Re: Raven...I find this interesting

[Guest guest]

We became silent because this group tends to be non-confrontational.

When people have differing views to the point where confrontation

seems inevitable, but where everyone has said what has been said, it

means we have hit an " agree to disagree " point and we move on to other

topics.

Tom

Administrator

What I find interesting is that after my analysis of Theories vs.

Hypothesis...everyone became silent.

Was it because there was some major flaw in my reasoning that didn't

merit a response? Or, did I hit a nerve that such Theories of

Conspiracy (sounds different when reworded) could actually have merit

if supported by factual analysis? Such as a Watergate Conspiracy

Theory.

[Guest guest]

We became silent because this group tends to be non-confrontational.

When people have differing views to the point where confrontation

seems inevitable, but where everyone has said what has been said, it

means we have hit an " agree to disagree " point and we move on to other

topics.

Tom

Administrator

What I find interesting is that after my analysis of Theories vs.

Hypothesis...everyone became silent.

Was it because there was some major flaw in my reasoning that didn't

merit a response? Or, did I hit a nerve that such Theories of

Conspiracy (sounds different when reworded) could actually have merit

if supported by factual analysis? Such as a Watergate Conspiracy

Theory.

[Guest guest]

non-cofrontational? Every day with my Aspie daughter is

confrontational. A good number of Aspies I have met (including my

wife & I) are confrontational. We confront the illogical daily with

NTs. I found that Raven's response was more buying into the " group-

speak " of the United States rather than be a logical statement. I

pointed out the illogical reasoning in her statement, that theories

of conspiracy have been found to be true in history so just because a

theory is of a conspiracy, it can not automatically be judged false.

This was not to be considered an attack on her personally. It was

just an attempt to point out the error of her logic. If I am

incorrect in my deduction, I would want someone to point it out to

me. That is why I was hoping for a reply. One to either show me the

error of my logic or to say that they understand the logic I am

using. I try to keep illogical emotions at bay when I am dealing

with most topics. That is why I said it was interesting when I

didn't get any response.

You didn't see me get all bent when tried pointing out what

he felt were weaknesses in my views of 9/11. In fact, it seemed like

he got upset with me! I also find it interesting in the difference

of opinions of 9/11 from people from outside the US vs. those from

inside.

>

> What I find interesting is that after my analysis of Theories vs.

> Hypothesis...everyone became silent.

>

> Was it because there was some major flaw in my reasoning that didn't

> merit a response? Or, did I hit a nerve that such Theories of

> Conspiracy (sounds different when reworded) could actually have

merit

> if supported by factual analysis? Such as a Watergate Conspiracy

> Theory.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The error(s) in your logic was/were pointed out numerous times. The

main flaws in it were three:

1) The alleged mastermind of the attack who has claimed responsibility

has recruited hundreds of fighters under his banner and these people

continue to perpetuate terrorist attacks against the US and Britain

and now Pakistan.

2) People continue to get caught planning other attacks, all of these

people claiming to be from Al Quiada, and many of them having

information about the 911 attacks. Yet none of them are US citizens or

have set foot in the US, and all of them have families and relatives

BOTH in the US and the middle east who either defend or turn their

backs on these people.

3) No one from YOUR alleged conspiracy has come forward to spill the

beans despite the fact that there must have been hundreds if not

thousands of people in on it.

Tom

Administrator

That is why I was hoping for a reply. One to either show me the

error of my logic or to say that they understand the logic I am

using. I try to keep illogical emotions at bay when I am dealing

with most topics. That is why I said it was interesting when I

didn't get any response.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/24/2007 10:03:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

, I admit that history is not my strong point. Heck, it isn't even in my top ten. I have a friend that is into the Republic vs. Democracy debate and he has bent my ear a number of times on the subject (I think he might be Aspie, too, since he doesn't know when to let go of a topic during a discussion). Anyways, years ago he had me read a quote from someone (you probably know who said this) who stated that as soon as a population of a democracy learn they can vote themselves entitlements, the whole system collapses upon itself. He had quotes from the founding fathers saying, in essence, that democracy's have never lasted long and that is why they chose a republic as the model for this country.

I am familiar with the quote but not who said it. The Greek democracies tended not to last more than 200 years. If was by that time that people had indeed learned that they could vote themselves all that they wanted from the treasury but never thought about how to pay for it. The taxes and debt eventually crushed them.

Some of the Founders didn't even think the US would last 20 years, let alone over 200. It nearly didn't. Civil War aside, there were a number of lesser rebellions, most right at the beginning of the country, shortly after ratification of the Constitution. The 1920's and 30's were also tense times. There was very nearly a major riot of ex-soldiers in Washington, DC and there was at least one coup in the planning but was stopped.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

You said:

" I was referring to the belief that " a conspiracy theory

is just a conspiracy theory " with the implication that ANY theory of

conspiracy was false just because it was a theory of conspiracy. "

My reply:

Here is my problem with conspiracy theory.

What I have found from experience is that the facts are posted

first, and people hear only half the facts or remember half the

facts and then tell others what they've heard or what they remember.

Somewhere along the line, someone else will say " That can't be

right " and form a " theory " of their own.

The result is that the true facts, which are perfectly plausible,

are lost and the conspiracy theory takes over, and these theories,

rather than the facts, are what airheads accept and run with. The

result is mistrust of authority.

Conspiracy theories are nothing more than glorified urban legends.

They are stupid, useless, and pointless, especially in light of the

facts.

You said:

" Thousands of Americans still believe Saddam & Iraq were involved

with 9/11 even though this administration has admitted that there

was no connection. There are tens of thousands that believe this

civil war in Iraq is a winnable war even though the population in

Iraq have been having these same conflicts for centuries. "

My reply:

We went into Iraq the second time because we thought they were

keeping weapons of mass destruction. As much as the general public

insists that there aren't any there, and despite the fact that the

UN inspectors did not find any weapons of mass destruction, the bill

of sale of all kinds of missiles, and toxic chemical weapons

manufacturing equipment as well as surplus chemical weapons are in

the US because we sold them the weapons. So says dear old dad who

worked for the US government. It's actually been mentioned on TV

news shows in the past, but since the media has turned on the

government now, you won't hear a peep about it, and the government

is rather thankful for that because how embarrassing is it to have

sold these weapons to the Iraqui's only to have them bomb the Khurds

with them?

After the first Gulf War, Saddaam threatened to turn our cities into

fireballs. It's quite possible that he hired Al Quida or worked with

them to do it.

As for the WMD...I think they are burried in the sand somewhere.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... Every day with my Aspie daughter is

confrontational. A good number of Aspies I have met (including my

wife & I) are confrontational. We confront the illogical daily with

NTs ... <snip> ... "

There is a world of difference between being knowledeably assertive

and being confrontational. Because you are, by your own definition,

confrontational, I have no reason to believe that you will be

logical when emotions enter the equation for you. Therefore, it is

best not to disrupt this message board with emotional and

confrontational commentary where assertive debate would have better

served the purpose of the discussion.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... I found that Raven's response was

more buying into the " group-speak " of the United States rather than

be a logical statement. I pointed out the illogical reasoning in

her statement, that theories of conspiracy have been found to be

true in history so just because a theory is of a conspiracy, it can

not automatically be judged false ... <snip> ... "

You did not point out any illogical reasoning in my statement. You

assumed I was buying into 'group speak' because you do not

understand what I have posted. Conspiracy theories are only

conspiracy theories unless a number of sources are able to

substantiate the claims with undisputable facts. You were unable to

provide said facts and you were unable to provide support materials

from reputable sources that supported your OPINION. As you know, an

OPINION is not a FACT.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... It was just an attempt to point out

the error of her logic ... <snip> ... "

Except I was neither incorrect nor illogical with my response. You,

on the other hand, based your comments on assumptions that went far

beyond the scope of my post.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... You didn't see me get all bent when

tried pointing out what he felt were weaknesses in my views

of 9/11 ... <snip> ... "

I am not .

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... In fact, it seemed like he got

upset with me! ... <snip> ... "

Assumption on your part. is incredibly knowledgeable on a

number of topics and has provided a number of reputable sources to

support his posts whenever he has posted in this forum as well as

others to which he belongs.

Raven

[Guest guest]

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... Every day with my Aspie daughter is

confrontational. A good number of Aspies I have met (including my

wife & I) are confrontational. We confront the illogical daily with

NTs ... <snip> ... "

There is a world of difference between being knowledeably assertive

and being confrontational. Because you are, by your own definition,

confrontational, I have no reason to believe that you will be

logical when emotions enter the equation for you. Therefore, it is

best not to disrupt this message board with emotional and

confrontational commentary where assertive debate would have better

served the purpose of the discussion.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... I found that Raven's response was

more buying into the " group-speak " of the United States rather than

be a logical statement. I pointed out the illogical reasoning in

her statement, that theories of conspiracy have been found to be

true in history so just because a theory is of a conspiracy, it can

not automatically be judged false ... <snip> ... "

You did not point out any illogical reasoning in my statement. You

assumed I was buying into 'group speak' because you do not

understand what I have posted. Conspiracy theories are only

conspiracy theories unless a number of sources are able to

substantiate the claims with undisputable facts. You were unable to

provide said facts and you were unable to provide support materials

from reputable sources that supported your OPINION. As you know, an

OPINION is not a FACT.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... It was just an attempt to point out

the error of her logic ... <snip> ... "

Except I was neither incorrect nor illogical with my response. You,

on the other hand, based your comments on assumptions that went far

beyond the scope of my post.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... You didn't see me get all bent when

tried pointing out what he felt were weaknesses in my views

of 9/11 ... <snip> ... "

I am not .

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... In fact, it seemed like he got

upset with me! ... <snip> ... "

Assumption on your part. is incredibly knowledgeable on a

number of topics and has provided a number of reputable sources to

support his posts whenever he has posted in this forum as well as

others to which he belongs.

Raven

[Guest guest]

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... Thousands of Americans still believe

Saddam & Iraq were involved with 9/11 even though this

administration has admitted that there was no connection. There are

tens of thousands that believe this civil war in Iraq is a winnable

war even though the population in Iraq have been having these same

conflicts for centuries ... <snip> ... "

Belief is not the same thing as fact. It has its place but not in

the manner in which you are choosing to make use of belief.

It is immaterial how many thousands of Americans believe Saddam and

Iraq were involved with 9/11. What is material is what is known to

be fact.

It is immaterial how many tens of thousands of Americans believe

that the civil war in Iraq is a winnable war. What matters is the

results which are, of course, factual.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... Lincoln abolished slavery because

the Law said all men were created equal and he interpreted the law

to mean ALL men. Before that point, the Constitution only applied

to White European Males. Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics

also were not covered by it along with blacks. It took even longer

for females of any race to be represented by the Constitution ...

<snip> ... "

I will defer to and his facts with regards to your claim.

I also wonder about your claim that it took longer for females of

any race in America to be represented by the Constitution. I have

difficulty believing that the Americans were not giving suffragette

women the vote and representation when their Canadian counterparts

most assuredly were exercising this right.

Aboriginals on the other hand ... <Raven looks up to the sky, rolls

eyes and says nothing at this point in time> ...

[Guest guest]

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... Thousands of Americans still believe

Saddam & Iraq were involved with 9/11 even though this

administration has admitted that there was no connection. There are

tens of thousands that believe this civil war in Iraq is a winnable

war even though the population in Iraq have been having these same

conflicts for centuries ... <snip> ... "

Belief is not the same thing as fact. It has its place but not in

the manner in which you are choosing to make use of belief.

It is immaterial how many thousands of Americans believe Saddam and

Iraq were involved with 9/11. What is material is what is known to

be fact.

It is immaterial how many tens of thousands of Americans believe

that the civil war in Iraq is a winnable war. What matters is the

results which are, of course, factual.

pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... Lincoln abolished slavery because

the Law said all men were created equal and he interpreted the law

to mean ALL men. Before that point, the Constitution only applied

to White European Males. Native Americans, Asians, and Hispanics

also were not covered by it along with blacks. It took even longer

for females of any race to be represented by the Constitution ...

<snip> ... "

I will defer to and his facts with regards to your claim.

I also wonder about your claim that it took longer for females of

any race in America to be represented by the Constitution. I have

difficulty believing that the Americans were not giving suffragette

women the vote and representation when their Canadian counterparts

most assuredly were exercising this right.

Aboriginals on the other hand ... <Raven looks up to the sky, rolls

eyes and says nothing at this point in time> ...

[Guest guest]

>

>

That is why I said it was interesting when I

> didn't get any response.

>

I too keep away from confrontation. while the talk at large is

interesting, manyy times when very solid ideas are being put forth

arguing htem is unnecessary, because consensus cannot be reached

(especially in a not all the facts can be gathered discussion)

You may note that I tend to defend perhaps irrationally my belief in

nutrition and environment and toxins having an effect on all of us.

I in some ways hope to bring my ideas to light in a coherent way but

I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with me. I believe many times

others hold their tongue or roll their eyes and while I know they

disagree, I appreciate their restraint. It is more mutual respect

for choice than desire to point out every inconsistancy. Someday

anyone of us may prove correct on any # of things. I know that

whatever the outcome any of us will believe whatever truth there is.

I think what I do is just incorperate the new knowledge and utilize

it in my daily life. I may avoid NY entirely for that reason. Just

as I believe people are more likely to be agressive at night,

therefore i stay home at night and really never go out. As well as

the aids thread I will likely never broach the double digits in my

lifespan. I have a great fear of STD's and I just hold myself to

those standards I believe important.

[Guest guest]

> There is a world of difference between being knowledeably assertive

> and being confrontational. Because you are, by your own

definition,

> confrontational, I have no reason to believe that you will be

> logical when emotions enter the equation for you. Therefore, it is

> best not to disrupt this message board with emotional and

> confrontational commentary where assertive debate would have better

> served the purpose of the discussion.

Are you equating " Confrontational " with " Emotional? " While

confrontation can lead to emotional reactions in some, there is no

need for emotions in order to confront someone.

> You did not point out any illogical reasoning in my statement. You

> assumed I was buying into 'group speak' because you do not

> understand what I have posted. Conspiracy theories are only

> conspiracy theories unless a number of sources are able to

> substantiate the claims with undisputable facts.

Again, I say that you are speaking of " hypothesis. " Hypothesis do

not have facts to support them. Hypothesis become theories when

eviudence is presented to support them. The beginning of my

education in college was manufacturing engineering and then changed

to behavioral research in psychology which is what my undergraduate

degree is in and my graduate studies focused on. Setting up reliable

research models for hypothesis is a fundimental part of my studies.

So seperating hypothesis and theories is basic.

You were unable to

> provide said facts and you were unable to provide support materials

> from reputable sources that supported your OPINION.

I have tried to put forth data that has been collected by reputable

tenured physics professors that have studied samples that were

collected from ground zero. I have also suggested the viewing of a

documentary calle " Loose Change " that compiles most of the data that

was available at the time (2005) and was re-edited in 2006 to reflect

both the increase of data available and to remove items that have

been discredited. There is to be a third re-editing of the film this

year to again add new data and remove discredited items. The film

presents a vast array of verifiable data such as nearly a quarter of

the 19 hijackers have shown up alive around the world since 9/11.

Another item was that of the jets involved in 9/11, the regestration

numbers of the two that hit the towers are listed as " destroyed " by

the FAA as of 2004 but the regestration numbers for the jets that hit

the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania were listed in 2004 as

still actively flying by the FAA. Again, I say, if you are not an

ostrich with their head in the ground and do not attest to the

belief " don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up "

then I say, go to Google video, search Loose Change 2nd Edition,

download the three parts and watch them. Then let's discuss what is

fact and what is opinion. Otherwise, all you have is your opinion

and half of the facts.

>

> Except I was neither incorrect nor illogical with my response.

You were incorrect to infer that all theories of conspiracy are false

by being called " conspiracy theories. "

> pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... You didn't see me get all bent when

> tried pointing out what he felt were weaknesses in my views

> of 9/11 ... <snip> ... "

>

> I am not .

you do not get me " bent " either.

>

> pcfreed wrote: " ... <snip> ... In fact, it seemed like he got

> upset with me! ... <snip> ... "

>

> Assumption on your part. is incredibly knowledgeable on a

> number of topics and has provided a number of reputable sources to

> support his posts whenever he has posted in this forum as well as

> others to which he belongs.

But he has show gross errors when it comes to principals of physics

and engineering so I can assume that while, yes, he blows me out of

the water in History, engineering is not one of his strong points.

[Guest guest]

So at 231 years old, we have beat the Greeks and with the mounting

federal debt, we could also be on the verge of a collapse?

>

>

> In a message dated 9/24/2007 10:03:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,

> pfreeman@... writes:

>

> , I admit that history is not my strong point. Heck, it

isn't

> even in my top ten. I have a friend that is into the Republic vs.

> Democracy debate and he has bent my ear a number of times on the

> subject (I think he might be Aspie, too, since he doesn't know when

> to let go of a topic during a discussion). Anyways, years ago he

had

> me read a quote from someone (you probably know who said this) who

> stated that as soon as a population of a democracy learn they can

> vote themselves entitlements, the whole system collapses upon

> itself. He had quotes from the founding fathers saying, in

essence,

> that democracy's have never lasted long and that is why they chose

a

> republic as the model for this country.

>

>

>

> I am familiar with the quote but not who said it. The Greek

democracies

> tended not to last more than 200 years. If was by that time that

people had

> indeed learned that they could vote themselves all that they wanted

from the

> treasury but never thought about how to pay for it. The taxes and

debt eventually

> crushed them.

>

> Some of the Founders didn't even think the US would last 20 years,

let alone

> over 200. It nearly didn't. Civil War aside, there were a number of

lesser

> rebellions, most right at the beginning of the country, shortly

after

> ratification of the Constitution. The 1920's and 30's were also

tense times. There

> was very nearly a major riot of ex-soldiers in Washington, DC and

there was at

> least one coup in the planning but was stopped.

>

>

>

>

>

> ************************************** See what's new at

http://www.aol.com

>

[Guest guest]

> We went into Iraq the second time because we thought they were

> keeping weapons of mass destruction. As much as the general public

> insists that there aren't any there, and despite the fact that the

> UN inspectors did not find any weapons of mass destruction, the

bill

> of sale of all kinds of missiles, and toxic chemical weapons

> manufacturing equipment as well as surplus chemical weapons are in

> the US because we sold them the weapons. So says dear old dad who

> worked for the US government.

Can't go against dear ol' dad!

It's actually been mentioned on TV

> news shows in the past, but since the media has turned on the

> government now,

Most media outlets are owned by conservative corporations that

suppress the media...just ask Dan Rather...

you won't hear a peep about it, and the government

> is rather thankful for that because how embarrassing is it to have

> sold these weapons to the Iraqui's only to have them bomb the

Khurds

> with them?

Like the photos of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam with a big

smile on his face?

>

> After the first Gulf War, Saddaam threatened to turn our cities

into

> fireballs. It's quite possible that he hired Al Quida or worked

with

> them to do it.

But this administration admits that the only contact between Saddam's

government and Al Quida was sketchy at best. Saddam had a secular

government. One of his top officials was a Christian. The last thing

he wanted was religious extremests messing up his world. Our

investigator that was over there testified that Saddam wanted to work

with the Bush administration to bring peace to the mid-east. He

wanted his legacy to be the " great peacemaker " in the Mid-East. His

scientists were telling him all the great work they were doing but in

reality, they were putting up smoke screens so Saddam would think he

had more than he did. Most of his rhetoric was big talk to keep Iran

at bay (his historical enemy). By the time we took him out, he spent

most of his time shuffling around his country from palace to palace,

trying to hide and into writing novels. We also forget that most of

Iraq's infrastructure and universities were built under Saddam's

rule. He loved education and encouraged both men & women to attend

higher learning institutions. Also, after the gulf war, he had

utilities up & running, altho rather crudely, in 6 months with no

outside help. It has been how many years and with all our resources,

there are no reliable utilities in most of the populated areas of

Iraq (except in the Kurdish north).

>

> As for the WMD...I think they are burried in the sand somewhere.

Along with some people's heads...with all due respect...

[Guest guest]

pcfree wrote: " ... <snip> ... The Canadian mind-set is so totally

different than the US mindset. We live in fear. From what I have

learned from Canadian's I have met, Canada is a very laid back

country (Maybe from their French influence?) ... <snip> ... "

From the FRENCH INFLUENCE? LOL. The French are a minority in

Canada and are concentrated mostly in the province of Quebec. They

do not have much influence over the English population. You must

not have met very m any Canadians in your life time, my friend.

pcfree wrote: " ... <snip> ... Just look at the difference in the

murder rate ... <snip> ... "

I am currently out of the country on business. When I return home,

I will provide you with statistical information. You will be

surprised to learn that per capital, Regina (SK) is the most violent

city in North America .. not just Canada.

I'll also open your eyes up to a few other FACTS with links to

reputable sources so you can confirm the research on the matter.

pcfree wrote: " ... <snip> ... We are afraid of our own shadow and

believe " shoot first, ask questions later. " ... <snip> ... "

Wow! I can guess from that statement alone that you are not

Aboriginal and you do not have have any close Aboriginal ancestry or

relatives. Ipperwash. Oka. Caledon. <rolls eyes and can think of

a number of other situations where white people first at Aboriginals

without good reason and asked questions much later ... including the

government and the RCMP and the OPP>

Raven

[Guest guest]

pcfree responded: "

Can't go against dear ol' dad! [end

quote] "

Personal attacks on members of this board are not allowed. If you

cannot respond appropriately, please feel free to skip the post in

its entirety. Thank you.

This must be my Aspiness here but I don't see how my comment was a

personal attack. I don't go against my dad either. I respect what

my parents say. So please clarify your comment.

: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted : as a : a

face-to-face meeting b : the clashing of forces or ideas

I still do not se the definition saying " emotional. " But I did admit

that confrontation could lead to an emotional reaponse. But it is not

required RE: in a debate. A debate is a " face to face "

confrontation. I believe you are reading negativity into these

definitions as I still do not see any emotions defined here. And

being assertive is an action that is associated with activities other

than in debates or confrontation. One could be assertive when

getting a job which is neither confrontational or a debate. Maybe

this is just my Libra tendencies to see both sides and to weigh them

both. I have always been a debater who sticks up for the underdog

(the side not getting fair representation).

>I commented that a conspiracy theory is just a conspiracy THEORY.

>Too many people who put forth conspiracy theories actually believe

>they are factual even though there are no facts with which to

>support their theory.

If there are no facts, then it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.

Just as your definition states. I am trying to say what most people

call " Conspiracy Theories " like Area 51, are just Conspiracy

Hypothesis.

You did not provide any " facts " with your arguments regarding 9/11.

You provided supposition and allegations and interpretation and

misinterpretation and extrapolation based on fallacy of logic.

I still maintain that because your conspiracy theory is not factual,

does not provide hard facts, does not provide hard evidence and

relies on hearsay, innuendo, incorrect correlation and interpretation

of data, and because you are, by your own admission, confrontational,

there is not reason for me to continue discussing the matter with one

such as yourself. You do not wish to discuss the matter logically

with facts and reputable sources identified (movies are rarely

reputable sources for the sake of debate, btw) therefore your only

other option is to revert to emotion.

OK, I guess I will watch the documentary again, write down all the

data they present and retype it here. I thought I would make my job

easier to ask you to view this presentation of data yourself but it

is obvious you refuse to do so so I shall transcribe the lists of

data that has been presented and do my best to list their sources so

you can seek it out to check it's reliability. But I have a feeling

that even if I do all this work, you will not try to verify any of

it. Will you? I am not attacking you here, I am just relecting on

past experience. I have offered you a way of finding this documentary

where they interview people who are involved with many aspects of the

ongoing research being done on the subject. Because this is an

ongoing study, just like in scientific research of any type, as old

ideas are being discarded when they are proven to be weak, new data

brings forth a clearer picture. So to dismiss this documentary

because of it's re-editing, you seem to dismiss the scientific

process as it, too, evolves.

pcfree wrote: " ... <snip> ... Again, I say, if you are not an

ostrich with their head in the ground and do not attest to the

belief " don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up "

then I say, go to Google video, search Loose Change 2nd Edition,

download the three parts and watch them ... <snip> ... "

A personal attack against another member's perception is most

assuredly an emotional response rather than a logical response,

pcfree. Your comment identified above indicates that your

confrontational approach includes personal attacks meant to diminish

the person with whom you are debating. You have proven my point well

with this negative personal attack.

I guess you missed me saying " not? " I am saying that any rational

person would take the time to see if I am presenting reliable

sources. If you are saying you identify with the examples I say you

are " not " , then that is your perogative. Nothing here is a personal

attack. I am saying that someone who would not want to seek out

the " other viewpoint " would be someone who has their head stuck in

the sand. When pointed out the error in my understanding of

Lincoln's motives during the civil war, I admitted my lack of

knowledge on the subject. I accepted his description of the events

and learned from him. I always try to seek out that which I do not

know. The more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

>

> From the FRENCH INFLUENCE? LOL. The French are a minority in

> Canada and are concentrated mostly in the province of Quebec. They

> do not have much influence over the English population. You must

> not have met very m any Canadians in your life time, my friend.

I did spend time in Quebec & Noca Scotia since we spent our summers

in Maine. I fuess I am wrong in my assumptions that most of the

white settlers in Canada came from the French fur trappers & traders.

>

> pcfree wrote: " ... <snip> ... Just look at the difference in the

> murder rate ... <snip> ... "

>

> I am currently out of the country on business. When I return home,

> I will provide you with statistical information. You will be

> surprised to learn that per capital, Regina (SK) is the most

violent

> city in North America .. not just Canada.

When I grew up in Connecticut, there was a " project " in the city of

Bridgeport called Father Panic Village. The borders of the village

had the streets blocked off with cement barriers and no one bothered

to even put plates on their cars (the ones with plates were pulled

over with the logic they were in there buying drugs). It was said

that not even the National Guard dared to go in there. Today, it

mostly has been leveled and are empty fields. If Regina is worse

than that...wow!

>

> I'll also open your eyes up to a few other FACTS with links to

> reputable sources so you can confirm the research on the matter.

>

> pcfree wrote: " ... <snip> ... We are afraid of our own shadow and

> believe " shoot first, ask questions later. " ... <snip> ... "

>

> Wow! I can guess from that statement alone that you are not

> Aboriginal and you do not have have any close Aboriginal ancestry

or

> relatives.

This is where I have been confused. I have always thought of

Austrailian natives as Aborigiese. I Wiki'd the word and see you are

referring to Native Americans (and I refer to all of North America).

I don't use the word " Indian " because I realize it was some dumb

European male who thought he had made it to India, that started

calling Native Americans " Indians. " " Aboriginal " just evokes a

feeling of primitiveness (my feelings). In Michigan, there are a

group of Native Americans called Ottawa Indians because when a Dutch

white European male pointed to a group of locals, his guide said

Odawa which I was told means " traders. " So this white guy thought he

was naming the group and wrote down in his little book Ottawa

Indians.

I am not Aboriginal, but there are a lot of time I wish I could say

I'm not white. BTW, my mom's side of the family is traced back to

arriving in the Americas in the 1600's. My dad's side of the family

can't be traced back too far as they were from Virginia and the

church that held the family records was burned during the civil war.

But we are traditional New England WASPs.

I would love to learn more about Canadian Aborigenese so please teach

me more!

[Guest guest]

I want to say that I follow this discussion with great interest.

There has been many documentaries here (Belgium) on television about

9/11 with the information that pcfree has provided in this

discussion. Together with the negative opinion that many people have

overhere about the VS government and their ongoing wars in the world,

many persons think that it is good to be critical towards the VS

politics and towards what really happened on 9/11.

I think pcfree is right when he writes:

" pcfree45 " <pfreeman@...> wrote:

" I am not attacking you here, I am just relecting on

past experience. I have offered you a way of finding this documentary

where they interview people who are involved with many aspects of the

ongoing research being done on the subject. Because this is an

ongoing study, just like in scientific research of any type, as old

ideas are being discarded when they are proven to be weak, new data

brings forth a clearer picture. So to dismiss this documentary

because of it's re-editing, you seem to dismiss the scientific

process as it, too, evolves. "

And I wanted to add something to what pc free wrote:

" In Michigan, there are a group of Native Americans called Ottawa

Indians because when a Dutch male pointed to a group of locals, his

guide said Odawa which I was told means " traders. "

Odawa in Dutch doesn't mean anything. I learned that 'ottawa' comes

from the Algonkin word 'adawe', which means 'to trade'.

[Guest guest]

> And I wanted to add something to what pc free wrote:

> " In Michigan, there are a group of Native Americans called Ottawa

> Indians because when a Dutch male pointed to a group of locals, his

> guide said Odawa which I was told means " traders. "

>

> Odawa in Dutch doesn't mean anything. I learned that 'ottawa' comes

> from the Algonkin word 'adawe', which means 'to trade'.

>

Sorry, I misunderstood what pcfree wrote. I thought he wrote

that 'ottawa' came from a Dutch word. But he didnot write that. He

just wrote that this Dutch person assumed that the people he was

pointed at were called 'ottawa'.

About the word aboriginal: In Dutch 'aboriginal' is used to refer to

the autochthonic people in Australia. The word 'autochthonal' is used

to indicate everyone and everything originating where it is found.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/29/2007 3:55:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

Are there any others besides me who would like to see this topic die?

I was hoping that it would by itself. However, that doesn't seem to be the case. So, since nothing productive is being accomplished with it, this thread is closed.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/29/2007 4:13:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, epitome_hawke@... writes:

I came to this list because I thought it was about AS and I understandpeople with AS have special interests and obsessions and some of thosemight surround politics - but if this continues, I can't see how itwill produce a supportive and safe atmosphere for discussion of theissues that we do share in common.

Most topics are allowed here, not just about AS. If anyone has questions or comments about AS, they are welcome to post them.

It does happen sometimes that topics get heated or people show up that enjoy causing trouble, but those are handled in time.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

Thank you. Are there any others following this thread from other

countries that have any thoughts on this topic? My daughter's

special education teacher from last year was studying in England when

the 9/11 attack took place. She showed me the newspapers that were

published that day that she brought back from England. It is

interesting the different take that people have of the events outside

America and the US.

As to the spelling of Odawa, I may have it wrong but that is how I

have seen it spelled. But I have not studied this subject at any

depth.

> " In Michigan, there are a group of Native Americans called Ottawa

> Indians because when a Dutch male pointed to a group of locals, his

> guide said Odawa which I was told means " traders. "

>

> Odawa in Dutch doesn't mean anything. I learned that 'ottawa' comes

> from the Algonkin word 'adawe', which means 'to trade'.

>

[Guest guest]

I say it is closed as my job as moderator. We have been that round of your arrogance of asking what I do for a living, etc.

This post was a personal attack on me. It is the second attack you have made on a member of this board.

You are on notice.

Keep up like this and you will be placed on moderation.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/29/2007 6:06:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

I feel autistic within this group. It seems that there are social rules here that I can not get a grip on, or understand well enough. Also lurking did not make me learn more about how this group works. So I will leave this group. Thank you for those with interesting posts.

No need to leave. There are problems like this from time to time, but they are the exception to the rule.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/29/2007 6:26:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

I see how people who come here "to cause trouble" are dealt with. Causing trouble=disagreeing with the moderator (I never saw the word "Moderator" or "administrator" ever mentioned with 's name). I, too feel there are rules here that are unfair. The one I have learned is that some are omnipotent and everyone else is wrong.I guess this is why there are so few who are posting here in comparison to other groups I belong to. So, yoeran, I will probably be following you soon... (I wonder how many have precedded you?)

That I am a moderator should be in the welcome you got upon joining up.

You are not in trouble for disagreeing with me but rather your personal attacks against myself and someone else you know was a moderator.

So few people are posting because of the hostile tone the board has taken, particularly in this thread. This is also a busy time of year for many of our members as many have school aged children.

So far, no one has left the boards. You are free to leave if you wish.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/29/2007 6:28:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

You don't get it, , do you. He is leaving because of your rules. You can't deal with being wrong.

He knew the rules when he signed up. If he doesn't like someone being called for personal attacks when they are against the rules and the offender has been warned by two moderators, yet they persist, then he is free to leave.

You, however, are on moderation. You have earned this with your latest attack, in the quoted post, on me.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.