@Allende Admirer e.o.

AA:"People talk about consensus like it is a dirty word,meaning peer pressure conformity/ brainwashing. Whereas human evolution over 6 million years gave us the mechanism for how to deal with differing personal convictions in a group or society. People fight for their opinions, but ultimately the group decides what is most relevant & useful, and it is ONLY such a consensus which gives any validity whatsoever to any hypothesis especially when in opposition to the dominant status quo.This process also acts to refine hypotheses and make them stronger. It is a wonderful design, it is the reason for human dominance, why throw out this 6 million year old mechanism for 911 truth?"

End quote ....8><......

I try to keep it simple and short ;-)
[but didn't succeed]

It is the structure and substance that the consensus is about, that defines the kind of openness when dealing with arguments. When 'consensus' is completely tied or nailed up, the necessity to argue about something is gone. When 'consensus' is too open it lacks a structure that helps the participants to work towards a conclusion.

I think that - in general - most consensuses are defined by a core of active participants, on a forum or platform, who agree with each other. They are more determinative for the habits and opinions than the written rules in a statute.

You need a little luck to have common qualities (of such a 'core') balanced with a good deal of knowledge, social skills, not to much ego and a little bit of wisdom.

About the art of having fruitful discussion: I think (I argued this before) that when being in an active manner against something/ somebody, it will per definition always enlarge the negativeness of the subject you try to tackle. So, my remarks on this are never intended as a moral reprimand but as a working tool.

For example one of the latest topics here: "What the LIHOP Crusade of Jon Gold's 911Blogger Perpetuates", will just enlarge Gold as a big name in the truth movement. His name is never mentioned in the article itself and his badness is not defined. This vagueness seems lesson 1 in how to create a myth. The title in conjunction with the article itself is in fact bases on the hypothesis that the man is bad company. By repeating this the image will worsen every time. But this will not neutralize the badness of his substantial behavior (as being suggested), nor explain visitors why he is being treated like that.
Take notice! I'm not defending somebody, that's not the point.

The problem of my 'solution' for so called 'disinformants' (also having that mythical potential because of it's vagueness) seems my lack of showing concrete mechanisms to solve a problem that really exists.
My solution was indirect all the time, by just keeping the eye on the information monitor. Wrong information? Debunk it. Some idiot, agent, greenhorn, stubborn or else telling nonsense? Just debunk and create authority by just doing that well.

Somebody important spreading misinformation all the time? Create a (temporary) category for debunking all his/her lies or crooked information. Just pragmatic and efficient. By not assaulting the person the attention will be on the matter itself. The person will shrink by his own disinformation. Very powerful. Every personal assault will diminish the effectiveness.

In Holland I have sometimes [when active on a forum] to deal with a small core of really fanatic debunkers/flamers. I mean, no chance for good substantial conversation. Sometimes one will say that he's just doing it to damage, because 'truthers' are such a bunch of morons.
"Leaders" of these small compounds do actually have a lot of knowledge by following 9/11 for years. I guess that Waarheid911.com is never been damaged by these groups because it doesn't seek for personal confrontation, nor seeking for having personal opinions confirmed.

It works like the Teflon coating in a frying pan when just being an upholder for something, being for substantial information. Efforts from others to damage doesn't seem to stick. Information that is factual and back-upped by sources. The readers have to decide what their opinion will be. I do the fore-work and try to let speak the facts.

Sources like the Citizen Investigation Team, who are controversial within our own environment, are not a problem too. I mean, I can't erase conflicts or a lack of scientific culture although the pretensions seems to be scientific. But when I still think the information is important enough to mention, I just provide the article with a (serious) warning and some links to the kind of critics that I consider as reliable or reasonable. Or I write a critic based on facts, not on persons, myself.

Of course, the way how information is being dosed, presented and selected is very important, but on the end it should be the visitor who makes up his/her mind based on the given facts. Unconsciously they will appreciate the unbiased format as a positive sign.
Actively fighting figures or assumptions (instead of just correcting them) will make people suspicious, because they sense personal and ego-driven calculations.

http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]