|
Post by echnaton on Jul 13, 2010 13:57:34 GMT -4
Come on guy, just register as NASTA so we will know who you are. You won't be banned here just because you were banned at BAUT. Although if history is any precedent, and your prior registrations suggest it is, you will eventually be banned for carrying on the same shenanigans as you pulled at BAUT. I'd love to be shown to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 13, 2010 14:33:18 GMT -4
I've always said it. It would be nice to have someone polite, respectful, and willing to show their evidence disagree with us so we can have an intelligent, reasoned conversation. Good grammar wouldn't be frowned upon, either.
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 13, 2010 19:39:50 GMT -4
Come on guy, just register as NASTA so we will know who you are. You won't be banned here just because you were banned at BAUT. Although if history is any precedent, and your prior registrations suggest it is, you will eventually be banned for carrying on the same shenanigans as you pulled at BAUT. I'd love to be shown to be wrong. Not that NASTA has been banned at BAUT (yet), he has just got a suspension.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 3, 2011 0:54:28 GMT -4
kimchijjigae has been permanently banned for a comment directed at another member which borders on sexual harassment.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 3, 2011 1:11:22 GMT -4
LO, unless I missed something, which is possible, I skipped the last few pages of the thread, the "offence" didn't seem that serious to me, he did note that the commet was said in humour rather than being serious.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 3, 2011 1:33:57 GMT -4
Does it really matter if he was only joking? It was immature and offensive, and it was completely uncalled for.
It seems to me that he just didn't like the fact that this woman was asking him tough questions so he tried shifting the topic to her appearance. He wouldn't have done that with a man.
I'm not going to unban him, but if people think I'm overreacting I will consider reducing it to a temporary ban.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 3, 2011 10:43:38 GMT -4
My first reaction was that a temporary ban would be appropriate, but I won't argue with you over a permanent ban. I usually respect your judgement, LO.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Mar 3, 2011 11:44:27 GMT -4
I'm not going to unban him, but if people think I'm overreacting I will consider reducing it to a temporary ban. Don't bother. IMHO it is rather clear this debate was leading nowhere, and he was only interested in trolling with his "it's impossible to prove history, and I will totally ignore all ideas of being reasonable sure".
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 3, 2011 12:03:29 GMT -4
A warning would have been a more measured response. But given his attitude and non responsiveness to posts that called his precepts into question, a ban for trolling was inevitable. As much as we need hoax believers around to keep the board on task, I respect your judgment on this.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 3, 2011 12:22:03 GMT -4
But it was fascinating watching the cognitive dissonance kick in within the span of 14 minutes. Well, alright then, why didn't you do so before? I guess they did test all of it. Well, there's still one alternative explanation I have in mind. Couldn't those rocks be lunar meteorites? I mean when they enter atmosphere they undergo changes, but do those changes impact the entirety of the rocks or only the exposed parts? Can't they just peel off the alienated parts while keeping the rest?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 3, 2011 12:48:44 GMT -4
Thanks for the support guys.
After thinking about it last night I've decided to reduce it to a one month ban with the condition that if he returns and still acts inappropriately it will result in an instant and permanent ban.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 3, 2011 15:38:06 GMT -4
The hazards of reading this thread first. Now, I have to go look that up before I can have an opinion other than "man, it's hard being female on this kind of board sometimes."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 3, 2011 15:56:05 GMT -4
Does it really matter if he was only joking? It was immature and offensive, and it was completely uncalled for. It seems to me that he just didn't like the fact that this woman was asking him tough questions so he tried shifting the topic to her appearance. He wouldn't have done that with a man. I'm not going to unban him, but if people think I'm overreacting I will consider reducing it to a temporary ban. No worries L.O. I was mostly just wondering if I had missed something else in the thread pages I skipped. I think that Laurel or Gillianren would be the ones to really say if they thought it offense. I suspect that the general consensus that he was heading for a ban anyway is true, and I doubt that if he actually comes back after a month that he'll last much after that.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 3, 2011 16:04:13 GMT -4
The hazards of reading this thread first. Now, I have to go look that up before I can have an opinion other than " man, it's hard being female on this kind of board sometimes." Sorry, I should probably link to the offending posts in cases like this. apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=3123&post=89799It's only a few words long, but I think it holds a lot of meaning. But maybe I am reading more into it than I should.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 3, 2011 16:16:18 GMT -4
I have to say, that's the kind of thing that drives women away from a lot of places. I've been asked for pictures before. Even after it was established repeatedly that I'm in a relationship. (And have been since before I first joined any message board.) It's also assuredly true that the guys here wouldn't get asked that question, and not just because hoax belief seems more centered in males--or anyway more males are vocal about it. It's the prevailing belief that women just aren't good at things like science. I bet that, if you asked him, he would assume that Laurel and I were just repeating what we'd heard from our menfolks.
No, I'm perfectly comfortable with at minimum a suspension in this situation. By not suffering consequences, he would be left with the belief that it's okay to say things like that, and it isn't. Whether or not Laurel is hot is not merely irrelevant to the discussion of lunar samples, it is irrelevant to the discussion of practically anything we discuss around here. There is an extent to which I have no problem with personal questions, depending on things like what the thread is actually about, but the simple fact is, he thought he was being funny. Or else he thought he'd be able to deflect questions. He wasn't funny, and the questions had nothing to do with Laurel personally.
I think the discussions are too inclined to get personal on both sides of the debate, and I think that needs to be discouraged on both sides of the debate. I don't care if Laurel is hot. (Though I'm sure she's lovely.) I don't care if Jarrah White is a productive member of society. I don't care if Buzz Aldrin went through a severe bout of depression. It doesn't matter to the discussion, and it should be discouraged in favour of the science, history, and other data. I don't think it entirely crossed the line into true sexual harassment, but I think it got awfully close, and I for one am tired of people who think that's okay.
|
|