If it is for conspiracy then call it what it is. If it is for Alter-9/11 discussion then call something clear and impartial like that please.
My suggestions: (The first 3 sound/look good in my opinion)
Alter-News
Alter-Debate
Alter-Perspective Alternative Perspective
Alternative News
Conspiracy Group
So it goes
Sean, your bias against the truth on 9/11 is showing again. Why is "9/11 and Tyranny" any worse that "the religious people?" or "the Libertarians." It just says what the group wants to talk about, not a reflection on your site.
And all that generic title stuff you're pushing this way won't fly at all...
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams
My bias "against the truth on 9/11"....my bias? You are the one calling it truth. You are entitled to that opinion, but certainly the group is to debate the issue-not just talk about how you all agree right?
The other names are clear. They say exactly who is talking about the issues. The issues in this group forum would be alternatives to what is already out there, so I do not see how it "won't fly". Also, another user had a perfect example of a clear group-name “9/11 Speculation”.
Connecting a subject with an opinion (tyranny) is like calling a secular group the "Religious and hypocrisy" group to imply that there may be problems with religion.
Oh and why not consider calling yourselves the 9/11 disbelievers like the title says? That is fairly clear heh.
So it goes
Well. I already mentioned 9/11 Committee "A special group delegated to consider some matter"=Dictionary definition. No remark so I said 9/11 speculations.
人の振り見て我が振りなおせ。十人十色。
This is an important point. If there's no divergence of view between the members, it isn't going to be a very interesting debate -- more a lecture or an intonation of the solemn whatsits.
Also, personally I see no reason why believers of the official line shouldn't join in, provided they conduct themselves with utmost circumspection and absolutely stick to an argument based on verifiable fact. They would have to be open-minded -- one jeer and they're out.
This would require active enforcement.
Because that has been the problem with previous 911 debates: they immediately descend into emotional slanging. By restricting the membership of this group to people who don't -- however skeptical they may be -- consider as open-and-shut ludicrous the notion that 911 was brought about by powerful circles in the US to advance their own political agendas, and by cracking down immediately on any trolling, we can have a wide-ranging and fruitful debate.
"I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything."
-- Viscount Melbourne
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks