I don't think I did. I made essentially two comments:OneWhiteEye wrote:...Let's not overlook a possible legitimate need to move a subdiscussion to its own topic...
1) Take care to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Note "appearance". Justice should be seen to be done and all that.
2) I suggested a thread title.
I even pre-empted the extent/scope of discussion by quoting myself from a few days back.
And there should be no need to remind me (or Oystein) of the realities of the 9/11 sub forum on JREF. We both are regulars there and neither of us is a fool or blind to what is accepted norms there.
Plus both Oystein and I have spoken in support of Major_Tom over there. In my case repeatedly recommending and admiring his work on researching the break up of the towers and the way the perimeter sheets fell. It is outstanding work by any standards. By the way ditto for femr2's work on WTC7 also.
So please excuse my bits of calculated hyperbole...my message passed. My message received.
Now where is that other thread?
I really don't want to pass judgement on the significance of any of these details.
The discussion is a meta level or process discussion - not about specific details although some have been used as examples.
The actual discussion where I have raised it is about the principle of how to decide whether or not details are significant. So it is about the logic associated with the taxonomy of issues. if we start the other thread I'll draw a picture.