Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Well, this is a problem with the 9/11 debate. A lot of people on my side of the discussion like to jump from one thing to the next without establishing one thing: a common frame of reference. That frame of reference has to be an agreement that the official story is not the most likely explanation, then we can move on to what is the most likely explanation.
|
Will, I have a problem with this statement and I am hoping that I can get you to see the issue as well.
I agree we have to have a common frame of reference if we want to get anywhere.
The problem that I have is that you jump right to:
"That frame of reference has to be an agreement that the official story is not the most likely explanation"
I think that from what I have seen from almost every thread on the Politics board is that this is a step too far and too quick.
I believe that we have to build the common frame of reference - in the case of this topic by examining things one at a time, coming to agreements on any conclusions, and thenmoving on to the next issue.
In fact, it seems as thought this thread has been successful so far because we are doing just that.
If we can agree on items one by one then we can build a common frame of reference.
The problem with every other thread that gets nowhere and goes in circles over and over is that everyone comes to the thread with their own version of what the common frame of reference should be (or what is obviously apparent) and tries to tell everyone why it is so.
I think that we are doing something different (speacial) in this thread. We may all be coming to this thread with our own belief of what the common frame of reference should be but we are putting it on the side (maybe temporarily or maybe permanently) while we try to investigate items one by one.
Hopefully we can agree on some of these items and then add them to our collective common frame of reference.
Do you see the point I am trying to make?