"What is your real name?" That might be the most perfect example of an ad hominem distraction I've seen. "Vicious, divisive attacks" would be what Tarpley did at the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. Its really small of you to question the humanity of someone posting here. CJS demonstrates more humanity in criticizing you than you've shown in supporting Tarpley. And many of us sincerely question the nature of your "commitment to 9/11 truth." Oh, you probably think you care about it. But being relatively educated and yet acting in such an irrational manner, its hard for many of us to accept.

I don't care how folksy you appear on the radio or in person. You support people known for divisive behavior. I don't care about the fact that you have done some good things for this movement. The negative things you have done can not be excused. I really don't care about your level of education. You don't behave in a logical or strategically savvy manner. CJS and others have PROVEN WITH EVIDENCE in their reporting on your actions that you serve to undermine the strength of this movement. And after hearing your simple minded advocacy of the 'big tent' approach, I'm convinced.

I have a policy of addressing behavior such as this, but not being drawn into a long distracting argument. I will get back to paying no attention to your contribution to this movement. However, I'm glad there are other more disposed to do so, who will continue to chip away at this false reputation you've developed for being invested in our progress.

Of course they would. Calling people agents to a public audience on the Anniversary . . . describing peace activists as liars . . . if that's not real humanity, I don't know what is!

The issue is not about anyone's decision to use pseudonyms -- just about everyone uses them on public forums, for good reason, but those same people often also use their own names in other areas or do important significant work that most people support and which positively benefits our understanding of the attacks -- it's about the average activist's frustrations with those who continue to promote individuals who are disruptive to groups and / or are advocating nonsense, weakest evidence or making significant mistakes in their presentations.

The concern here is that most people would not rate Fetzer or Tarpley high, yet you do, and you don't seem to mind that your position is at odds with most activists. Instead, you try to focus on whose name is what, who is a "coward," etc. It's not about the who, it's about the behavior.