DU 9/11 policy change?

[paineinthearse]

I know this is a sensitive topic, hope the question will not be deleted, but since we no longer have an "ask the admins" forum I'll ask here.

I have perceived a subtle shift in how 9/11 posts are being handled. The difference is that they still get moved from whatever forum to the 9/11 forum, but if they have received >2 "greatest" votes, they remain on the "greatest" page for 24 hours.

Can we have a 9/11 policy statement?

:shrug:

[philb]

1. How does one nominate a thread for "greatest"?

I haven't seen instructions on that?

[paineinthearse]

2. philb

Welcome to DU

:hi:

[paineinthearse]

3. In all forums....

(except for 9/11), at the bottom of the initial post you will see the words "nominate for greatest". Just click.

Nominations must be made within 24 hours.

[Me.]

4. I'm Curious About That Too

Did a thread that got moved from GD, but landed on the greatest page. Though someone on the thread said something about not being able to nominate. This is a tender subject, I realize, but would like to know. I must mention, in fairness to the mod, that I posted it first on GD and then here. Don't know if that was a factor.

[Lithos]

5. There has been no policy change.

Threads which cover old ideas, or which deal with highly controversial (and conspiratorial) aspects are usually moved here, no matter the number of recommendations.

As for nomination, there is no block on the Sept 11th forum. This is done thru the use of the "Recommendation" link which is part of the Original Thread Post. There is no such thing as "Nominate For Greatest" as suggested by another user.

[JackRiddler]

6. But threads on Sibel Edmonds...

which is not controversial/exotic and which is news...

also get moved here.

I still have received no answer from on high to the queries you passed on, by the way.

Thanks.

......

[Lithos]

11. There may be some zealousness

In moving some items or there may be specific reasoning that I am unaware of. But realize that much of 9-11 is rather "specialized" and that they may have been moved out of being over-cautious.

Not a great answer, but it is all I have.

L-

[JackRiddler]

12. But please tell me...

Dear Lithos,

Below you recommend we "ask Skinner." I did, most recently on May 3. When there was no response, you offered to forward it again yourself? There is still no response.

I assume you agree it is reasonable to at least expect a clarification of the policy.

I do wonder who is being "zealous," and why. DU polls showed in the past that half of this community believes in some form of LIHOP/MIHOP. We should be allowed to acknowledge that.

---

E-mail of May 3, 2005:

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:

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

[Lithos]

14. A personal perspective

This is far from official and represents only my personal perspective from what I've seen. Please keep in mind the usual bit about this, $1.00, and a cup of coffee.

You are right there are a fair number of people on DU who fall into the LIHOP/MIHOP category. However, this is a very broad stretch and if further divided down, I feel that you will find that most would be mild LIHOP'ers who feel things happened as a matter of incompetence, lack of curiosity, and intentional neglect rather than active participation.

This is a far cry from the types of discussion which does go on in the forum. Much of what gets discussed in the 9-11 forum goes well beyond mild LIHOP and frequently does devolve down into discussions of a conspiratorial nature. I will be frank and state that from what I've seen many people do find these discussions distasteful. This is not because they trust Bush, but for other reasons ranging from personal knowledge of events and people, to disagreement with the methods and claims cited in the various theories.

Still, from what I've seen DU does allow discussion of new, novel elements relating to 9-11 in the higher forums. For instance, the 9-11 hearing was discussed heavily. Ms. Rice's testimony I think even made the Idiot's column. Even Mr. Griffin's CSPAN interview was posted upstairs and kept up there. I think it was only moved down when the conspiratorial discussion took the spotlight away from Mr. Griffin.

Again, this is not an official response, but rather a commentary from someone who is a long time member of DU and involved with the Sept 11 forum for several years.

[philb]

13. Who is making these decisions

While the official version of what happened on 9/11 is clearly a conspiracy theory, a lot of the posts lately on 9/11 have been about Dr. D R Giffin's books, which clearly are not conspiracy theory. So how does info on such research get classified as conspiratorial? What he is doing is looking at the evidence and pointing out when someone did not tell the truth, as documented by referenced evidence.

It should be pretty clear that most explanations by the U.S. Administration about why foreign policy choices are made are conspiracy theory, such as Iraq WMD so go to war - but their conspiracy theory was proven not true; similar for other issues; same as has been done for 9/11;
There is documentation that several officials have clearly lied about what happened on 9/11. And this should be dealt with. But its not conspiracy theory. Either they lied or they didn't, and its just a matter of looking at the evidence which exist to know the answer.
Likewise either they had prior knowledge or they didn't. And there is evidence to determine that as well. So it needs to be dealt with.
But getting action on such misdoings requires public knowledge- so wide exposure is needed to generate support for getting action on the issue.

9/11 is the defining event of this decade and has had more effect on people all over the world than anything else. Its clear that the whole story has not come out and some who were involved or complicit have not been exposed or punished. But this needs to happen. There is no other issue as timely or urgent currently, imo.

[demodewd]

7. my posts

It is my understanding that when I submit a new post it is to be included also in the Latest section. Yet,the last two posts I submitted on the 9-11 forum were not included in the Latest section. I know this to be true because I thoroughly monitored the Latest section immediately after I submitted both posts and for the succeeding 5 to 10 minutes. I can only assume that I am being deliberately blocked from the Latestsection.

[Lithos]

9. You may be right

I do not know how the Latest is handled. That is a question for Skinner.

L-

[Project_Willow]

8. So, I have a question

"Threads which cover old ideas, or which deal with highly controversial (and conspiratorial) aspects are usually moved here, no matter the number of recommendations."

Have the moderators considered trusting the DU readership to determine for themselves which issues are highly controversial (or conspiratorial) as they have done with so many other subjects posted to the board?

[Lithos]

10. This has been taken into consideration

This is a moderated board. The direction and guidance are given from DU Administration. If you have questions, I would strongly suggest asking Skinner.