New York City activist

January 19, 2008

Reply to debate invitation from Ron/pomeroo on JREF

Filed under: 9/11 Truth,reply - JREF — Diane @ 3:15 am

On my “blog stats” page, I found that two users had gotten to this blog via a link in page 4 of a thread in the JREF forum titled Hardfire News. On page 4, “Brainster” (who I think is Pat Curley) suggests to pomeroo (who I think is Ron Wieck) that he invite me onto a debate on a public-access cable TV show.

Ron/pomeroo said he would consider me, and wondered how he could get in touch with me. Answer: Post a comment here on my blog. Once you do, I’ll automatically have your email address (or at least the email address you used to register as a user here at WordPress).

Anyhow, I personally would like to take a raincheck on the debate offer, because I feel that I’m too new to the movement to represent it in a public debate. I’ve been around only since summer 2007. Maybe I’ll be ready by this coming summer. (Edit: See P.S.’s at the bottom.)

But, in the meantime, I’m willing to try to help Ron/pomeroo find someone else. I’ve posted a message on the private message board of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

One problem, which came up earlier in the discussion following my post Proposed debate with Jim Hoffman (reply to ref1 and some folks in the JREF forum) is that Ron/pomeroo has a reputation for being thoroughly obnoxious. But it is claimed by many people in the JREF forum that that Ron/pomeroo is a Jekyll/Hyde, and that the obnoxiousness is just his online persona. Supposedly he’s much more civil in person and on his show.

Ron/pomeroo, would you be willing to send a DVD of past shows of yours dealing with 9/11 to anyone who is contemplating appearing on your show, so that we can see what you’re like on your show?

To ref1, or to any other JREFer reading this: Could you please call pomeroo’s attention to this post?

P.S.: There has been some discussion about Ron’s/pomeroo’s show in the Truth Action forum, in the thread BBC Hitpiece on B7 in the Making. In that thread, Nick Levis has urged me to appear on Wieck’s show. (See Nicholas’s post here.) Well, I’ll consider it, but I’m still going to try and see if I can get someone from Scholars from 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Further P.S.: I’ve decided that I am at least tentatively willing to appear on the show if the discussion can be limited (at least for the most part) to WTC 7. Before I make that final, though, I’ll need to see some of Ron Wieck’s previous shows. In the meantime, I’ll keep trying to find someone in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice forum.

P.S., 1/27/2008: On JREF, DGM wrote:

Ron:
I’ve read a fair bit of her blog, she seems quite good at “connecting the dots” and putting out arguments from speculation and conjecture. How do you think she will do when someone argues against her with logic and facts?

Some of my posts feature “speculation and conjecture,” while others do feature more rigorous logic. More importantly, I know when I’m doing each of these. When I put forth “speculation and conjecture,” I usually include some sort of overt disclaimer indicating this.

I have a B.S. in electronic engineering, with a stronger physics background (including a stronger dose of basic mechanics) than most EE’s, because I started out as a physics major. I also have a stronger math background than most EE’s. I also had some very interesting and enlightening debates with a structural engineer here on this blog a while back. So, while I’m far from the most qualified person in the world to discuss the collapse of WTC 7, I’m not exactly a scientific ignoramus.

What I want to ask is, are you luring this poor girl into the snake pit with no anti-venom. Do you think she’s fully aware of what she’s up against?

Yesterday Ron Wieck gave me a DVD containing a couple of his previous shows. I hope I’ll have time to write a review of them on Tuesday. I’ll also need to spend some time looking at Mark Roberts’s website, as well as studying other info on WTC 7.

Advertisements

7 Comments »

  1. Dear Diane,

    I can’t send you DVDs of the debates I’ve hosted because I don’t own any. I can provide links to them:

    [Comment edited by blog author Diane, to remove video links, prohibited by this blog’s comment policy. A copy of the original comment has been saved elsewhere.]

    I’m not really a Jekyll/Hyde type. Everyone who participates in a televised discussion is entitled to courteous treatment, civility being a virtue I prize. My rudeness is reserved for extremely rude people who post anonymously.

    I have scheduled two shows for February 26. The BBC will use whatever portions of them they choose. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Ron Wieck

    Comment by pomeroo — January 19, 2008 @ 4:02 pm | Reply

  2. Ron Wieck / pomeroo wrote:

    I can’t send you DVDs of the debates I’ve hosted because I don’t own any. I can provide links to them:

    [Comment edited by blog author Diane, to remove video links, prohibited by this blog’s comment policy. A copy of the original comment has been saved elsewhere.]

    But I’ve forwarded your links both to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice forum and to the Truth Action forum (in this post here).

    Please see also the email messages I just now sent you.

    Comment by Diane — January 19, 2008 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  3. When Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas debated Mark Roberts and Ron Wieck on Hardfire, they made their own video record of the debate. I don’t think that Hardfire go in for much editing anyway*, but that might reassure people who fear that they may be represented in some way. The BBC will obviously use extracts, but any participants will have the full Hardfire version of the debate and, potentially, any recordings they make themselves to refer people to for the context of what was said. Dylan and Jason include a section of off-camera discussion which shows that Ron is extremely courteous and is concerned that Jason and Dylan are happy with how things are going (they say that they are).

    *a comparison between the footage that Dylan and Jason shot and the broadcast version of the show confirms this.

    —————–

    Even if Ron were rude in his professional persona, such rudeness seems to me to be an odd reason to avoid participating in a debate. If your movement is correct in its intuition that something is wrong, then you are trying to expose a conspiracy that the involves mass murder of civilians. It doesn’t make sense in such a case to be prevented from speaking about your cause because you are worried that the host of a programme is going to be rude to you. Indeed, other figures in the Truth Movement have agreed to appear with O’Reilly even though it is guaranteed that he will abuse them. If the argument is a strong one, most viewers will appreciate it and will not take kindly to counter-arguments that don’t address it – and they’ll think even less of rudeness and bluster in the place of argument.

    On BBC News, if someone (usually from the government) is unavailable for an interview they will sometimes “empty chair” them: the presenter will announce that nobody would come on the programme. This almost always gives the impression that they are trying to avoid the argument because they know they are wrong. Given the attitude of the likes of David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barratt and Steven Jones to the first Conspiracy Files programme on the BBC (ie they didn’t show up), you’re likely to either get an “empty chair” or Alex Jones and James Fetzer to represent your movement – so go on you for putting yourself forward (albeit tentatively).

    —————–

    You can find the Dylan and Jason version of the Hardfire debate on Google Video – it was uploaded by Louder Than Words, using that username, which is the same account as they use to upload all their other videos.

    [Comment edited by blog author Diane. Video links removed, as per comment policy. maccy69, please see email.]

    Comment by maccy69 — January 27, 2008 @ 7:42 pm | Reply

  4. P.S., 1/27/2008: On JREF, DGM wrote:

    Ron:
    I’ve read a fair bit of her blog, she seems quite good at “connecting the dots” and putting out arguments from speculation and conjecture. How do you think she will do when someone argues against her with logic and facts?

    Some of my posts feature “speculation and conjecture,” while others do feature more rigorous logic. More importantly, I know when I’m doing each of these. When I put forth “speculation and conjecture,” I usually include some sort of overt disclaimer indicating this.

    I have a B.S. in electronic engineering, with a stronger physics background (including a stronger dose of basic mechanics) than most EE’s, because I started out as a physics major. I also have a stronger math background than most EE’s. Also, I had some very interesting and enlightening debates with a structural engineer here on this blog a while back. So, while I’m far from the most qualified person in the world to discuss the collapse of WTC 7, I’m not exactly a scientific ignoramus either.

    What I want to ask is, are you luring this poor girl into the snake pit with no anti-venom. Do you think she’s fully aware of what she’s up against?

    Yesterday Ron Wieck and I met in person at a diner. He gave me a DVD containing a couple of his previous shows. I hope I’ll have time to write a review of them on Tuesday. I’ll also need to spend quite a bit of time looking at Mark Roberts’s website, as well as studying other info on WTC 7.

    Comment by Diane — January 27, 2008 @ 7:58 pm | Reply

  5. Diane wrote: “Yesterday Ron Wieck and I met in person at a diner. He gave me a DVD containing a couple of his previous shows. I hope I’ll have time to write a review of them on Tuesday. I’ll also need to spend quite a bit of time looking at Mark Roberts’s website, as well as studying other info on WTC 7.”

    Sounds great. I’m looking forward to this. Hope you’ll be doing the show 🙂

    Comment by ref1 — January 28, 2008 @ 4:31 am | Reply

  6. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    Pingback by My decision about Ron Wieck’s show « New York City activist — January 31, 2008 @ 1:01 am | Reply

  7. (This comment is an edited pingback.)

    Pingback by Debates and such - further reply to some JREF folks « New York City activist — February 2, 2008 @ 2:39 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: