Can we please have a clarification on the 9/11 rule for GD?

[JackRiddler]

I wrote to the DU mods a week ago but there's been no answer.

Lithos: please ask them to clarify. Perhaps they missed the message below and will notice it if it comes from you.

I don't want to post this on GD as it will be seen as provocative.

Here is what I sent to Skinner on May 3rd:

-------

Dear DU Moderators:

As a high-posting member, I am certainly not the only one wondering about the rationale behind moving all 9/11 news and research related posts on GD to the 9/11 forum. Now I don't think that every esoteric post on alleged demolitions or pixellated phenomena is of general interest, and I agree with the need to clamp down on dubious sources, but 9/11 remains the defining event and central justification for the Bush agenda.

Yesterday's announcement that David Ray Griffin's C-SPAN lecture will be repeated next Saturday is certainly something that large numbers of members will agree is of general interest, i.e. that should be made known to the membership at large so that they can make their own decision on whether to watch it. The same goes for news about the Sibel Edmonds and Moussaoui cases. And why shouldn't major 9/11 activist actions and events organized by progressives be promoted to the larger DU community?

Fact is, a large segment of the progressive community and Democrats harbor deep skepticism about the events of 9/11 and many have worked hard on researching leads concerning foreknowledge of the attacks in the administration, and on the motives for "letting it happen on purpose" (an area on which, for example, William Rivers Pitt has also written at length).

You may remember two polls I conducted on DU, both showing a majority of respondents going as far as criminal negligence or LIHOP/MIHOP in their views. The DU community has produced some of the major breakthroughs in 9/11 research, pursued by very dedicated members of longstanding too numerous to list. In the past there have been literally hundreds of 9/11 research threads on GD, but not to an overwhelming extent (given days as we have seen tend to be dominated by different stories and issues, many of them on the importance level of, say, the "runaway bride.")

As a 9/11 researcher and activist I have shared public platforms and organized events together with the likes of Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern. There may be a "tin-foil hat" faction among 9/11 skeptics, but this is not a tin-foil hat isssue! There is genuine breaking news supporting the skeptical case on a weekly basis. This is the issue that may yet topple the Bush administration from power. I therefore ask you please to reconsider the apparent (but so far as I know undefined and undeclared) blanket policy of moving all 9/11-related threads away from GD.

At the very least, I ask please that you clarify this policy and make it public to the DU membership, and I hope allow discussion about whether and to what extent 9/11 skepticism, activism and truth movements are allowable for GD.

Thanks for all your prodigious efforts.

All the best,

Nicholas Levis
a.k.a. "JackRiddler"

PREVIOUS THREAD ON 9/11 FORUM:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x38693

Lithos, thanks for the moderating but...

JackRiddler (1000+ posts) Tue May-03-05 06:47 AM

Lithos, thanks for the moderating but...

Could you please explain for us the policy whereby any mention of 9/11 research in the General Discussion forum is immediately moved to this forum? (I expect the GD mods are the ones actually responsible for doing this, but I'm asking you please to explain.)

Is there a written rule somewhere?

What is the delineation? At what point does a 9/11 thread qualify for moving?

Is 9/11 now irrelevant to a general discussion of politics in the United States?

---

RedSock (1000+ posts) Tue May-03-05 01:21 PM

1. i second that question

I was going to start a thread asking this last week, but I'll just add my note that I would like an explanation also.

I suppose one reason could be that anything that mentions "9/11" is obviously 9/11-related and thus belongs here.

But there are news stories from, say, Georgia, that are kept in GD and not moved to the Georgia state thread.

It does sometimes seem like we are pushed into a tiny corner out of sight. News on the Griffin lecture on C-SPAN deserved to be in GD.

my: book -- red sox blog -- political blog -- also we're moving to canada

---

Lithos (1000+ posts) Tue May-03-05 01:35 PM

2. An answer
Edited on Tue May-03-05 01:39 PM by Lithos

You will need to contact Skinner concerning DU policy and procedures, especially concerning these questions you raise. While I know the gist of the answers, as a moderator my responses would assume an air of officiality that really needs to be coming from Skinner.

You can reach them here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

As a side note, some have asked about this, but some threads and individual posts were removed from here because they referenced one of several sources which really are not considered credible for use here. The ones which come to mind include:

www.whatreallyhappened.com (which has previously included anti-semitic material)
www.rense.com (same as wrh)
www.americanfreepress.com (founded by and associated with willis carto, a noted anti-semite and revisionist)

In the case of the first two which are essentially story rebranders, you can often find the original elsewhere and use that instead to let it stand on it's own merits.

Lithos
Boycott Proctor Gamble and Iams

[Lithos]

1. I will forward this note

n/t

Lithos
Sept. 11 Moderator
Democratic Underground