Jim Hoffman willing to debate in a neutral environment

[ref]

I have been posting on Diane's blog for a few days now, and she has had several e-mail exchanges and phone calls with Jim Hoffman in the past. I asked, if she could ask Hoffman to appear on Hardfire.

Here is the reply:

"I’ve written to Jim Hoffman, and he has replied telling me that he would be interested in a debate, but only in a relatively neutral environment, with a host who is capable of being neutral. He would not be interested in a debate with Ronald Wieck as a host."

Can we come up with a debate in some relatively neutral environment, and unfortunately not with Ron hosting? Any takers? Hardfire hosted by Gary Popkin?

[RedIbis]

Shocking. Jim doesn't want to debate against a team of jrefers with a hostile jrefer as host. What a coward.

[T.A.M.]

Red:

Gravy is hardly a "team of JREFers". Ron has made no bones about his lack of bias. You should stop exaggerating or we might mistake you for a truther...lol

TAM

[ref]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Shocking. Jim doesn't want to debate against a team of jrefers with a hostile jrefer as host. What a coward.

To my understanding he is willing to debate a jref'er. I suggested Mark, of course. He just declines to debate, if the host is not more neutral and declines to debate if Ron hosts.

[T.A.M.]

I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic "on the fly" like the truther mantra dictates. I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?

TAM

Edit:

The fact is, Ron Weick is one of the few, if not the ONLY, Talk Show Host who is not bias in favor of the truthers, that will actually take the topic serious enough to provide a forum to debate. Hence, I see any other host as being unfair to the Debunker.

TAM

[ref]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic "on the fly" like the truther mantra dictates. I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?

TAM

The only response from him thus far is the quote in the OP.

[T.A.M.]

The only even remote possibility in terms of a perhaps somewhat neutral host might be the one in TO that hosted Gage and the special effects guy. He seemed to be able to keep himself out of it, and allowed both people a good share of time, IIRC.

TAM

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Red:

Gravy is hardly a "team of JREFers". Ron has made no bones about his lack of bias. You should stop exaggerating or we might mistake you for a truther...lol

TAM

Call it a preemptive strike, but I've seen DRG and others insulted because they would not accept the strange terms of debate that is often proposed here.

If Hoffman got even a glance of how the DRG exchange with Wieck went, would you really be surprised that he asked for a non jref related venue?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I believe Doc has a site that allows for a one on one written debate, but I doubt Hoffman wants that, as he will not be able to move the topic "on the fly" like the truther mantra dictates. I also suspect he will not debate Mark Roberts anyway. Did he indicate anyone in particular he would or would not debate?

TAM

Edit:

The fact is, Ron Weick is one of the few, if not the ONLY, Talk Show Host who is not bias in favor of the truthers, that will actually take the topic serious enough to provide a forum to debate. Hence, I see any other host as being unfair to the Debunker.

TAM

I thought Amy Goodman (who I am not a fan of) was relatively objective, calm and respectful to both sides of the LC PM debate. Do you disagree?

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Call it a preemptive strike, but I've seen DRG and others insulted because they would not accept the strange terms of debate that is often proposed here.

they arent ridiculed for not accepting a hardfire debate, they are ridiculed for not suggesting an alternative

Tuther: I want to debate a JREFer but they wont accept becuase they are scared!

JREFer: No, we arent scared, hows hardfire?

Truther: No, i want a neutral host

JREFer: Ok, who do you suggest?

Truther: ...

JREFer: Hello?

Truther: ...

JREFer: Ummm

Truther: See! Their afraid to debate us! We win!

[DGM]

Personally I don't see the point of debating any of them. With the exception of Griffin who sells books the rest are nobodies. Debating them would just give their theories an air of credibility and give them the attention they desire. Let them stay the internet loon show they are now.

[ref]

Originally Posted by DGM

Personally I don't see the point of debating any of them. With the exception of Griffin who sells books the rest are nobodies. Debating them would just give their theories an air of credibility and give them the attention they desire. Let them stay the internet loon show they are now.

But there is a chance, that some will change their views. I remember when someone posted here after the Loose Change vs. Mark & Ron debate. He said that after watching that debate, he went from thinking the Loose Change boys had something, to knowing they had nothing.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ref

But there is a chance, that some will change their views. I remember when someone posted here after the Loose Change vs. Mark & Ron debate. He said that after watching that debate, he went from thinking the Loose Change boys had something, to knowing they had nothing.

I see your point but why give them the mainstream exposure when their presence now is zero. I don't see a huge number of recent (sane) converts to the movement.

[Totovader]

There is no such thing as a neutral host- Ron, however, makes it perfectly clear that he's not neutral, which is what makes the playing field neutral.

If ANYONE can point to ANY example where Ron has unfairly used his non-neutral position to take over the debate or otherwise give an unfair shot to one side, then I will not only eat my hat, but I'll stop laughing at these loons because all they're doing is looking for a scapegoat.

Beware anyone who tells you that they ARE neutral- they are lying.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Totovader

There is no such thing as a neutral host- Ron, however, makes it perfectly clear that he's not neutral, which is what makes the playing field neutral.

Let me see if I got this straight. Ron is not neutral which is what makes his show neutral. Ok, huh?

[SDC]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Let me see if I got this straight. Ron is not neutral which is what makes his show neutral. Ok, huh?

I suspect you are being intentionally disingenuous. Ron is not neutral and makes that clear, which means that everyone knows where they stand.

Others are not neutral, and pretend they are neutral, so the grounds of the debate shift in the middle; there is a hidden agenda, instead of Ron's revealed one.

[einsteen]

That would be the same as a German referee in a German-Dutch Soccer game (or is it football?)

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by einsteen

That would be the same as a German referee in a German-Dutch Soccer game (or is it football?)

which in itself doesnt mean anything, he isnt automatically biased, just as an italian ref isnt automatically neutral

[Mooseman]

I am surprised when any of them debate, it just is not in their best interests.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Call it a preemptive strike, but I've seen DRG and others insulted because they would not accept the strange terms of debate that is often proposed here.

Griffin won't accept a debate under any circumstances. The guy has written 5 books on the subject, but has never even done a serious interview.

[Drudgewire]

Originally Posted by Mooseman

I am surprised when any of them debate, it just is not in their best interests.

Sure it is, as long as they have a moderator who is sympathetic and someone who gets flustered when they spout out a soundbyte as "fact."

Shermer wrote about the frustration of debating these wackjobs. It's easy to get lost in emotion when dealing with liars/delusional personalities.

[MarkyX]

Originally Posted by einsteen

That would be the same as a German referee in a German-Dutch Soccer game (or is it football?)

So 9/11 is a sport to you?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Griffin won't accept a debate under any circumstances. The guy has written 5 books on the subject, but has never even done a serious interview.

Google David Ray Griffin Interview, there's no less than 20 different interviews, mainstream, alt news, and everything in between.

At least try to do a bit of research before making broad, unsubstantiated blanket statements.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Google David Ray Griffin Interview, there's no less than 20 different interviews, mainstream, alt news, and everything in between.

At least try to do a bit of research before making broad, unsubstantiated blanket statements.

Notice I said "serious" interview, every one of them was a softball interview. He has never had to defend his assertions in any forum.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Notice I said "serious" interview, every one of them was a softball interview. He has never had to defend his assertions in any forum.

Tucker Carlson and BBC are too radical for you I guess.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Tucker Carlson and BBC are too radical for you I guess.

They were not confrontational. The hosts don't know anything about the gists of his arguments, so when they get on there they can't really get into it. The only person in the media who has really challenged the truthers is Bill O'Reilly, but he doesn't really know much about it either, so he just insults them. Which is entertaining admittedly, but not very productive.

By the way, before you attack my lack of knowledge of David Ray Griffin, you should do a little research.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com...id+ray+griffin

[chillzero]

I feel we are straying a little away from discussing Jim Hoffman's debating requirements.

[lozenge124]

Some good debates I've heard:

Kevin Ryan vs. Michael Shermer (Thom Hartmann show)

Steven Jones vs Leslie Robertson (KGNU, "Morning Magazine" show, don't know the name of the host)

Mike Berger vs Matthew Rothschild (Dino Costa show)


In all 3 cases, the moderator was fair and let both debaters air their side; I'd recommend any of them for a Jim Hoffman debate.

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by ref

To my understanding he is willing to debate a jref'er. I suggested Mark, of course. He just declines to debate, if the host is not more neutral and declines to debate if Ron hosts.

I wonder if this means he would be willing to debate Mr. Roberts?

[beachnut]

Does Jim Hoffman have any conclusions that are rational?

You know I looked up Jim Hoffman and he is dead, just like the terrorist that are alive.

Fact 1 on Jim Hoffman - his web site debunks himself; debunks all his so called conclusions. Jim's dust calculations are funny; check them out if you want to waste time with another nut case non theories.

Cute how all the little drones for 9/11 truth come out and defend Hoffman by bashing themselves. Good job JREF truthers.

[JAStewart]

Get Hoffman and David Ray Griffs TOGETHER against Mark and Ron.

Why shut down one when you can shut down two?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That Ron has a bias/opinion on the issue is moot unless it can be demonstrated that such bias/opinion in conjunction with this role on the show is leveraged to slant the debate. I'd argue that his past 9/11 debates show him perfectly willing to provide equal talk time, not silence mikes, not shout people down (a la Oh'Really), etc.

[T.A.M.]

Hoffman and DRG versus Weick and Roberts would be a GREAT idea...as well, DRG may be a little more agreeable to it, if he has help.

TAM

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Gravy is hardly a "team of JREFers".

Are you sure about that?

"If Mark Roberts is a person, let him identify himself and provide background about himself and his many sources. If not a person, then let the group identify itself and its many sources." –Excerpt from Wikipedia's Loose Change discussion page

[pomeroo]

Before our resident conspiracy liars work up a full head of steam rationalizing Hoffman's cowardice, let's have a reality check. Hoffman was scheduled to appear on 'Hardfire' as my very first guest. He pulled out at the last minute, for no particular reason, and announced that he might be available later in the summer, but probably wouldn't be available ever. It is possible that one particularly deranged fantasist on a libertarian debate forum I used to frequent tipped him off to my stated intention of using Dr. Greening's work to refute his faulty calculations. Indeed, my preparations for the interview led me to contact Dr. Greening, and I have been grateful for his help many times since then. We managed to find a replacement in Les Jamieson. You know the rest of the story.

Hoffman is, of course, blowing smoke when he suggests that I'm the reason he wouldn't appear on 'Hardfire.' He wouldn't dream of facing Mark Roberts under any reasonable conditions. He would require the host to cut off Roberts the moment he began to speak. But Hoffman isn't alone. There are several well-informed rationalists on the JREF who could never persuade any of the more visible charlatans to stop running long enough to subject the myths of the fantasy movement to critical scrutiny.

What else is new?

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Hoffman and DRG versus Weick and Roberts would be a GREAT idea...as well, DRG may be a little more agreeable to it, if he has help.

TAM

TAM, these people are frauds, cowards, and liars. They would never accept such a challenge.

[T.A.M.]

I know Ron, remember I am usually the one telling you this...lol One can always dream...

TAM

[Gravy]

Last week I emailed Hoffman and for the second time asked him to remove a statement that appears twice on his site, including on the home page. He claims that the NIST report is deceptive because it doesn't show the tower column dimensions.

I showed him where the dimensions appear in the report, as well as the diagram of where the columns transition from box to wide flange.

Someone named Victoria Ashley replied and said that it's not so much that the dimensions don't appear in the report, but that Hoffman thinks the report "appears crafted to conceal such information."

[JAStewart]

Thats pure insanity. If anything that shows proves that hoffman doesn't take time to read things.

[Brainster]

Let me suggest a written debate rather than an oral one. I'm not mocking Hoffman, but he has a very pronounced stammer which is not conducive to verbal arguments. In addition, a written debate eliminates the advantage the "Truthers" have in that they can spout 30 bits of nonsense in a minute, each of which requires a detailed response, which inevitably means that lots of their claims don't get rebutted due to time constraints.