Has "Loose Change" been fact checked or rebutted?

[iconoclastNYC]

[Twist_U_Up]

1. There would be lawsuits if it was. nt

[petgoat]

2. No, and Yes.

F911 was fact-checked by a respected law firm.

Loose Change has some good stuff and some bad stuff. Hyper-activist Carol Brouillet puts it this way:

(There is some controversy over this film within the 9-11 Truth Movement. A critical
review by Michael B. Green is posted at: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html.
Despite the film's flaws, it has drawn much attention to the 9-11 issue and helped to
wake up some people.)

http://www.communitycurrency.org/9-11.html#EVENTS

[Debunking911]

3. A lot like Rush Limbaugh does..

He tells lies and gets people motivated too. If they need lies to motivate people their is something wrong.

[KJF]

4. Good answer

The article by Green is very good and well worth reading.

If you ask me, in the long-run Loose Change will do more harm than good; the attention is nice, but there are just too many points that can be easily disproved (like the time of the WTC's fall). My understanding is that the second version (which I've seen) is better than the first version (which I haven't). Let's hope they keep improving; maybe by version 10 they'll be halfway there.

[petgoat]

5. The kids worked hard, and they deserve a lot of credit for

their efforts. Had their enthusiasm for moviemaking not exceeded their
enthusiasm for research they would probably still be combing the internets
fifteen hours a day and editing the script. Instead, they're showing the
movie.

Rush Limbaugh is not a fair comparison because Rush has the resources for
proper research, and Rush knows he's lying. These young film-makers did a
heck of a job of sorting through a whole lot of contradictory and confusing
material. If they were my sons I'd be damned proud of their work, warts and
all.

[Debunking911]

7. I disagree (What a surpise, I know)

They did things which were purposefully lying, like the collapse times. I saw the perimeter columns hit the ground and the timer and video stopped. This was deceptive in my view. And the fact that they make extraordinary claims without any research is also telling. As was stated before, some people simply did minutes worth of googling to see the errors made.

No, I think this was a slick production to get the desired response. It reminded me of "In Search of ancient Astronauts".

http://www.kensforce.com/In_Search_Of_Ancient_Astronauts

[gatorboy]

6. I watched this a week ago.

And I admit, I was drawn in...Until they talked about flight 93 being sent to the NASA building in Cleveland. That's when they lost me.

[New Earth]

8. In case anyone was interested to know

there will be a 3rd edition coming out soon with new facts, footage, accounts, witnesses, experts, etc. and some things corrected that may have been off on the 2nd edition. The guys were on a radio show a few nights ago and said this. you can listen here as mp3: http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/details.php?blog_id=28

Also, look here: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=16569875&blogID=111312188&MyToken=864a64f5-a838-43b9-9632-086552d28f19
it's Dylan Avery's myspace blog.


"and yea, we're gonna be in American theaters this year. at least 300. i'm about to call the guy right now.

oh, and June 1st the movie starts playing on TV channels all across the world. CBC, BBC, you name it.

couldn't make these things up if I wanted to."

The video is getting HUGE.

[Beam Me Up]

35. That is one damn good interview. Some of the callers were quite

remarkable. What the candidate for Senate from Arizona said regarding generals in the military 'having 'second thoughts' about what they may have gotten themselves into' was quite interesting.

[mirandapriestly]

9. Why have their been no libel suits?

Oh yeah, they would have to prove what was said was not true, LOL

[wildbilln864]

10. Well I watched the second edition a week ago..

and I realize there may be a few errors and all but over all it was enough to convince me that the government is lying!
But I would like to know what errors there were. Most everything I saw was based on easily confirmable news clips and public documents. So where were they wrong in their efforts?

[mirandapriestly]

11. I can't remember exactly, one thing is they show a tarp

on the Pentagon lawn and infer that it might be a missile or something, then it came out that these were tents. (Possibly) But this kind of disinformation gets planted all the time so that skeptics will pick it up and then the skeptics will be discredited by the minimum wage debunkers, Similar to what happened to Dan Rather. The overall truth is there and mostly they are asking a lot of questions which deserved to be answered. The little things like what was under the tarp were never very strong points anyway..

[petgoat]

12. Jan Hoyer lists some errors.....

( see pdf at http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm )

[Jazz2006]

13. There are many errors, lies and falsifications in Loose Change...

many of which have been pointed out and discussed here on DU and elsewhere.

Even the conspiracy theorist sites are not enamored of Loose Change and have distanced themselves from it, which is even more telling.

But, I'd suggest that doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions is always best.

<I might not agree with the conclusions you come to, but at least if you've come to them on your own, we can talk about them in a meaningful way.>

[mirandapriestly]

14. Unless you have specifics why bother posting the same thing that

already has been said , you have absolutely nothing to add.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[m0nkeyneck]

19. few billion?

independent research eh?

[mirandapriestly]

23. Yes, I am sure that I am personally responsible for all the "rational"

people who have decided not to join DU. They decided to Join Free Republic instead. If you think that the story fed to us by this administration is "rational" then you shouldn't be talking about "rational". Tell me, what do you think of George Bush "Jazz", don't you think he is the worst president we have ever had? What about the election fraud, how do you feel about that? Doesn't it make you mad that the 2000 election was stolen AND 2004? What do you think about the Downing Street Memos? Don't you think they are enough to prove that Bush lied to get us into Iraq? I think that Bush supporters are traitors, don't you? Let me know what you think about these things, since you have never posted outside the 911 except maybe twice, I don't know.

[Jazz2006]

26. Sure - here you go. I believe this answers all of your questions.

"Yes, I am sure that I am personally responsible for all the "rational" people who have decided not to join DU. They decided to Join Free Republic instead."

- I didn't say that you personally are responsible for "all the rational people who have decided not to join DU." I said that it's no wonder so many rational people get the wrong impression of DU and won't join or contribute with people like you calling newcomers names, calling them trolls, calling them disruptors because they don't happen to agree with you on something. I am not suggesting for a second that there are no rational people here. I know there are because I have had discussions with a whole bunch of rational people here. I'm just saying that when newcomers arrive and contribute and are instantly attacked, called names, and told they have nothing to offer, as you did to me, it's harmful to the site and to the cause.

"Tell me, what do you think of George Bush "Jazz", don't you think he is the worst president we have ever had?"

- I think he is one of the very worst, most corrupt, dishonest, backward thinking, misguided and dangerous presidents ever. And the creepiest of all time, hands down.

"What about the election fraud, how do you feel about that? Doesn't it make you mad that the 2000 election was stolen AND 2004?"

- I was more angry about 2000 than 2004, actually. I think because in 2004, I really wasn't fussy on Kerry and part of me really didn't want a Dem gov't saddled with all of the problems that Bush created.

"What do you think about the Downing Street Memos?"

- I don't think much about them at all.

"Don't you think they are enough to prove that Bush lied to get us into Iraq?"

- I don't think there's any question that he lied to go into Iraq.

"I think that Bush supporters are traitors, don't you?"

- I wouldn't go that far. They're misguided, surely, but I wouldn't label them traitors. That's Freeper speak.

"Let me know what you think about these things, since you have never posted outside the 911 except maybe twice, I don't know."

- In fact, I have posted in dozens of other threads outside of the 911 forum. You should actually look if you're going to make patently untrue statements such as that.

Anything else you want to know?

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

38. I did look, you made a few perfunctory statements

for appearances sake, then you came over here.

[Jazz2006]

39. Yet another complete and utter lie, miranda.

You should be ashamed of yourself for that.

[Jazz2006]

40. Oops duplicate/repetitive due to computer glitch

Had an error message posting the last one which show miranda's lies so I should delete this duplicate.


Not deleting, though, because she is blatantly lying about me.

[Jazz2006]

41. That's an out and out lie, miranda

To what extremes will you go?

Anyone can do an advanced search here and see that you're lying.

Pretty sad, that.

But the real question is WHY on earth do you feel (on edit: the need) to do so?

[Chomp]

57. For what it's worth

I support Jazz on this.

Here was my effort to engage in meaningful debate about important issues, starting at Post 34, and I think is instructive of why Jazz is so exasperated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x81603#82521

People can judge for themselves whether the way the debate unfolded was fair.

I should also declare that I have had posts deleted during this kind of debate for being too personalised, so I am not absolving myself of blame by any means.



(Mods: This post isn't meant to be a personailised attack on anyone, rather a criticism of the framing of the debate as a whole.)

[SidDithers]

64. I agree with you...

To me, it appears you made a good-faith effort to engage in discussion.

:toast:

Sid

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

16. I watched this movie

for the first time the other night. What a crude, stupid use of video. I kept bursting out in disbelieving laughter. Honestly, if you can't pick apart this film, you're so deeply entrenched in a conspiracy mindset that your brain has ceased functioning.

[Woody Box]

17. So America's brain ceases to function?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x83049

:rofl:

[Mr.USA]

18. Please enlighten me !!!

What parts did you burst out in disbelieving laughter ?

And the parts you picked apart!!

I want to learn how chimpy majestic was not behind this. All I have seen so far on these boards from the non reality crowd are posts like yours.

[mirandapriestly]

24. They never quite get around to saying that.nt

[Jazz2006]

31. Many do.

But you seem to have a hard time reading those posts and you simply claim that they don't exist. As I said on another thread on the same topic, the search function here is quite useful. It even shows that you have been on the very threads where the details were spelled out. You know, the details that you keep insisting don't exist.

Sheesh.

And pre-emptively, no, for once, don't ask me to post them for you ~ you KNOW where they are.

[Mr.USA]

55. Whos following who ?

sheesh

[m0nkeyneck]

20. a..

demolition company that uses small fires to bring down skyscrapers neatly into their own footprint might be kind of cool…

[Jazz2006]

36. Well, I don't think the brains of those who can't pick it apart in seconds

have actually ceased functioning.

My guess is that they are mostly just wilfully blind, not entirely stupid.

I suspect that for some, it's just "anything that denigrates Bush is okay with me, facts be damned" when in reality, the actual facts will denigrate Bush all on their own and we need not make up other stuff because he's done so much harm to so many for so long.

The only way I can reconcile this bizarre way of thinking is to compare it to sports fanatics who will cling to any and every bit of anything to support their "team" even if they know that it's crap.

Personally, I think that it hurts the "home team" when some go off on ridiculous conspiracy theories. We don't need them to prove that Bush is an incompetent, corrupt, horrible, and utter fuckwit. So introducing easily debunkible theories just hurts, and doesn't help, because it gives him an easy out to be able to point and laugh without ever being expected to provide a legitimate answer.

[New Earth]

58. you

must be very blind....

[rastafan]

21. a sad reflection on the Corporate Media

It is amazing that many 9-11 savvy citizens are so desperate to see a shred of 9-11 truth
that they don't hesitate to embrace this poorly researched movie. No matter its intention,
the subject is serious enough that a "documentary" facts ought to be bulletproof.

There are enough legitimate discussions without mixing in the ridiculous. It appears that this movie
is always mentioned in 911 truth articles by the corporate press because it is a poorly researched
representation of the "truth" movement, which perfectly suits their purpose.

[New Earth]

22. bullcrap

just wait until the third edition.

[mirandapriestly]

25. Everyone keeps saying it is so inaccurate and tells lies

but they don't seem to be able to say what those lies and inaccuracies are.

[Jazz2006]

27. I disagree.

Reams have been written on the inaccuracies, distortions, and dishonesty apparent throughout the first two versions. On numerous threads here and on numerous other websites, etc. Surely, you've noticed them.

If not, that handy dandy search function above might help.

Perhaps the 3rd edition will be more accurate and more honest. It can hardly be less.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Woody Box]

50. fascinating

still waiting for substantial, specific critic points

[Jazz2006]

52. They aren't hard to find.

Use the search tool. There is little point in repeating them ad nauseum on every thread.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Woody Box]

51. wow...

hundred words and no content... :boring:

[SidDithers]

65. I'm waiting for Loose Change XP...

maybe they'll have it right by then.

Sid

[salvorhardin]

81. Loose Change Vista anyone?

I hear it'll look really cool but suck just as much as before except this time you'll need a *really* big TV to appreciate the sheer awesomeness of its' beauty. Anyone who claims otherwise is just watching it on a crummy set.

[Jazz2006]

83. Hee hee.

Good one, that.

:rofl:

[Beam Me Up]

28. This documentary should have had a six figure budget

and this movie should have been made by a professional news organization, with professional journalists with long histories of researching, steadfastly dedicated to finding the truth and reporting it fairly and accurately to the American people.

But guess what? The "professional" news organizations and their budgets of millions of dollars, won't go any where NEAR this story. What does that tell you about them and their integrity? They lie to us every day, over and over and over again. Difference is, they convince you their BS is the truth, fact checked and all, when mostly it is just social mind control.

Meanwhile ordinary citizens Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery & Jason Berma, recognizing the seriousness of this matter, sorted through the information they had available to them, jammed it together in a catchy production that they hoped would capture some attention, and sent it out into the world for people to see.

These guys aren't professionals, not yet any way. They are all in their early twenties and did this for no reason except because they wanted to share what they had found and share their outrage and concern at having found it. NO IT WAS NOT PERFECT. How could it possibly be? You see, the corporate media wants you to believe that the only media worth watching is the media that they sponsor and produce. They want to keep your attention focused on them and their products, including the media itself. Meanwhile, all around this nation and the world, people of all ages are beginning to BECOME THE MEDIA. It isn't always pretty but it is 'real' in the sense that it represents a real human need TO EXPRESS ONE'S SELF. Not only that, but to also SEE ONE'S SELF reflected in the media we consume.

You may think Loose Chage 1, and 2 should have been something other than what they were but I disagree with you because they are something quite significant exactly as they are, as petgoat said, "warts and all." What we are seeing is what happens when ordinary citizens become alarmed enough by what they see in the world around them to actually become involved, take matters into their own hands, hopefully toward positive change and a genuine redress of grievances. They have used available information and resources to create a FAR MORE COMPELLING INTERPRETATION of the events of 9/11 than has been presented by our government and the corporate owned media that broadcasts their increasingly obvious lies.

Let me put it to you this way: If you think you can make a better documentary on 9/11, then PLEASE DO SO! No one is stopping you.

[Jazz2006]

29. While I understand the sentiment...

of your post, and while I recognize that these guys are rookies, that does not absolve them of responsibility for producing and distributing something so blatantly dishonest and deceitful.

And ask yourself, seriously, why hasn't any professional news organization with professional journalists and research skills made a similarly ridiculous video? I'd suggest it's because the facts don't support the conspiracy theories.

One thing I will agree with you on (well, actually, you didn't say this and I am only assuming that you would agree with me, but please do correct me if I'm wrong) is this: I would like to see a large media organization put a concerted effort into asking questions about the extent of the failures of the gov't in relation to Sept. 11/01 on so many levels - communications, security, military response, procedures, bribery, building codes and corruption, for instance - failures and cover ups on so many levels.

But none of that excuses the dishonesty and wilful deceit that Loose Change versions 1 and 2 came out with.

As a result, Loose Change only HELPS the Bush admin by "convincing" only the most gullible of the gullible among the population that it is factual, leaving the Bush admin free to never respond and to never be held accountable for its screwups because it is so easy to ridicule the video.

Crap video doesn't help in the quest for truth.

[greyl]

30. Yup. "If you get them asking the wrong questions, you don't

have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon

[Jazz2006]

32. Exactly.

That's what annoys me most about ridiculous videos like Loose Change. It just diverts from the real questions and lets the gov't off the hook because they can legitimately say "ha ha - what a piece of crap" and ignore the legitimate questions.

Loose Change just gives them a "get out of jail free" card to exploit.

[salvorhardin]

82. I'd like to see this too

One thing I will agree with you on (well, actually, you didn't say this and I am only assuming that you would agree with me, but please do correct me if I'm wrong) is this: I would like to see a large media organization put a concerted effort into asking questions about the extent of the failures of the gov't in relation to Sept. 11/01 on so many levels - communications, security, military response, procedures, bribery, building codes and corruption, for instance - failures and cover ups on so many levels.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

[mirandapriestly]

43. The people who complain about Loose Change say nothing

about the lies, distortions & omissions of the corporate media.

[Jazz2006]

45. Not true....

You just have a remarkable way of missing all of the detailed refutations.

But you can look them up via the DU search function if you doubt that.

[New Earth]

47. i don't think you understant what she said

:shrug:

[greyl]

49. I think they understand just fine.

I think you don't understand that Loose Change is a thorn in the side of the 911 Truth Movement according to those in the 911 Truth Movement.

Iow, many if not most of the people who refute Loose Change are just as happy to refute bullshit wherever they find it in our media, whether it be Mass Media or Mini Media.

[rastafan]

54. well said, greyl

One cannot help but notice that Loose Change is generally promoted by the lower quality, questionable evidence 9-11 websites. Wisely, the 9-11 websites with higher standards are not endoring it.

[Woody Box]

53. They say nothing at all

just contaminating the forum with word bubbles.

What are the weaknesses of Loose Change, jazzy? Be specific! It's your turn - tell me one "inaccuracy, distortion, or dishonesty" and one of the "numerous" threads here or one of the "numerous" other websites where it allegedly has been debunked so we can discuss it.

Either you manage to answer specifically, jazzy, or otherwise, please go home. You're not credible.

[Jazz2006]

56. I've answered this before.

While the production is better done than most of the conspiracy theorists manage, it is still full of crap and is blatantly dishonest at times.

It basically repeats all of the same nonsense that has been debunked repeatedly elsewhere, but with music, voiceover and video. It conveniently misquotes, misreads, draws comparisons where none exist, and ignores inconvenient facts.

A few examples:

- The narrative says "at 11:43, WCPO local news reported that two planes landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport..." but the document allegedly backing up this assertion says no such thing (if you bother to actually read it). It says that ONE plane landed. But this doesn't stop the producers from going off into a lengthy, patently ridiculous and wholly unfounded theory about an airplane switch, secretive landings, with the passengers from all four hijacked flights being shuffled off to a NASA research centre, presumably ultimately being killed by the government. Totally off the wall and totally unsupported by anything so inconvenient as a single fact, mind you, and all based on the initial lie that the transcript of the WCPO story says that there were two planes.

- Hilariously funny is the bit about the gold stored in vaults in the towers. The narrative says "Reuters reported it was discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck along with several cars in a delivery tunnel under the WTC". Then goes on to say, "Let me get this straight. Gold from the WTC was found under WTC5 in an empty delivery truck with an empty escort of cars. I think it's safe to say that they were running away from the south tower. Question is how did they know to flee with their stash?"

However, Reuters actually said no such thing. In fact, the graphic purporting to support this particularly ridiculous bit is an email from someone called "The Infamous Vinnie Gangbon" or something similar, forwarding a New York Daily News story. And even the NYDN story doesn't say what the narrative says.

What is actually says, if you pause the film to read it is this:

"Construction workers cleared a delivery tunnel that runs underneath the complex... Officials got to the gold through that tunnel yesterday after workers hauled out a 10 wheel truck, several crushed cars and mounds of debris. ...

(it then goes on to discuss the many, many hours of work undertaken until dawn to clear a path to the vaults)

"Workers built and graded a ramp into the delivery tunnel.. A small bulldozer knocked down a wall inside the tunnel and a Brinks armoured truck drove in... later coming out with the first load of gold."

As anyone with half a brain can see, the gold was NOT "discovered in the back of a 10 wheel truck" and there was no "empty escort of cars" making a secret getaway with the gold.

Moreover, anyone can read the other news stories at the time which make it clear that the gold was recovered from vaults, to which access was gained via the delivery tunnel.

- Another ridiculous bit: the narrator, in a conspiratorial tone, wonders what they are "hiding" at the Pentagon in a big "box" that a group of men are carrying, and suggests that it is a large piece of evidence being hidden.

It's obvious that it's a tent, for crying out loud, exactly like those seen in use all over the Pentagon after Flight 77 crashed into it, photos of which have been posted on other threads here.

- In early scenes, the video shows copious amounts of paper and other lightweight debris being blown all over the place (when it suits the purpose of the video to do so) and yet in later scenes, the narrator expresses incredulity that something made of a "fragile material called paper" could possibly survive. Such a blatant contradiction.

- It suggests that the hijackers weren't really on the planes because "not even the official autopsy list for flight 77 lists the hijackers" - but the list it cites was not an "official autopsy list" at all. It was a list of those who had been identified by DNA analysis.

- It describes Larry Silverstein as "the man who purchased the WTC in July 2001" - but of course, he didn't purchase the WTC in July 2001 or at any other time. Not a big deal, perhaps, but when people get even something simple like that wrong, it says a lot about the credibility of the whole thing.

That's enough for now. Like I said above, it's better done than some conspiracy theory videos in terms of production, sound, and such... but it's still crap. As I've also said before, you can easily find lots of other sites refuting Loose Change. Even the better calibre conspiracy theory sites do not like it much as it tarnishes their efforts by association.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php

Loose Change, like other conspiracy theory nonsense, takes attention away from the real questions that should be asked about September 11/01.

And that just helps Bush & Co. to continue not having to answer the real questions.

- Edit to add link

[SidDithers]

67. Excellent post...

bookmark it and give the link every time someone says that "they're critical but they never give details"

Sid

[Jazz2006]

69. Oh, good idea.

Thanks. I hadn't thought of that.

[Jazz2006]

71. Hee hee.

woody b wrote:

Either you manage to answer specifically, jazzy, or otherwise, please go home. You're not credible.

mirandapriestly would not be happy with you, woody.

mirandapriestly wrote:

I hate those posts that you have to answer or they will (sic) they are "right"

[canetoad]

34. No, no man.

Mass media. That's what Loose Change is. Appealing to the lowest common denominator.

The 911 savvy as you call them, have moved far beyond Loose Change. Anything that brings the sheeple into touch with alternative theories about 911 is only good.

[Debunking911]

46. That's what republicans say

about Rush Limbaugh too. I think if you have to lie to motivate people then in reality there is nothing to motivate people.

There is more than enough to motivate people to call an investigation into his REAL crimes.

We make the same mistake Bush makes when we use lies to motivate people. Just as Bush is losing support and for the war so will the American people lose support for an investigation into his use of WMD intel.

Is this the type conversation republicans had when they accused Clinton of Murder and espionage? Was it OK to call Clinton a murderer just to waste more money on investigations which lead nowhere?

[greyl]

48. Hell yes, are you kidding?

Check wikipedia for a big pile of info to start with.
Here's another link for convenience.

(I wonder why the OPer hasn't been participating in this discussion?)

[New Earth]

59. sorry to ask

but is this forum infiltrated or what?
shit is staring us all in face and they still want to pretend it's not there
:puke:

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[New Earth]

61. damn right, all of what you said

and damn, i forgot about the ignore button. i'll have to start putting it to use then huh
:puke:

[greyl]

62. You might as well do that, yes.

If your side of the debate amounts to nothing more substantial than a puke smilie and group ad hominem, why give yourself the oppurtunity to anything at all?

[New Earth]

63. well the truth is

i'm not a debater.

i'm a decider....

[greyl]

68. ...oppurtunity to *say* anything... nt

[rastafan]

66. So constructive criticism of inclusion of weak research = treason?

Constructive criticism of Loose Change's inclusion of weak research = Treason?

Right.

Some of the strongest criticisms about this "documentary" appears to be coming from established researchers and activists in the 911 truth movement whose credibility is well regarded.

To label very legitimate criticisms about weaknesses of Loose Change as "treason" is directing your anger towards the entirely wrong crowd, and taints any credibilty you may have.

[Jazz2006]

70. Amazing, isn't it?

And welcome to DU.

:hi:

[mirandapriestly]

74. what "constructive " criticism? I just saw criticism with nothing to back

it up. I just read the whole thread and not one of the criticizers gave one example.

[Jazz2006]

76. Nonsense. Read it again.

[mirandapriestly]

73. You put them on ignore? Maybe I will to, but then I can't alert.

Not that that does any good, the're like posting factories. So can you not see their posts when they are on ignore?

[New Earth]

77. nope

you see their name as "ignored" and you can't see their post.

also, if they start a new topic, you will not see their thread at all.

[mirandapriestly]

78. So you would make a post then see their name following yours but not

be able to read what they said? Oh, THAT'S a great idea.

[file83]

80. I have quite a few people on "ignore" in this thread.

My research is getting better because of it. Arguing with these guys is a total waste of my time. I rather be discussing what WE want to discuss - not what THEY want to distract us with.

[mirandapriestly]

84. Oh, maybe I will do that. thanks, I agree. nt

[mirandapriestly]

79. duplicate self delete