posted 12-27-2003 06:59 PM            

I was struck by JerseyBluEyz's post in the thread at 10-03-2003 01:59 PM in which it was written: "We could go on forever with points and counter points." This is consistent with an unwillingness to accept facts that contradict with one's existing beliefs. BoomerChick then replied, "Actually, debate is good."

Nevertheless, in the "Big Govt" thread she initiated discussion of something I am very familiar with, having just finished debating it with someone else on another site--PNAC. I came back with a point by point response regarding her misinterpretation of the PNAC document (which she confessed to not having read in its entirety) to which she replied at 12-24-2003 01:56 AM: "I simply won't debate this with anyone...There is no debate. You either believe that war is good or believe that war is bad."

JerseyBluEyz's attitude seems to be one of someone finding religion and refusing to consider anything else and making no apologies. BoomerChick seemed to suggest she was interested in debating it and supposedly reached her conclusions based on her own research, but showed that she really wasn't willing to do so and went so far as to say that her particular agenda item (PNAC) wasn't open to debate.

Are people here because they've found their religion (i.e. their side of the debate) and are on a crusade, or are they here to debate, exchange ideas, and learn?

While I am certainly not on the side of conspiracists because my research doesn't support those conclusions, I certainly accept contradictory facts when they are provided. And if it seemed to me that the facts seemed to support a conspiracy theory, I'd accept it.