Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #182 on Feb 5, 2010, 9:43pm »
13 pages, and his claims are still based in the bedrock of "seems" and "looks like"...
I suggest that porphyry submit his "questionable" posts/questions/evidence directly to LO for review, then have them posted. Would this not alleviate any fear on his part of being banned unfairly? (kinda sad how I think like this to accommodate this fearful guest...)
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #183 on Feb 5, 2010, 10:21pm »
Dwight wrote:
It is hardly anything major at all over there: Jay is a forger, Jay is a paid govt employee running this site, this site is made up of sock puppets, Jay-Jarrah-O'Leary had an email exchange, LO threatened porphyry menacingly. That's basically it in a nutshell.
I did post all those things, but also much more besides. If this were a classroom, I would have to give a failing grade to that summary.
Jay wrote:
Actually my employer(s) don't want to be associated in any way with my publications regarding the Apollo hoax theories.
OK, I'll take that as a denial. And I'll accept it for now, in view of the following...
You have not proved that the moderation here matters in the least to your argument, and I do not accept your assumption that the forum you wish us to move to practices "objective" moderation, or even what such moderation would entail.
I've stated my objections about the moderation here as clearly as I can within the rules as I understand them, and I've further addressed this issue in my post at the other forum.
But, it's not up to me to "prove" whether or not the moderation is acceptable to me. I alone am the sole judge of that, with respect to my own participation.
If the moderation at chrismartenson.com is not acceptable to you, perhaps you might suggest an alternative. However, I would decline to continue at Bad Astronomy Forum, or at Randi.
Jay, I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you're really doing all this work to fight the "HB's" purely out of the goodness of your heart, it certainly isn't working in my case. All your bluster and evasiveness is only making me more suspicious that you have something to hide.
If you actually give a hoot about what I think, it seems to me your best bet would be to talk to me at chrismartenson.com. You mentioned that your patience is growing short, and so is mine.
It's that this forum is a place where abusive behavior and comments are welcome and indeed condoned, if they support the moderator's position.
You have exaggerated the amount of "abusive behaviour" found in this forum.
You found one example of someone not getting banned for calling the members of "Pilots For Truth" idiots. Now go find me an example of a HB getting banned for a single use of a mild insult like "idiot".
I'm simply not going to throw away valuable members of the forum over minor insults. The people who have been banned had bad attitudes that went far beyond what you seem to consider abuse.
Quote:
Many things have been said about me here already that are hostile if not downright abusive.
Examples? You're either overly sensitive, or you're exaggerating again.
I suggest you try posing as an Apollo supporter in Jarrah White's YouTube channel. Only then will you truly understand what hostility, abuse, and censorship is like.
In the 13th spot is Bill Thompson, a banned Apollo supporter with 1446 posts.
And then there is Jason. He's an Apollo supporter who I have had a number of disagreements with over subjects like gay marriage, global warming, the health care system, and religion. Not only is he not banned despite our disagreements, he's the top poster with over 5000 posts.
So what have we learned?
1) Hoax believers can make many posts without getting banned 2) That Apollo supporters can get banned 3) That I can have disagreements with members of the forum without abusing my role as moderator.
Oh, and...
4) Your "I'm a poor oppressed victim of a strict moderator" act is baseless. In case you haven't noticed, you're not banned.
I haven't been intentionally trying to provoke you in anything I've said here.
Then you haven't violated the rules.
Quote:
If I've provoked you by anything I've said here at this forum, it was a consequence of raising what I think are legitimate questions.
It isn't against the rules to be thought provoking.
Quote:
It seems that everyone who has a contrary opinion, is long gone.
See my previous post where I point out that 3 of the top 30 posters are people have "a contrary opinion" about the moon landings, and the top poster (Jason) has many opinions that are contrary to mine.
Joined: Aug 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 261 Location: Perth, Western Australia
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #189 on Feb 5, 2010, 11:11pm »
I'd hazard a guess that the majority of HBs who post here leave of their own accord rather than ending up banned. If they can't stand the heat and elect to leave the kitchen that can hardly be blamed on the moderation.
You have cried persecution over a very minor transgression (one that, perhaps, you went looking for in order to justify your pre-existing agenda), and have still shown absolutely zero evidence that the moderation has affected you personally in any way whatsoever. Are you honestly claiming that no derisive language is ever used to describe a third party at your stomping ground? I think that's obviously false, given the fact that based on second hand accounts you seem to be able to make baseless, scurrilous accusations without any fear of censure.
This thread has gone on for pages now with nothing but bickering to show for it. You've made your position very clear, as have many of the regular posters here. Either come up with something substantive for us to discuss, or carry through on your promise and leave. The fact that you have not and continue to act provocatively is yet more proof that you are only interested in confrontation rather than debate.
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #190 on Feb 5, 2010, 11:21pm »
porphyry,
Why can't you accept that there are experts who frequent various fora simply in the interest of dispelling ignorance and spreading knowledge? Jay is one of several contributors here who have great expertise in spaceflight and Apollo. Does it matter if he (they) have government jobs? Work for the CIA?
Why do hoax believers cling to the notion that their numbers are so vast, their power so overwhelming, that the US government would devote money and manpower to quelling their opinions?
I hate to break it to you, but you are being debated by ordinary people, some quite accomplished, from many nations around the world, who simply cringe at the ignorance being spread by the hoaxers. We are interested in Apollo, in spaceflight, and history. HBs are simply interested in the hoax, and know virtually nothing of the science and engineering behind it.
To simply throw out the disinfo agent accusation is an admission of failure...failure of your knowledge, your research, your entire premise. It's really unfortunate, but not at all surprising. We've seen it so many times before.
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #191 on Feb 6, 2010, 12:31am »
LunarOrbit,
Thanks for the information about the 3 of 30 top posters here on the HB side. I'll go read a few of their posts.
I think if a forum is well moderated, not only is the abusiveness at a minimum, but it's almost never necessary to ban anyone. Let's suppose someone says "Pilots for 911 truth are idiots." A good moderator doesn't join in the party, instead a warning ought to be issued. That way everybody learns the rules.
I made some allegations over at the other website, to be sure. But I also gave my reasoning and evidence. And everything was stated with decorum. Thus I think I conformed with their guidelines. You can read their guidelines yourself, it's a requirement for registration that you agree to the posting rules. If you can convince them I've violated the rules, you can have me warned, or ultimately banned!
"My feet they finally took root in the Earth, but I got me a nice little place in the stars, and I swear I found the key to the universe in the engine of an old parked car..."
Joined: Aug 2006 Gender: Male Posts: 261 Location: Perth, Western Australia
Re: Apollo photographic evidence « Reply #193 on Feb 6, 2010, 12:53am »
Please stop referring to your posts over at the other forum. You've extended your invitation for people to join you, and they either will or won't. If you are unhappy with the way things are run here, then do what you claimed you were going to do and leave. You aren't going to alter the way this forum is moderated, so your provocation on the issue is pointless. Why should we view your continued efforts here as anything other than an attempt to goad people into playing by your rules?
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://i458.photobucket.com/albums/qq306/Dstevenb/loresconv.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/381/avatarysq.gif "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o162/lunarorbit/manonmoon.jpg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://www.amnet.net.au/~osbot5/Melies.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2008/07/03/03jul_mercuryupdate_resources/256981main_caloris_color_lg_strip.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4969/evergreen100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")