Charter Feedback

weisses

Its a bit difficult now that the charter has been unilaterally altered by Overheal, by doing so getting rid of some key points that were beneficial for people posting or starting threads in this specific forum. That charter was created after being debated for a long time in a feedback thread and involved a lot of regular posters.

So lets try it again is more easily said then done

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Its a bit difficult now that the charter has been unilaterally altered by Overheal, by doing so getting rid of some key points that were beneficial for people posting or starting threads in this specific forum. That charter was created after being debated for a long time in a feedback thread and involved a lot of regular posters.

So lets try it again is more easily said then done

Whining about process with no specifics?

If you have something constructive to digress on, digress away.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Whining about process with no specifics?

If you have something constructive to digress on, digress away.

You know the specific parts you removed from the charter ... It doesn't make it easier for a conspiracy theorist to debate here ... These measures were in place to give some protection to people posting here .... Now its just a circle jerk of the self righteous

This thread is the perfect example of such .... Make of it what you want

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

You know the specific parts you removed from the charter ... It doesn't make it easier for a conspiracy theorist to debate here ... These measures were in place to give some protection to people posting here .... Now its just a circle jerk of the self righteous

This thread is the perfect example of such .... Make of it what you want

What is your proposed amendment?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

What is your proposed amendment?

Kingmob gaslights every poster who disagrees with him. He is allowed to do it and not warned to cut it out. This is a conspiracy forum. Is there a moderator who actually believes conspiracies are real?

Ufos, jfk and 9/11 example?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

What is your proposed amendment?

I think the charter was fine the way it was ... It was created after a lot of feedback and input from posters... I don't see a reason to take things out unilaterally. By doing so you changed things considerably for CT ers posting here ... and not for the good imo.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

I think the charter was fine the way it was ... It was created after a lot of feedback and input from posters... I don't see a reason to take things out unilaterally. By doing so you changed things considerably for CT ers posting here ... and not for the good imo.

What specific measure would a rollback permit that the current charter does not? What things were taken out that you propose be restored?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

What specific measure would a rollback permit that the current charter does not? What things were taken out that you propose be restored?

If its no biggie then you can restore the charter back to the way it was ... You could put back all the forum specific rules you took out as you made no amendment other then the bigotry add on I can see no benefit of this action

Maybe you can explain why you felt the need to significantly alter the charter in the first place ? ... Specially in the light that it took a while and effort from us all to create the charter we had ...

Maybe this could be moved to a feedback thread

Dont want to upset Dohnjoe to much ;-)

Cheerful Spring2

weisses wrote: »

If its no biggie then you can restore the charter back to the way it was ... You could put back all the forum specific rules you took out as you made no amendment other then the bigotry add on I can see no benefit of this action

Maybe you can explain why you felt the need to significantly alter the charter in the first place ? ... Specially in the light it took a while to create the charter we had ...

Kingmob spends hours on here each day, posting paragraphs pages long, where does he get the time.? Yet can't comment on the info in a ten minute video

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

If its no biggie then you can restore the charter back to the way it was ... You could put back all the forum specific rules you took out as you made no amendment other then the bigotry add on I can see no benefit of this action

Maybe you can explain why you felt the need to significantly alter the charter in the first place ? ... Specially in the light that it took a while and effort from us all to create the charter we had ...

Maybe this could be moved to a feedback thread

Dont want to upset Dohnjoe to much ;-)

You still haven’t said what the problem is, other than you are upset the mods changed the charter without an open comments period. The only actual measure you mentioned was about Bigotry and you mention that as a thing that isn’t wrong with the current charter so I still have no clear understanding of what material problem there is with the language of the current charter?

Overheal

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Let's try this again..

Provide your conspiracy theory for 9/11. Since the last thread turned into a bit of a train-wreck, some simple rules to avoid that (if mod permits)

1. Be able to provide basic details/timeline for the theory
2. Supporting evidence only
3. Avoid "proof by denial"
4. No mentions of the NIST/Hulsey (for everyone's sanity or else it just turns into a NIST-denial-fest or Hulsey sideshow)

I guess we will get to that after we adjourn the rules committee

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

You still haven’t said what the problem is, other than you are upset the mods changed the charter without an open comments period. The only actual measure you mentioned was about Bigotry and you mention that as a thing that isn’t wrong with the current charter so I still have no clear understanding of what material problem there is with the language of the current charter?

And I asked you why the unilateral removal of 2 specific guidelines was a good idea in the light of the trouble we went through to create the rules in the first place... this clusterfukc of a thread can exist because you removed them

Don't spin this around claiming Im whinging and upset .... what you did was a bit of a dick move ... I spotted it a good while back, and had my reservations, But looking what is allowed in here now, I think a reversal to the agreed charter seems to be a good idea

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

And I asked you why the unilateral removal of 2 specific guidelines was a good idea in the light of the trouble we went through to create the rules in the first place... this clusterfukc of a thread can exist because you removed them

Don't spin this around claiming Im whinging and upset .... what you did was a bit of a dick move ... I spotted it a good while back, and had my reservations, But looking what is allowed in here now, I think a reversal to the agreed charter seems to be a good idea

What 2 guidelines? I’ve asked you three times now to detail the needed changes you propose.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

What 2 guidelines? I’ve asked you three times now to detail the needed changes you propose.

The 2 specific guidelines you took out ... Or dont you remember which sections you took out ?

And when you say

other than you are upset the mods changed the charter without an open comments period.

Who were the other mods involved??, would be interesting to get their view on this whole debacle

http://web.archive.org/web/20151030045246/https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056310842

Old and correct charter here

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

The 2 specific guidelines you took out ... Or dont you remember which sections you took out ?

as of what is seemingly 5 years, im really not acutely aware of what measure was rendered obsolete. And I’m on the touch site. I don’t really have the patience to play guessing games, or trying to play spot the difference.

4th time now please propose your amendment. I would like you to simply copy and paste text you think needs to be added to or removed from the charter. I thought this was a reasonable request.

Who were the other mods involved??, would be interesting to get their view on this whole debacle

http://web.archive.org/web/20151030045246/https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056310842

Old and correct charter here

Taltos, mike_ie, degrassinoel, and Dav.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

as of what is seemingly 5 years, im really not acutely aware of what measure was rendered obsolete. And I’m on the touch site. I don’t really have the patience to play guessing games, or trying to play spot the difference.

Not 5 years ... last august you changed it

Do not demand proof for someone else's theories.
This forum is for the discussion of Theories: they may not be readily conclusive. Instead, provide a constructive counter-argument. "eg. Lizard people exist in NYC subways!" "Actually a 2017 study found that subways were only populated by rats - [source link]."

Do not force conclusions.
Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.

Rings a bell no ?

Overheal wrote: »

Taltos, mike_ie, degrassinoel, and Dav.

That list is incorrect degrassienoel wasn't a mod anymore when the charter was changed

weisses

Why do I have to propose something to be reinstated when it shouldnt have been removed in the first place ....

Judging by your sniping comments i can see why you removed the two sections but that doesnt make it right

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Why do I have to propose something to be reinstated when it shouldnt have been removed in the first place ....

Because you out of the blue start going on about a grievance with the charter without mentioning any specifics. As a matter of good taste, it’s important that people be clear with each other on a common set of facts. In addition than that though: your central complaint appeared to be about a lack of clear communication about changes to the charter. So, to facilitate a request to have a more clear and transparent process for amending the charter, it would seem to me that it is QED that it should include a clearly worded statement of facts and a clearly worded motion on what language specifically needs to be amended.

Thanks so, for sharing the information.

It is exactly under that same principle, it turns out, I removed these two clauses. The first is genuinely unenforceable, and wasn’t being enforced at any time that I am familiar with in my entire tenure. Both skeptics and truthers bark to see source material for claims of fact. It’s the principle of burden of proof. This clause basically said burden of proof is taboo. As we had long since moved onto a post-truth era, where now we see less rumor than we do active disinformation, I found it illogical to keep the clause.

The other clause is so strangely worded that it made no clear sense. Again this is also another situation where contributors of all stripes have at times said “case closed” etc. when presenting what they felt were flourishing arguments for why something was so. I can’t think of a situation where it might apply.

In 2019 I was the only mod to effect this change and I thought it was pretty cut and dry. I don’t recall asking Ancailpadporcha. We had already been working through him looking to step off from CT about a month prior.

Judging by your sniping comments i can see why you removed the two sections but that doesnt make it right

Ironic judge snipey comment.

I do have a PM exchange from you for the month of August last year but I don’t think it was germane to this charter matter. I don’t look to have any PMs from anybody expressing concerns about it. You are expressing concerns now though and that’s fine there’s no SOL on it.

If these are added back these are things that people are actually going to expect enforced both ways?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Because you out of the blue start going on about a grievance with the charter without mentioning any specifics. As a matter of good taste, it’s important that people be clear with each other on a common set of facts. In addition than that though: your central complaint appeared to be about a lack of clear communication about changes to the charter. So, to facilitate a request to have a more clear and transparent process for amending the charter, it would seem to me that it is QED that it should include a clearly worded statement of facts and a clearly worded motion on what language specifically needs to be amended.

Thanks so, for sharing the information.

Like I said earlier, I noticed the change but thought nothing of it at the time. Now with these stupid threads popping up the two removed sections would have dealt with that. If you unilattery decide to remove two important sections in a charter then it would have been nice if you started this feedback thread at that time .... I would have brought up the same concerns as I have now.

Overheal wrote: »

It is exactly under that same principle, it turns out, I removed these two clauses. The first is genuinely unenforceable, and wasn’t being enforced at any time that I am familiar with in my entire tenure. Both skeptics and truthers bark to see source material for claims of fact. It’s the principle of burden of proof. This clause basically said burden of proof is taboo. As we had long since moved onto a post-truth era, where now we see less rumor than we do active disinformation, I found it illogical to keep the clause.

They are enforceable ....Problem is you don't want to enforce them.

clause below is enforceable

This forum is for the discussion of Theories: they may not be readily conclusive. Instead, provide a constructive counter-argument

This is also enforceable

Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.]

Its the nature of the forum that makes these points in the charter viable

Something that was discussed at length in previous feedback and agreed upon by both posters and mods

Overheal wrote: »

In 2019 I was the only mod to effect this change and I thought it was pretty cut and dry. I don’t recall asking Ancailpadporcha. We had already been working through him looking to step off from CT about a month prior.

Yes you decided by yourself that it wasn't enforceable, It might had something to do with you heavenly involved in the discussions breaking the charter on numerous occasions.

Overheal wrote: »

If these are added back these are things that people are actually going to expect enforced both ways?

Yes why not ... You have 3 mods

It removes the ridiculous threads that only allow "supporting evidence" ... They don't belong in this forum

Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

Is there a particular reason 9/11 conspiracy theorists require special treatment and rules?

By acknowledging any brand of history revision requires "loopholes", we are acknowledging it's nonsense - ergo there's no point in this forum.

If posters here just want to escape presenting theories and engage in pure denialism, perhaps ask mods to create a denialism forum. That would be far better suited.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Like I said earlier, I noticed the change but thought nothing of it at the time. Now with these stupid threads popping up the two removed sections would have dealt with that. If you unilattery decide to remove two important sections in a charter then it would have been nice if you started this feedback thread at that time .... I would have brought up the same concerns as I have now.



They are enforceable ....Problem is you don't want to enforce them.

clause below is enforceable



This is also enforceable



Its the nature of the forum that makes these points in the charter viable

Something that was discussed at length in previous feedback and agreed upon by both posters and mods



Yes you decided by yourself that it wasn't enforceable, It might had something to do with you heavenly involved in the discussions breaking the charter on numerous occasions.



Yes why not ... You have 3 mods

It removes the ridiculous threads that only allow "supporting evidence" ... They don't belong in this forum

Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

So this boils down to “stupid threads popping up” that you want silenced, because?

“It removes the ridiculous threads that only allow "supporting evidence" ... They don't belong in this forum”

That’s what this is about!

DohnJoe posted a thread where he wanted to establish some ground rules of his own. Those aren’t forum rules. They aren’t enforceable. It’s by gentlemen’s agreement. It’s only good manners to support your own burden of proof. Nobody is being carded or banned for not providing evidence. Similarly, nobody is being carded or banned for acknowledging a posters lack of supporting evidence.

Was this the problem??

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is there a particular reason 9/11 conspiracy theorists require special treatment and rules?

By acknowledging any brand of history revision requires "loopholes", we are acknowledging it's nonsense - ergo there's no point in this forum.

If posters here just want to escape presenting theories and engage in pure denialism, perhaps ask mods to create a denialism forum. That would be far better suited.

No special treatment at all ...We had a functioning forum charter which people agreed upon ... You were posting here with that charter in place

Your demands or rules for a thread don't belong in the CT forum ....With the correct charter in place it wouldn't be allowed

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

So this boils down to “stupid threads popping up” that you want silenced, because?

No ... try again

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

DohnJoe posted a thread where he wanted to establish some ground rules of his own.

We have ground rules ... Its called a forum Charter

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

No ... try again

Not helpful that.

Tl dr you are by appearances reacting because DohnJoe wanted to have a discussion thread compiling source material, as far as I can tell. This is what you mean by stupid/ridiculous threads that you don’t like.

If users want to ask other users to provide their sources I hardly see an issue with that? Though those “thread rules” are not enforceable and mods aren’t going to be the source police, cracking down on every post that isn’t MLA cited or some other slippery slope. If that was your concern.

If I’m way off base this requires additional clarification on what threads you are complaining about.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Not helpful that.

Same as your post before you edited it

Overheal wrote: »

Tl dr you are by appearances reacting because DohnJoe wanted to have a discussion thread compiling source material, as far as I can tell. This is what you mean by stupid/ridiculous threads that you don’t like.

Its the second one he started ..with the first one ending in a klusterfukc of a thread

Overheal wrote: »

If users want to ask other users to provide their sources I hardly see an issue with that? Though those “thread rules” are not enforceable and mods aren’t going to be the source police, cracking down on every post that isn’t MLA cited or some other slippery slope. If that was your concern.

Me neither ....I see nowhere in the old charter that a poster cannot be asked for their sources .. So i don't see the issue ... And yes they are enforceable .... Problem is that they go against your own standpoint in many discussions you participate in so the user overheal conflicts with mod overheal, You corrected this by changing the charter so it suited you better.

Overheal wrote: »

If I’m way off base this requires additional clarification on what threads you are complaining about.

The threads in question being allowed are a direct result of you changing the charter ..So if you change the charter back to the way we all agreed was working, The inappropriately setup threads for the CT forum would by default be closed as well

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Of course the tumbleweed GIF looks cool but who is able to discuss a conspiracy theory having in mind the nature of this forum with all these restrictions imposed. The mere fact you thanked that post says enough about you as a mod on this forum and the position you maneuvered yourself in

This one? I didn’t thank it. Seen it being thanked by skeptics and truther alike according the threads OP. Didn’t find it to be terribly harmful. Did you? We don’t have any reports from you.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Same as your post before you edited it



Its the second one he started ..with the first one ending in a klusterfukc of a thread



Me neither ....I see nowhere in the old charter that a poster cannot be asked for their sources .. So i don't see the issue ... And yes they are enforceable .... Problem is that they go against your own standpoint in many discussions you participate in so the user overheal conflicts with mod overheal, You corrected this by changing the charter so it suited you better.



The threads in question being allowed are a direct result of you changing the charter ..So if you change the charter back to the way we all agreed was working, The inappropriately setup threads for the CT forum would by default be closed as well

So bottom line you want threads you don’t like, about the facts of 9/11, censored?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

So bottom line you want threads you don’t like, about the facts of 9/11, censored?

Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

This one? I didn’t thank it. Seen it being thanked by skeptics and truther alike according the threads OP. Didn’t find it to be terribly harmful. Did you? We don’t have any reports from you.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113544124&postcount=3


Yes you did ... It just emphasize the way you positioned yourself

What "thruther" thanked that post ?

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113544124&postcount=3


Yes you did ... It just emphasize the way you positioned yourself

What "thruther" thanked that post ?

Right so 2 tumbleweed gifs in 2 different threads neither reported?

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse ?

You want the rules changed so these “stupid” “ridiculous” threads are not allowed here yes?

I don’t think I’ve missed anything

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Right so 2 tumbleweed gifs in 2 different threads neither reported?

Why should they be reported ? .... I just used it to point out the way you positioned yourself in this forum

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Why should they be reported ? .... I just used it to point out the way you positioned yourself in this forum

“Positioned?”

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

You want the rules changed so these “stupid” “ridiculous” threads are not allowed here yes?

I don’t think I’ve missed anything

The forum rules were changed to prevent these kind of threads and line of discussions in the CT forum, this was achieved with the input from posters and mods. You

You somehow decided to change it unilaterally for no apparent reason ... And then make it somehow my problem

The reason you gave is not a valid one ... I explained why I think you did this.

Maybe we could get a Cmod involved or bring it to sitewide feedback ... You seem to be oblivious as to why the changes you made to the charter are a problem for this forum

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

The forum rules were changed to prevent these kind of threads and line of discussions in the CT forum, this was achieved with the input from posters and mods. You

You somehow decided to change it unilaterally for no apparent reason ... And then make it somehow my problem

The reason you gave is not a valid one ... I explained why I think you did this.

Maybe we could get a Cmod involved or bring it to sitewide feedback ... You seem to be oblivious as to why the changes you made to the charter are a problem for this forum

Your complaints relate to the exist of a thread or two that you find objectionable. It’s not as though the forum is crippled for the bandwidth. So no I’m not seeing why the changes are necessary. Now, I get the impression that were these rules in the charter you would be browbeating to have these threads locked down for wanting to deal in the realm of facts and science.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Your complaints relate to the exist of a thread or two that you find objectionable. It’s not as though the forum is crippled for the bandwidth. So no I’m not seeing why the changes are necessary. Now, I get the impression that were these rules in the charter you would be browbeating to have these threads locked down for wanting to deal in the realm of facts and science.

These rules were in the charter for a reason ....

Explain why it was all of a sudden necessary to remove them. Dont come up with the empty phrase of it being unenforceable.. I showed you it is ... and it was enforceable for the previous 5 years.

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

These rules were in the charter for a reason ....

Explain why it was all of a sudden necessary to remove them. Dont come up with the empty phrase of it being unenforceable.. I showed you it is ... and it was enforceable for the previous 5 years.

I don’t frankly recall. I do know that upon review of the section I found it to be non enforceable. As if it should be an infraction to ask for burden of proof?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t frankly recall. I do know that upon review of the section I found it to be non enforceable. As if it should be an infraction to ask for burden of proof?

You still don't get it.

IMO You couldn't enforce it because it would compromise you as a poster... hence it was easier to remove the relevant sections ... You went a bit gung ho as a mod and are now trying to deflect it into my problem

I think this has run its course here ..I will take it up with a cmod and/or sitewide feedback if needed

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

You still don't get it.

IMO You couldn't enforce it because it would compromise you as a poster... hence it was easier to remove the relevant sections ... You went a bit gung ho as a mod and are now trying to deflect it into my problem

I think this has run its course here ..I will take it up with a cmod and/or sitewide feedback if needed

So I would have to card you just now for demanding proof in the free fall thread?

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

So I would have to card you just now for demanding proof in the free fall thread?

Is it in the charter ?

Is demanding the same as asking ?

Plus I wasnt demanding proof for your theory ... you need to present one first

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Is it in the charter ?

In your view it is.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

In your view it is.

It was .... It was taken out ..remember

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

It was .... It was taken out ..remember

Indeed. If it goes back cards and warnings would be bandied about for people asking others to provide evidence for their claims.

“Juice packs really do make frogs gay that’s a fact”

“Where’s your evidence?” /breach of forum charter

I don’t see it happening. The other CT mods and CMods are free to chime in here as well.

Ted_YNWA

This is the point that was completely removed.

Do not demand proof for someone else's theories.
This forum is for the discussion of Theories: they may not be readily conclusive. Instead, provide a constructive counter-argument. "eg. Lizard people exist in NYC subways!" "Actually a 2017 study found that subways were only populated by rats - [source link]."

Are you wanting to make any old claim you want safe in the knowledge that it can't be questioned? Without being challenged to either expand or clarify anything further on what you are claiming.

This is not an echo chamber to only post Pro-CT viewpoints.

weisses

Overheal wrote: »

Indeed. If it goes back cards and warnings would be bandied about for people asking others to provide evidence for their claims.

“Juice packs really do make frogs gay that’s a fact”

“Where’s your evidence?” /breach of forum charter

I don’t see it happening. The other CT mods and CMods are free to chime in here as well.

Again ... asking for proof is different then demanding it

We had this discussion in feedback with mods cmods posters I even think Dav himself was involved and based a charter on all the feedback and input

You have your own agenda as to why you removed the 2 sections and it has nothing to do with it not being enforceable .. that reason is a cheap cop out

weisses

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

Are you wanting to make any old claim you want safe in the knowledge that it can't be questioned? Without being challenged to either expand or clarify anything further on what you are claiming.

This is not an echo chamber to only post Pro-CT viewpoints.

No its not

You might want to familiarize yourself with the history and issues of this forum before making these statements

one of the removed sections was

Do not force conclusions.
Theories inherently are based on some supporting evidence, but that evidence frequently can neither be proven true nor false.

Which is a valid and fair section for a forum such as this

Now we have a thread open with someone demanding Supporting evidence only, In other words ( proving a claim to be true) Which is something that should not be demanded in a conspiracy theory forum.

Dohnjoe

weisses wrote: »

Now we have a thread open with someone demanding Supporting evidence only,

This one?

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

"Straightforward enough, explain what alternatively caused the building to collapse with normal evidence, sources and information (not infowars, conspiracy sites and random blog stuff please)

Since I have a long history with this whole 911 thing, it's highly likely that individuals may attempt to divert or deflect back to attacking the NIST or details - many other threads cover that, this is a thread about alternative theories and looking at the supporting evidence behind those theories"

In other words ( proving a claim to be true) Which is something that should not be demanded in a conspiracy theory forum.

According to who? you?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Now we have a thread open with someone demanding Supporting evidence only, In other words ( proving a claim to be true) Which is something that should not be demanded in a conspiracy theory forum.

Supporting evidence isn't the same thing as proof.

Supporting evidence is the simply verifiable facts and reasonable conjecture that lead you to a certain conclusion. In other words, the reasons you believe something.

If the facts you use are actually true and your conjecture is indeed reasonable, your conclusion can be valid even if it's not "proven."

I don't get the objection to posting the reasons for believing a conspiracy theory rather than just attacking the conclusion accepted by most people.

weisses

Dohnjoe wrote: »

According to who? you?

No its the nature of the forum which makes it a not workable approach

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Supporting evidence isn't the same thing as proof.

Supporting evidence is the simply verifiable facts and reasonable conjecture that lead you to a certain conclusion. In other words, the reasons you believe something.

If the facts you use are actually true and your conjecture is indeed reasonable, your conclusion can be valid even if it's not "proven."

I don't get the objection to posting the reasons for believing a conspiracy theory rather than just attacking the conclusion accepted by most people.

I gave you the definition of supporting evidence .... make of it what you want