Bronwyn,

Your running round in your own circles old girl, nothing to do with me...

Me being a conservative isn't why I stuck up for Boaz, I dislike bullying, even more so gang bullying... that is what bought that up...

What you still didn't answer... What does my being a conservative have to do with trying defending of Boaz?

It sounds like an assumption that I can't see beyond my own kind

Bronwyn,

Thank you for taking the effort to the effort to look at the forum (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8120&page=0) and consider the evidence.

Thanks for noting that that the style of my post "didn't appear to be provocative". If it wasn't provocative, then what justification do you see for Christopher subsequently calling me "seriously unhinged" and then more or less repeating that five times?

You say that you can't make an informed comment, but at least you should be able to see why not everyone shares your evaluation of Christopher's posts as "calm, measured, cutting and witty".

Bronwyn wrote, "I don't know the full extent of the exchanges you've had with CJ in the past ..."

It was not my initial intention to spell out the entire history of this. Could I suggest that you take all the evidence at face value? Please try not to presume that if Christopher behaved like a creep on that forum that I must have done something before to deserve it.

Bronwyn wrote, "... I haven't followed the 9/11 conspiracy debate, ..."

I think every mature thinking adult owes it to themselves, their fellow citizens, their children and future generations to seriously look at the evidence and decide for themselves one way or the other whether they can truly accept the official US Government explanation of 9/11. (Of course I know what conclusion I think anyone who studies the evidence objectively will come to, but please don't take my word for it.)

If I am right about 9/11, then the world is largely run by homocidal maniacs far more dangerous than even I had imagined less than two years ago.

That's also the view of Patrick Welsh, who lost his first wife on Flight 93 on 11 September 2001. For many years, he refused to even consider the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Eventually, in late 2006 or early 2007, he resolved to look at the evidence in order to prove the 9/11 Truth movement wrong. However, six months later he realised he was in complete agreement with the 9/11 Truth Movement and has become a very staunch and outspoken activist. You can learn about Patrick Welsh in the YouTube broadcast (10 minutes or less) at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-qvVE3nzudg

I suggest that if you have a spare hour, listen to the debate between a supporter of the official US Government explanation of 9/11, namely 'skeptical' scientist Michael Shermer and a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement, namely Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org).

As I had been receiving Michael Shermers' 'Skeptic' newsletter and therefore had some respect for him, I was not sure which way the debate would turn out when I listened to it last September.

However it became clear to me that Shermer resorted to crude debating ploys, whilst Gage tried to discuss the evidence. The debate can be found on http://noliesradio.org (Search for "Were the World Trade Towers brought down by controlled demolition?")

I suggest that listening to debates is the best way to begin. Until you become familiar with the issue it is inevitable that you will find resources on either sides of the controversy which will seem very persuasive as I did.

Bronwyn continued, "... so don?t know whether it?s the rubbish CJ clearly believes it to be, or whether there is something more to it."

Christopher adamantly refused even once to acknowledge any of the evidence I presented and never, through the entire debate demonstrated, any comprehension whatsoever of either side of the debate.

Bronwyn wrote, "... I did notice that Forrest and RObert were much less dismissive and I always consider them to be good judges too! "

Yes, Forrest considered the evidence. He also took the trouble to read David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour" at http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres5/GRIFFIN-Newpearlharbor.pdf and thoroughly recommended it. As it is not much more than 100 pages it should not take too long to read.

Evo “Col. Thank you for high-lighting that line.”
You are welcome..

Antiseptic “those complaining about such things are largely basing their complaint on their own lack of the capacity to produce such wit.”

I suspect that is true in many cases.

I have heard it said

“Debate” is a battle of wits and too many come on the field of battle completely disarmed….

Pericles … Yupp… as I have said repeatedly… just love this thread…. Thinking of coming back next year too…

Dickie “Aw.....meanie! Graham took Porkabelle's portrait. Tsk tsk!”

I see our hosts did decide to “interpret dickies post in the context of what they are prepared to tolerate as acceptable for presentation on their website”

I guess you will have to find another way of “hamming” it up dickie

Examinator “This is my rough take on your nebulous question.”

Thankyou for your nebulous response, which speculates: a lefty is more nebulous than a socialist …

I do not necessarily agree with you

But whilst my original question was drafted in the context of the thread topic, deeper exploration of it now would not be so.
So , I will decline to pursue it further

Meredith “Bronwyn, You’re running round in your own circles old girl, nothing to do with me...”

Maybe to create a vortex, up which to disappear ?

meredith:

"Me being a conservative isn't why I stuck up for Boaz, I dislike bullying, even more so gang bullying... that is what bought that up..."

You're serious? You're worried about Boaz being bullied? Is this the same Boaz who rants, shouts, proclaims, denounces, maligns, stigmatises, vilifies and otherwise bad-mouths anyone who disagrees with his narrow view of the world?

As for conservatism, one of the teachers I most admired (he's dead now unfortunately) was a conservative in almost everything; but he was clear, logical and insisted on proper evidence for any argument his students put forward. At the end of the day, we disagreed on many things but had respect for scholarship and clear thinking.

If only some of the conservatives on OLO were more like that. I know there are lapses among the progressives too, but it's notably the conservatives who rely on evidence-free assertions and, who when challenged, resort to abuse.

“If only some of the conservatives on OLO were more like that. I know there are lapses among the progressives too,”

Bearing in mind, Oliver Cromwell was propelled to the position of “Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland” by the “levelers”, who pushed the same barrow to those on this site who would most likely describe themselves as the “opponents of conservatives”,

I feel the term “regressive” is a far better description of what is actually being anticipated by those who oppose conservative values.

The “regressive” relabeling of values, pursued back in the days of Cromwell, is the favoured pursuit of those who lack the ability and imagination to propel themselves forward through their own efforts.

As Margaret Thatcher said “"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."