host

Elphaba, thank you for your consideration of the material in the article. What I am looking for are participants here who do not resort to moving the discussion away from the topic(s) and over to a focus on the perceived "credentials" of a recent poster or of the thread author.

That tactic has been so successful in stifling discussion that should take place at this politics forum, that even the moderators here seem to react with sensistivity to those who feign an "affront to their sensibilities" at the mere introduction of subjects that they intend to condition the rest of us to believe are "taboo". I saw the "tactic" used in the post I linked at the beginning of this thread, and I thought that I would attempt to wrap my mind around the subject by spotlighting it as a thread.

People, wanting to discuss the possible political machinations behind major news organizations who present what should be a straightforward report of the names on an airline passenger roster, described by the publishers as attributed to: "according to family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement." , is neither "fringe", nor does it relegate one to the discrediting label of 'subscribing to conspiracy theories", even if some here have been successful in convincing you that it does.

Does it not seem ludicrous to present a list that purports to be a compilation derived from information provided by 'family members, friends, co-workers and local law enforcement.", instead of from the airline or from the FAA? How would news reporters, within 48 hours of a flight, know who and how to contact "family members, friends, co-workers", confirm the relationships of that described group to the actual passsengers, and compile a reliable list from their input? That is how the sources for the list were described and it seems inconceivable that there has been so little notice of or reaction to this.

It should not even be necessary to defend the legitimacy of this topic by adding the point that that there is no accurate list provided by reputable sources, even after three years. It is appropriate to discuss this curious and interesting discrepancy here and to react to those who profess an offense to their sensibilities that this is even up for discussion, by inviting them to limit their further participation, instead of by reinforcing their intent to limit the discussion in TFP Politics to subjects that they approve of.