raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 3, 2010 15:42:44 GMT -4
It is a hard balance. On the one hand, direct confrontation gives them publicity. As the old saying goes "no publicity is bad publicity". On the other hand, lies fester in darkness. Anyroad, this forum, as cathartic as it may be, is not here to make fun of Mr. White.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 3, 2010 16:22:40 GMT -4
Anyroad, this forum, as cathartic as it may be, is not here to make fun of Mr. White. It is not here to suppress freedom of speech either. As long as people stay within the bounds of the forum rules, they ought to express themselves as they please.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 3, 2010 18:59:23 GMT -4
Anyroad, this forum, as cathartic as it may be, is not here to make fun of Mr. White. It is not here to suppress freedom of speech either. As long as people stay within the bounds of the forum rules, they ought to express themselves as they please. Ad hominem attacks are hardly within the spirit of a board dedicated to the scientific discussion of Apollo's veracity, even if they are allowed.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 3, 2010 20:38:08 GMT -4
Ad hominem attacks are hardly within the spirit of a board dedicated to the scientific discussion of Apollo's veracity, even if they are allowed. Every freedom worth defending comes with an ugly darkside. I'm not saying I condone insults and ad hominem attacks, but I defend a person's right to freely express him/herself provided the comments are within the rules that everyone agreed to when they joined the forum. Whether or not previous comments in this thread are within the rules of the forum is another agrument.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 3, 2010 21:12:56 GMT -4
Ad hominem attacks are hardly within the spirit of a board dedicated to the scientific discussion of Apollo's veracity, even if they are allowed. Every freedom worth defending comes with an ugly darkside. I'm not saying I condone insults and ad hominem attacks, but I defend a person's right to freely express him/herself provided the comments are within the rules that everyone agreed to when they joined the forum. Whether or not previous comments in this thread are within the rules of the forum is another agrument. I agree people should be permitted to make such statements, freedom of speech is very important, and a lot of soul searching should be done before we even consider censorship. However, I was not suggesting censorship. I was merely we saying we shouldn't approach the issue of Apollo on such a derogatory level. Is the quality of truth so poor it needs such a flimsy defence? Not only that, but we should try to hold ourselves to a higher standard to help separate ourselves from the conspiracy theorists whose only argument is such remarks. We can use such remarks, we have the freedom, but we shouldn't in the interests of clarity and logic.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 3, 2010 21:57:47 GMT -4
It also gives them an excuse to say, "Look how they treat us!" Never mind that the language they use is worse and the insults blatantly undeserved.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 3, 2010 22:45:48 GMT -4
From what I can recall, this thread is about Jarrah White’s behavior, not his arguments. I think a different standard applies in this case. Expressing one’s opinions about Jarrah’s behavior and tactics is totally inbounds, and I don’t believe it is an ad hominem to do so. If we were debating Jarrah’s arguments, then I agree the name-calling etc. should be kept out of it. This thread is mostly just harmless banter so I say let people have their fun. I believe in maintaining a proper decorum but I don’t want the forum to be a place where a person is dissuaded from freely speaking his/her mind.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 4, 2010 8:12:11 GMT -4
I was listening to a recent SGU podcast, and the parallels between something Randi did and this are worth raising in my mind.
Randii exposed evangelist Peter Popov as a fake. This was done on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. After the show, Carson said to Randii that it was the end of the line for Popov; Randii disagreed.
Randii was right - Popov came back, and despite people being shown how he was a fraud, still believed in him.
It's the same with this idiot. It doesn't matter how wacky his claims, it doesn't matter how many times we point out his inaccuracies, blunders, ignorance or lies, there will be a group of people who'll treat him as a messiah because he says what they want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Aug 4, 2010 8:15:54 GMT -4
Which reminds me of what the Rock-Man said to Oblio, in Harry Nilsson's wonderful record "The Point" - "...you see what you want to see, and you hear what you want to hear. You dig?"
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Aug 4, 2010 8:15:21 GMT -4
And I should add - we should show how wrong some of the claims are by people. Get the message out, get people to investigate claims for themselves, get people to speak to experts, get people to research claims, etc. Provide a resource. Point out the factual errors in claims, but after that - providing the resource - you are simply giving the HB airtime.
After that, just ignore them with a link to the resources.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Aug 4, 2010 8:55:41 GMT -4
The biggest problem with present day hoax theory (IMHO) is the internet. Any uneducated, unqualified pea-brain can put up a website or post videos, where it appears that their evidence is real. All they need to do is limit, (or outright block) any responses or rebuttals and their claims go unchallenged. I'm not sure what you are proposing... Call me pessimistic, but I'm afraid that those that currently are not able* to find i.e. Clavius won't find any other debunking resource either. *that's not even counting all the "Antigovernment" Idiots out there
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 4, 2010 14:16:30 GMT -4
But a lot of the hoax pushers are merely asking about things NASA already explained. And I don't disagree with you. Just like fighting other forms of ignorance and stupidity (Racism, sexism, prejudice ...) it's a constant battle. You can't just throw your hands in the air and say, "Already answered that!" ... Anyroad, this forum, as cathartic as it may be, is not here to make fun of Mr. White. Yes, I'll agree that arguments that I have witnessed between Jarrah and others do tend to get juvenile at times. As far as this forum is concerned, I really don't see anyone crossing over the line. It's worth remembering that Jarrah is the one accusing people of lying, being cowards, being propagandists and/or unqualified, being murderers! Perhaps Jarrah should remember you reap what you sow. Not saying it's the best tactic, but I would like to remind Jarrah, if you can't take it, then don't dish it out. From what I can recall, this thread is about Jarrah White’s behavior, not his arguments. I think a different standard applies in this case. Expressing one’s opinions about Jarrah’s behavior and tactics is totally inbounds, .. And I concur!
|
|
|
Post by dickshane on Aug 4, 2010 16:29:45 GMT -4
and refers to himself as the 'Grandson of the Moon Hoax Conspiracy' theory. His site actually says: The Grandson Of The Apollo Hoax Theory IS BACK. Can anyone tell me what that is supposed to mean? I originally thought that Jack White was his grandfather, until I realised he says 'theory' and not 'theorist'. How can anyone be the grandson of a theory?
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Aug 4, 2010 16:35:37 GMT -4
Can anyone tell me what that is supposed to mean? I originally thought that Jack White was his grandfather, until I realised he says 'theory' and not 'theorist'. How can anyone be the grandson of a theory? I got this 2nd hand, so take it with a grain of salt... but it's my understanding that he was good friends with Ralf Rene, even meeting and spending time with him. Mr. Rene basically "anointed" Jarrah as his successor.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 4, 2010 16:57:05 GMT -4
How can anyone be the grandson of a theory? I guess he's using it in a similar way to how people refer to Michael Jackson as "The King of Pop". Obviously "Pop" isn't a country. He's using "the Apollo Hoax Theory" to refer to the "community of conspiracy theorists", not the theory itself, and "Grandson" is his symbolic relationship to them. At leas that is how I interpret it.
|
|