|
Post by gillianren on Sept 11, 2007 18:29:30 GMT -4
Actually, September 11 is a day for me to pay attention to my friend Mele. It's her birthday.
|
|
|
Post by Cavorite on Sept 11, 2007 20:50:57 GMT -4
The admin of GLP is notorious for having less people skills than a Tasmanian devil with amphetamine psychosis and more ego than Donald Trump. What can you say about someone who trolls their own forum?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 12, 2007 14:19:46 GMT -4
I just tried going to GLP and got a message saying my IP address has been banned. I probably haven't posted to that forum in over a year and I very rarely lurk. There is certainly no reason I should have been banned. Has anyone else had this problem? I wonder if it has anything to do with the admin taking the site off line yesterday?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 12, 2007 16:35:01 GMT -4
I remember a number of access problems relating to IP addressing in the past, which fueled the fire that certain people were being systematically surpressed. I suspect that the board uses IP address filters as part of its access control, but not all problems that arise along those lines seem to have been caused by deliberate bans; more likely a malfunction.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 12, 2007 17:29:23 GMT -4
That is no fun. Why was he banned? Is it because he "did not provide proof in a timely manner" ? Pshaw! Aren't we supposed to be trying to convince people that the Apollo missions were real? Giving them a short rope is not the way to do that. Is it convincing them by force? As Dale Carnage said "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". (update) Oh, I see. He asked to be banned. He did not like the universe he was in.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Sept 12, 2007 18:12:49 GMT -4
... but not all problems that arise along those lines seem to have been caused by deliberate bans; more likely a malfunction. I agree it is probably a malfunction; I was just inquiring whether anyone has had the same problem. I've tried my home computer and have no problem connecting, but for some reason my work IP is blocked.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Sept 12, 2007 20:00:50 GMT -4
He did not like the universe he was in. A common complaint . . .
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 12, 2007 20:09:48 GMT -4
Oh, I see. He asked to be banned.
He begged fervently to be banned, against the intentions of the moderator. It was only when he threatened to commit a clearly bannable offense that the moderator forestalled it by banning him preemptively.
Being banned from BAUT is a badge of honor in conspiracy circles. The banished can then claim they were exiled for their beliefs and for offering an argument so unassailable that none could withstand it. That is never the case, of course, but it is seen as far different treatment than simply having left of one's own accord.
It is ironic that opposition specifically to BAUT is now seen as a primary argument or activity among conspiracists. It reinforces my belief that conspiracist is not about advocating some favored idea, but instead about opposing some undesirable idea, regardless of alternative or evidence.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Sept 12, 2007 21:52:41 GMT -4
When GLP bans someone they sometimes ban an entire group of IP addresses to keep out those on dial up. It will predictably affect many other users as well.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 12, 2007 23:24:33 GMT -4
The same seems true of 9/11 CTs and JREF.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 13, 2007 0:30:35 GMT -4
Aren't we supposed to be trying to convince people that the Apollo missions were real? No, they're supposed to be trying to convince us that the missions were faked.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Sept 13, 2007 5:31:37 GMT -4
Giving them a short rope is not the way to do that. I think they get more than enough rope, even at BAUT. With most of the Banned, I get the impression they went into "ignore answers, repeat claims"-mode about 5 pages before they get banned at BAUT (here it's usually about 20 pages).
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Sept 13, 2007 5:41:36 GMT -4
In his thread at the BAUT forum, IDW went into at least one rant complaining about how the moderators were refusing to ban him, even though he had asked them to, especially when he discovered that he couldn't delete his own account..
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 13, 2007 9:16:04 GMT -4
That's funny.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 13, 2007 9:22:32 GMT -4
Aren't we supposed to be trying to convince people that the Apollo missions were real?
No. We're supposed to be answering the charges that the Apollo missions were fake.
Yes, anyone who claims something happened bears a certain burden of proof for it. But an affirmative rebuttal appropriately shifts that burden of proof onto who makes the affirmation. The conspiracists say all the evidence supposedly proving the authenticity of Apollo was instead produced by an elaborate process of deception. That's an affirmative rebuttal, which they bear the burden to prove.
You can never prove conclusively that something is real. The best you can ever do is to prove that all your attempts to detect it as a forgery have failed. It is possible, however, to prove conclusively that something is fake. And so that's where the burden of proof naturally lies.
Giving them a short rope is not the way to do that.
The tactics of conspiracism are built around prolonging the debate by evasion and distraction, changing the subject, and generally avoiding having their ideas meaningfully tested. That's all aimed at dressing up speculation, FUD, and downright lies as if they were on par with genuine understanding and reason. That's the kind of argument you have to pursue when your approach is, "Anything but the 'official' story. But it means that the last thing a conspiracist wants is for his theory to receive a fair hearing; he wants a hearing that's unfair in his favor. The rules at BAUT are designed to cut through all that distraction and posturing and address the issues on their merits, come what may.
Those of us who have debated IDW before recognize him as a master of evasion and manipulation. One of the BAUT moderators was even fooled and asked in a PM if I would "go easy" on IDW. Days later that same moderator PMed me congratulating me for having called the outcome a mile off and graciously apologizing for his own naivete.
|
|