Debate Challenge And Questions For 911blogger, Letter just sent to 911Blogger. Options

[Atomicbomb]

I just sent the following letter to the entire 911Blogger team:


"911Blogger Owners and Moderators,

My name is Adam Ruff. I am a former contributor to 911Blogger and reporter for Unspun Newz http://www.youtube.com/user/unspunnewz?feature=mhum. I would like to ask you all some questions on the record regarding your involvement with 911Blogger and would appreciate your response to them for my upcoming report on 911Blogger and the Citizens Investigation Team (CIT). Please reply back individually or as a group with your thoughts about each question written below the question itself so your responses will not get confused or be misunderstood. Thank you.

Q: Now that such a large number of people have been banned from 911Blogger apparently without violating the site rules and without an explanation do you feel the site is fulfilling it's purpose better today then it was prior to the mass banning? If so can you explain how the site has improved or how the truth movement has benefited from the mass banning?

Q: What is official 911Blogger editorial policy regarding CIT's pentagon evidence and regarding CIT supporters posting on 911Blogger?

Q: What is 911Bloggers official position in regard to censorship and the 1st amendment to the US Constitution? Can you elaborate on that position specifically as it relates to private property rights vs. free speech rights?

Q: In light of the recent endorsements of CIT from Barrie Zwicker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu5wzJtSMhc and Dwain Deets http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYGkiYmVUmg , endorsements which were very critical of censorship efforts against CIT within the truth movement, do you feel that it may have been ill advised to take such a harsh stance against CIT yourselves or do you feel as though your stance is justified and correct? Could you explain your answer?

Q: How involved were each of you personally in deciding who would be banned from 911Blogger? Did you make the decisions in each case yourself or was it a committee decision involving all/some of the other moderators as to who would be banned?

Q: Do you contend that those individuals banned without explanation over the last few months were not banned because of their support for CIT but for some other reason? If so why were they banned and how do you explain the large numbers of CIT supporters in the banned group?

Q: Do you consider 911Bloggers efforts to suppress CIT's evidence and purge CIT's supporters from your site to be successful? If so how do you measure that success?

Q: If it should turn out that CIT, Barrie Zwicker, Dwain Deets, and the many CIT supporters purged from 911Blogger were proved correct in their conclusions about the pentagon attack (I.E. the fly over happened, the pole damage was staged, etc) how will you restore 911Bloggers reputation and make up for the tremendous damage that has been done to the truth movement and to it's members who were wrongly silenced?

Q: Are you willing to debate CIT on the subject of the pentagon provided a neutral debate setting, established debate rules, and equal representative teams can be arranged? If not can you tell us why you choose to decline such a debate?

Q: If none of you are willing to answer any of the above questions is there any statement you would like to make on behalf of 911Blogger that you would like me to include in my report?

I look forward to your timely response,

Adam Ruff
Unspun Newz

P.S. I have BCC'd a number of truth movement members on this message in order to keep all this out in the open."


I will post any replies I get here.

[SanderO]

While the censorship may be the work of "infiltrators" or CIA plants, it's also possible and likely that this is an ego and power play situation. This is recognized as the founder's syndrome. So what you have is someone... take any 911 leader who starts out with the best of intentions as a researcher/activist and finds he has become a leader (though this may not have been part of his agenda) Now he discovers that he has a franchise, a following and the ability to control and influence others and steer "the movement" as per his agenda... even if it was to get the truth about 911. I would assert that virtually all the 911 leaders are suffering from Founder's Syndrome of one form or another. It's almost inevitable unless a person is especially careful AND the hierarchical system of almost everything out there forces leaders to "catch the Founder's Syndrome bug. From Wiki:

Founder's syndrome is a label normally used to refer to a pattern of behavior on the part of the founder(s) of an organization that, over time, becomes maladaptive to the successful accomplishment of the organizational mission . The term is anecdotal/unofficial and does not actually refer to a medical syndrome. It is particularly common where there has only been one person leading the organization or the board of directors since its inception [1] and commonly occurs in both non-profit and commercial organizations as they develop.

An organization faces founder's syndrome as the scope of activities widen and number of stakeholders increase. Without an effective and inclusive decision making structure and process there is potential for conflict between newcomers, seeking effective involvement with organizational development and the founder(s) who seek to dominate the decision making process. This can be very disruptive, both to the organization and to the individuals concerned and should be carefully and clearly diagnosed and addressed quickly and decisively[1].

There are a number of negative effects that may occur when an original founder CEO seeks to maintain disproportionate power and influence beyond the initial growth phase of an organization.

* Exclusion of newcomers: First, a founder's passion and charisma, initially essential to the successful establishment of an organization, becomes a limiting rather than a creative and productive force. As an organization matures, professionally-trained and talented people are normally engaged and the board is expanded. The founder's domination of the decision making process may frustrate effective and inclusive group decision making.[2].

* Identification with a single person: The organization may, over time, be overly identified with the person or personality of the founder and may experience diminished public trust.

* Nepotism: In its early development, the board is often selected by the founder and thus is often composed of friends and colleagues of the founder, this may limit the independent functioning of the board and deprive the organization of more diverse and representative views.[2]

Coping effectively with Founder's syndrome requires frank, careful discussion of the problem, a plan of action, and ideally interventions by the founder, the board and or by others involved in the organization. The objective of the plan should be to allow the organization to make a successful transition to a mature organizational model without damage to either the organization itself or to the individuals concerned.[