Ok. If you are arguing about a general problem, then my remarks clearly stand even if a single other comment was poorly voted on. But, I’ve already explained why even in that individual case the voting was reasonable.
Ohhh, sorry, I think that I get your point now. The eye witness in question was
trapped inside WTC 7 which was not hit by any plane(it is not one of the twin
towers). All this happened before the collapse of either twin tower and according
to the official version there was no damage to WTC7 before their collapse, only
afterwards did WTC7 catch fire that lead to a later collapse of itself. I guess that
was the origin of the confusion, I hope this makes it clearer. Btw, if that really was > the origin of the confusion and you weren’t aware of the facts that I just cited
shouldn’t this ring an alarm bell, that maybe you know less about this particular
testimony than you thought you knew?
You have a valid point. I saw this testimony a while ago and must not have remembered it as well as I thought. If the witnesses testimony is accurate it presents problems with the standard account of events. The notion however that someone in that situation would be keeping very good track of timelines and the like isn’t at all obvious(yes less traumatic than being in one of the two towers but that’s not saying that much). Also, structural damage to WTC 7 is not by itself fatal to the standard account nor for that matter is it terribly strong evidence for conspiracy. So this doesn’t change the situation a lot.
Sure, there are cases where downvoting is justified. But when isn’t it, and how do > you distinguish between these cases? That’s the hard question. And if you are
downvoting evidence as opposed to normal comments you better be very sure
about what you are doing.
I don’t share your conviction that comments that claim to have evidence should somehow be privileged over comments that are more analytical. Moreover, even if I don’t have a perfect method for deciding when to downvote or upvote, that’s not an argument against any specific downvote or upvote. The general rule of thumb that comments with extremely weak evidentiary issues should be downvoted is not an unreasonable standard. Moreover, given how little this matters, the notion that I must “better be very sure” simply doesn’t hold. People can easily click through to read a comment if they want to. You seem to be taking the karma system much more seriously than necessary.
Ok. If you are arguing about a general problem, then my remarks clearly stand even if a single other comment was poorly voted on. But, I’ve already explained why even in that individual case the voting was reasonable.
You have a valid point. I saw this testimony a while ago and must not have remembered it as well as I thought. If the witnesses testimony is accurate it presents problems with the standard account of events. The notion however that someone in that situation would be keeping very good track of timelines and the like isn’t at all obvious(yes less traumatic than being in one of the two towers but that’s not saying that much). Also, structural damage to WTC 7 is not by itself fatal to the standard account nor for that matter is it terribly strong evidence for conspiracy. So this doesn’t change the situation a lot.
I don’t share your conviction that comments that claim to have evidence should somehow be privileged over comments that are more analytical. Moreover, even if I don’t have a perfect method for deciding when to downvote or upvote, that’s not an argument against any specific downvote or upvote. The general rule of thumb that comments with extremely weak evidentiary issues should be downvoted is not an unreasonable standard. Moreover, given how little this matters, the notion that I must “better be very sure” simply doesn’t hold. People can easily click through to read a comment if they want to. You seem to be taking the karma system much more seriously than necessary.