Jim Hoffman willing to debate in a neutral environment

[MarkyX]

9/11 Deniers are so much fun...

"We have scientific evidence that does not fit into NIST's conclusion surrounding the collapse of the Twin Towers.

But we won't be talk about it because your host is a big meanie."

[Hyperviolet]

How about The Doc's forum?

That's as neutral as anyone could hope for.

[Hyperviolet]

As an aside:

Pomeroo is a good host, that's pretty self evident from watching any hardfire debate.
He is honest about his bias, but more importantly; he never cuts people off.
In fact, Fetzer got more airtime than Mark during the last debate.

[scissorhands]

I thought so too, he made his position clear at the outset and he didnt get in the way of the debates.

[Guile]

lol, there's always my backwater forums that Killtown and 911Debunker debated briefly.

[Totovader]

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?

Nope, you didn't get it straight.

Ron is open and honest about his position- and therefore not only is clear about his intentions, but I believe works harder to be fair and open with his guests.

Do you have an answer to my question, or is this just your method of avoiding it?

[Caper]

You know who would be a good debate host. That guy that interviewed Judy Wood from DC truth or something like that... I always thought that if a truther could be a neutral host it would be that guy.

[R.Mackey]

I'd have to say that I think Ron is an excellent host. He makes no secret of his position, but somehow he manages to conduct himself politely and calmly, and always gives at least equal time to the other side. He's much calmer in real life than he is posting here -- which surprises me. I have a feeling that if I tried to deal with these people face to face, it'd make me angry in no time.

I also don't understand the fixation with "debates." The written word is sufficient. For instance, it's been almost three months since Dr. Griffin heard about my whitepaper, and over a month since I e-mailed him a copy at his request, but not a peep out of him. I am forced to conclude that he just isn't interested in correcting, or even understanding, his many and exceptional errors. Many of which, I might add, are copied from Jim Hoffman.

[CHF]

You'd think twoofers would leap at any opportunity to debate and show everyone how well they can defend their claims.

After all, we debunkers are pretty much the only people giving them any attention at all, and their message is one that will supposedly change the world.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

For instance, it's been almost three months since Dr. Griffin heard about my whitepaper, and over a month since I e-mailed him a copy at his request, but not a peep out of him.

That silence is the closest you will ever get to an "I was completely wrong." Treat it as such.

[ref]

I agree that Ron is a great host.

This debate thing was just a thing that popped into my mind when talking with a person who had contacts with Hoffman. I realized I had only seen maybe one appearance of Hoffman ever, although his website is one of the most quoted truther sites there is.

But, as seen on this thread, it's not likely anything with him will ever happen. Maybe it's not even necessary. That was just another idea

[ref]

I noticed Diane has written a response to us in her blog:
http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/200...reply-to-ref1/

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I'd have to say that I think Ron is an excellent host. He makes no secret of his position, but somehow he manages to conduct himself politely and calmly, and always gives at least equal time to the other side. He's much calmer in real life than he is posting here -- which surprises me. I have a feeling that if I tried to deal with these people face to face, it'd make me angry in no time.

I also don't understand the fixation with "debates." The written word is sufficient. For instance, it's been almost three months since Dr. Griffin heard about my whitepaper, and over a month since I e-mailed him a copy at his request, but not a peep out of him. I am forced to conclude that he just isn't interested in correcting, or even understanding, his many and exceptional errors. Many of which, I might add, are copied from Jim Hoffman.

I think the case is that the written word should be sufficient, but that few truthers avail themselves of accurate research, and many seem to get their information primarily from videos.

To me, such debates are simply a quick, convenient way to expose leading truthers as frauds.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Gravy

I think the case is that the written word should be sufficient, but that few truthers avail themselves of accurate research, and many seem to get their information primarily from videos.

To me, such debates are simply a quick, convenient way to expose leading truthers as frauds.

Fair enough, but as you know more than anyone, the "truthers" don't seem to absorb accurate information even in debate format, or even on YouTube. What very little progress I've observed has been where they've figured it out for themselves. Unfortunately, this process takes a long time...

At this point, I don't believe there's a single leader of the Truth Movement who isn't a known and widely publicized fraud. I could be wrong.

[Totovader]

I think it's quite telling that these folks- even this individual who has never even heard of Ron except through some links that someone cherry picked for her- are very quick to look for any excuse to dismiss his abilities.

I will ask one last time for anyone to step forward and provide even one example of where Ron, or anyone involved with Hardfire, unfairly used their influence or position to be anything but fair. He's open, accommodating, fair, and honest. His political views almost demand it. Even if I completely disagreed with Ron, I would be able to separate that disagreement with my duties as Ron does- something the conspiracists not only don't understand, but must actually reject in order to survive.

All the whining from "that side" of the fence is transparent: they're afraid of debate in general, but someone stepping forward willing to give them the rope to hang themselves with and laugh while doing it is just too much for them to handle.

I look down on them not only for avoiding the debate- not only for making excuses over and over and over- not only for trying to manipulate the debate- but also for not standing up against what they claim are odds against them. They must know that their position is so weak that they have to avoid any bumps.

I would think that their peers would respect them for standing up against these perceived odds. I guess I would think wrong.

[Totovader]

Diane comments in her blog, referring to comments here regarding the composure with which Ron conducts his debates and interviews:

Originally Posted by Diane

It would be nice to see evidence of these claims, if such evidence is available. For example, are there videos available of previous shows of his on the topic of 9/11?

*emphasis mine

Standard burden of proof fallacy- after the claim has already been made and after Ron has already been dismissed (by the very individuals we're talking about)- it's "prove me wrong".

Link to Hardfire shows with Ron:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...ck&sitesearch=

[pomeroo]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I'd have to say that I think Ron is an excellent host. He makes no secret of his position, but somehow he manages to conduct himself politely and calmly, and always gives at least equal time to the other side. He's much calmer in real life than he is posting here -- which surprises me. I have a feeling that if I tried to deal with these people face to face, it'd make me angry in no time.

I also don't understand the fixation with "debates." The written word is sufficient. For instance, it's been almost three months since Dr. Griffin heard about my whitepaper, and over a month since I e-mailed him a copy at his request, but not a peep out of him. I am forced to conclude that he just isn't interested in correcting, or even understanding, his many and exceptional errors. Many of which, I might add, are copied from Jim Hoffman.

I appreciate the compliments, Ryan. Pomeroo is Ron's Mr. Hyde. I deliberately crafted the persona as a counterpoise to the sort of people in the fantasy movement I've come to know. Being nasty is an unnatural pose for me, and I think that everyone who knows me well would back me up.

It bears repeating that nobody who takes the trouble to show up to defend his views on 'Hardfire' deserves to be insulted. I am incapable of heaping abuse, a la Bill O'Reilly, on someone sitting across a table from me, someone I've described as my guest. Faceless entities on the net are another matter entirely. I find it disturbing that the more I encounter the likes of P-doh and Scrubs, the easier it gets to revile them. Sometimes I read things I write and I'm genuinely embarrassed. But I tell myself that these are bad, foolish, irrational people who expend considerable energy promoting a truly evil cause. On occasion, I have promised myself to display more civility. Then I'll watch a show about 9/11 and the next time I encounter loons who insist that the calls from the doomed planes were faked, the old desire to commit decidedly anti-social acts bubbles up anew.

I'm sorry to rehash my experience with Griffin, but it sticks in my craw. On contacting him in September to pass along the word that we were ready to attempt a telephone interview and ask him if he wanted to respond to Ryan Mackey's paper, he instructs me to wait until he's returned from Europe. He proceeds over the following month-and-a-half to request a copy of the paper from Mackey, leaving me to cool my heels. Eventually, he breaks his silence to inform me that he was ignoring me because he has discovered that I am "dishonest," which conveniently releases him from his original agreement. Since June, people here have been predicting that he would find a way to wriggle out and, needless to say, he doesn't provide any examples of my dishonesty.

Really, what can be said in printable English about such a character? Ron can't deal with him adequately, but pomeroo has the right approach.

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

At this point, I don't believe there's a single leader of the Truth Movement who isn't a known and widely publicized fraud. I could be wrong.

I disagree...there are plenty of leaders of the Truth Movement who aren't well known or publicized

[T.A.M.]

I would suggest if it is to be Mark Roberts, than any topic goes. Same applies to any of our top debunkers (our top Generalists so to speak). If one of the engineers or such decides to debate him, then I suggest the topic be focused on a single or one or two aspects of the attacks, so that the topic cannot be moved about like a "whack a mole" game.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Ron, do you see things that aren't really there?

lol....j/k

TAM

[eeyore1954]

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

Anyone who watched the debates with the Loose Change crew think he let his bias get in the way of a fair debate.I think he gave all the participants fair treatment

[Gravy]

Let's keep in mind that Fetzer's airfare was paid largely by Ron, that Ron promoted Fetzer's book on the show, and gave him three shows in which to make his case. That's pretty damn decent treatment towards someone whose opinions he despises.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by CHF

You'd think twoofers would leap at any opportunity to debate and show everyone how well they can defend their claims.

After all, we debunkers are pretty much the only people giving them any attention at all, and their message is one that will supposedly change the world.

Of course. They have so much evidence so why not? I always found it weird how twoofers have to have so many stipulations when it comes to debate.