Monday, July 24, 2006

Change In Terminology

After thinking about it for a bit, I have decided to change some of the terms I use here. From now on, the Loosers and other CTers are not going to be referred to as "Truthers"; they will be called 9-11 Deniers. And those who deny Osama was behind 9-11 (or claim that a number of the hijackers are still alive) will be referred to as Osama Apologists.

27 Comments:

At 24 July, 2006 09:10, Blogger BG said...

Rather than change terminology, why can't we just look at the evidence and agree?

Kevin Barrett Video: One View of The Evidence

 
At 24 July, 2006 10:21, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

How about calling those who deny 9/11 was caused by Muslim terrorists as "fruitcakes"? How about "psychopathic lonney-tunes."

Now, I don't want to cast aspersions on any of these whackjobs, but all of them severely need help. Lots of it.

 
At 24 July, 2006 10:34, Blogger debunking911 said...

Good move, they like to use "OCT" and "Official Story". Two can play that game. I'm going to do the same.

 
At 24 July, 2006 10:35, Blogger Killtown said...

1) Pat, question waiting for you on my Flt 93 photo link.

2) "9-11 deniers" is incorrect. We don't deny 9/11 happened, just not the way they powers-at-be told us how it happened and who was behind it.

3) "Osama apologist" is incorrect too. To be an "apologist" (such as a 'Bush apologist') suggests that you support that person. I don't know of any CT who supports friends and business partners of the Bush family.

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:43, Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

I just call folks like killer-clown-shoes conspiradroids...

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:51, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Don't hit me with the rubber hammer for being the "middle of the road" guy here, but I think we should keep ourselves above the childlike behaviors that aggrevate us so much about the CTers.

I actually like being called a skeptic, in the sense that I am someone who demands evidence to prove to me a side of an arguement. Overall, I would just refer to all of them as CTers, and us as Debunkers or skeptics, but that is just my opinion.

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:52, Blogger debunking911 said...

2) you're denying the facts. It has nothing to do with what the powers that be told you.

3) You remove Osama's roll in the attack when you say the plane didn't hit the building. So yes, "Osama co-conspirator" may be a better label for you.

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:54, Blogger debunking911 said...

Debunking is what you do when someone produces obvious BUNK. you debunk it. That's why "Popular Mechanics" used the term. It fits.

I proudly wear the label.

 
At 24 July, 2006 11:59, Blogger Killtown said...

Conspiracy Smasher and debunking911, you guys should be setting an example for the rest of the OCT flock by showing maturity and professionalism when debating.

However, you show the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

You are the Phil Jayhan's of the OCT movement.

Grow up.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:02, Blogger Manny said...

I have to post at least a half-hearted objection to the term "apologist" used in this context. In internet-speak in recent years it has come to mean something like "one who explains away the bad acts of..." But its origins in philosophy and theology has it meaning a (usually verbal, but that's neither here nor there) defense against false or spurious arguments. At the least, an apologia is a defense of something which is reasonably in dispute. Osama's actions, of course, are not.

I rue the recent debasement of the word "apologist" and would humbly ask that you not contribute to that debasement by using it attached to Osama. I'd suggest going with "Osama advocates," "co-conspirators," "defenders" or similar.

Thanks for your consideration.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:07, Blogger debunking911 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:10, Blogger debunking911 said...

Killtown, this coming from someone who calls us "OCT's". I suggest you stop whinning. You get what you give.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:19, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

I always liked "Al-Queada sympathizers" or just plain "enemy propaganda agents".

We are at war, these people are knowingly aiding the enemy and they just don't care.

Why not use simple and accurate terminology?

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:24, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

My point is that by name calling or labeling in a mean or malicious way, you simply inflame the situation, which may give a little satisfaction, if you are, on that occasion, annoyed with the person you are debating with, but in the long run it is actually counter productive to your purpose, which I assume is to show the world the "weakness" of their arguments.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:26, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like, hey man, I'm Osama bin Ladin's alibi!

He said he didn't do it, and he never lied to me before.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:44, Blogger debunking911 said...

The signs of repect have worked to their favor for too long. They can go around calling the NIST and Bazant government lackies but we can't label them?

To be honest if someone thinks the information on my site is wrong because of the way I debate then they are a hair away from a 9/11 deniers anyway.

 
At 24 July, 2006 12:56, Blogger MarkyX said...

"9-11 deniers" is incorrect. We don't deny 9/11 happened, just not the way they powers-at-be told us how it happened and who was behind it."

That's what holocaust deniers say also.

 
At 24 July, 2006 13:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I wasn't referring to any individual, but certainly db9/11 you have to admit that if you were watching a debate and one side made logical mature arguments, in a mature way, and the other side name called, and whined, you would likely favor the former.

If the goal of this site, and the posting here, is merely to inflame the CTers, and to serve as a place for those who are annoyed by them to let off steam, then hey great, go for it, name call away. But, don't expect the site or its comments to be taken seriously by the people you are hoping to protect from their outlandish claims, namely joe public. It works for D.A> and the crowd, because they are appealing to a naive, young, rebellious crowd. The majority of voting, law abiding, invested americans, do not fall into that catagory. So argue to convince them is my main point.

Or don't, I was merely putting in my pov.

 
At 24 July, 2006 14:00, Blogger Pat said...

Killtown, where am I supposed to see this question? I went to the post that I linked last week--is it elsewhere?

 
At 24 July, 2006 15:50, Blogger debunking911 said...

The Artistic Macrophage, Sorry, my critical thinking skills take over. I say again, if I see someone acting like an idiot yet he shows me evidence the perimeter columns pulled in over time, it doesn't matter to me in the least that how they say it. A fact is a fact. In a debate you have to know how to separate the two.

As I said, if someone thinks I "Lost the debate" because I said it in a way that they don't like then I would have "Lost the debate" for some other silly reason.

To illustrate, I could complain and say you're whinny for complaining. Does that mean I should dismiss everything you say? I wouldn't.

 
At 24 July, 2006 16:28, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

True, and I would say that my point didn't, and wasn't meant to address that argument.

And yes, you could say I was Whinny for complaining, but my manner of complaining wouldn't indicate whining, as the tone was quite matter of fact, without attitude or annoyance.

"Comon Db9/11, stop acting like a junvenile, comon man, jeez"...now that would be whining. :)

 
At 24 July, 2006 17:17, Blogger shawn said...

2) "9-11 deniers" is incorrect. We don't deny 9/11 happened, just not the way they powers-at-be told us how it happened and who was behind it.

9/11 was a terrorist attack caused by 19 Arab men hijacking four planes. You deny this. Ergo, you are denying 9/11.

3) "Osama apologist" is incorrect too. To be an "apologist" (such as a 'Bush apologist') suggests that you support that person. I don't know of any CT who supports friends and business partners of the Bush family.

You're apologizing for Osama, ergo an OSama apologist. Just like a Holocaust denier is both a denier and a Nazi and Hitler apologist.

 
At 24 July, 2006 18:28, Blogger shawn said...

To throw in my two cents, I don't care if I come off as immature. If I'm factually and logically correct, it shouldn't matter how mature or immature I act (and I'm the first to admit I'm a huge dick).

 
At 24 July, 2006 18:49, Blogger default.xbe said...

If I'm factually and logically correct, it shouldn't matter how mature or immature I act

true, but that only applies to people who dont judge books by their cover, and most people do

 
At 25 July, 2006 08:08, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I guess, in the purest sense, the maturity level should not matter, if the argument is pure and correct.

But we are in the real world here (us Debunkers anyway), so how you present and/or approach the topic does matter in the minds of public opinion.

Like I said, if the main reason you argue over 9/11 is simply goes these guys tick you off and you wanna pick a fight with them, than by all means, dig in, scratch, claw, name call, whatever...

If, however, like me, you are trying to argue the points so that the public at large has a sane side to listen to wrt 9/11, so that someone is there to seperate the wheat from the chaff wrt evidence, then you might want to sound reasonable and mature in your arguements. The less "quibbling and squabbling" that eminates from this group, the more SERIOUS attention it will be paid by the majority of americans, who are, for the most part, sane, mature, rational adults.

 
At 25 July, 2006 18:19, Blogger shawn said...

The less "quibbling and squabbling" that eminates from this group, the more SERIOUS attention it will be paid by the majority of americans, who are, for the most part, sane, mature, rational adults.

Half of Americans think evolution is iffy, and a good portion believe a conspiracy (grassy knoll) and all killed Kennedy. Most Americans are, sorry to say, dumb.

Well, rather than dumb, ill-informed. People would rather watch American Idol than open a book on history. I mean I spend plenty of time watching mindless drivel and playing video games, but a majority of my free time is spent reading books on science, history, and politics. Our schools don't do a good enough job, so people have to go out on their own to learn (and few do).

If people were well-read most of us would only know the Illuminati as a group who wanted a republican Europe in the late 18th century. The Freemasons would be a frat for grown men. And the Priory of Scion would be a post-WW2 hoax by a French antisemite with an ego problem.

I used to be one of these nutjobs, and I still can't fathom how they are so stupid. It's like learning to ride a bike, you can't recall what it was like not being able to ride the bike.

It angers me enough that these people would believe something with no evidence, it cranks my yank even more than they continue to believe even when we blow said beliefs out of the water, and it REALLY pisses me off that they'd continue to deny the death of 3000 of their countrymen that most of watched live on television.

 
At 10 August, 2006 13:30, Blogger aliscia said...

Very pretty site! Keep working. thnx!
»

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home