|
Post by margamatix on Sept 2, 2005 18:41:51 GMT -4
So what does "trolling" in this context mean? Could someone provide me with a reference to a thread in which this "trolling" occurred?
For a new member, you seem very up-to-speed.
|
|
|
Post by apollo18 on Sept 2, 2005 19:02:16 GMT -4
I would say trolling is lines like this Luckily I am not a student, so get your sister to make those problems. Is nice your sister? Or this YOU ARE ONLY REALLY ARROGANT:
For a new member, you seem very up-to-speed. I'm a lurker who's really here to learn mostly.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 2, 2005 19:21:39 GMT -4
I have done a search, and cannot find any thread where these words were actually posted.-Could you kindly give me the url for the thread so I can look for myself- thanks.
|
|
|
Post by apollo18 on Sept 2, 2005 19:34:35 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 2, 2005 19:57:08 GMT -4
Thank you, and I'm glad you've made the transition from lurker to member- welcome in!
I found this posting- from Lunar Orbit- to be more than a little menacing....
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Sept 2, 2005 20:49:50 GMT -4
That is just a statement of fact ... LunarOrbit could rid the forum of me in just a matter of seconds too ... if I were to break the forum's rules, which I don't intend to do.
Incidentally, whilst you are entitled to hold (and express) any opinion you like, it is always better to hold an informed opinion. As long as you continue to ignore information that demonstrates your opinion to be flawed, your opinion will likely be taken with a pinch of salt.
You claim to be someone who holds the opinion that the moon landings were a hoax, yet every argument you have put forward as to why you hold this opinion has been systematically taken apart by those on this board who actually understand these issues and the technologies involved.
In that context, your continued posting of the same tired, discreditted nonsense does make you look like a troll, or someone who has no desire to actually discuss the issueds, but just wants to yank everyone's chain.
Oh ... and the heading on the left may show me as a "New Member", and you may have made 8 times as many posts as I have, but I have been here for well over a year now. Post counts can be very deceptive.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 2, 2005 21:49:38 GMT -4
Margamatix: if I banned every person who believed the moon landings were faked you would have been banned a long time ago, and so would turbonium.
I consider "trolling" to be when someone posts with the intention of creating a negative emotional response (ie. anger) from the other members of the forum. I will usually let a little bit of this kind of behaviour slip through before I ban someone beause I really hate banning people, but I will do it when necessary.
I have to say that you are pretty close to what I consider a troll. You make claims supporting the moon hoax theory but you rarely defend those claims after people have explained why those claims are false. I've seen people like JayUtah write up ten paragraph replies to your claims only to have you dismiss them as if you hadn't even bothered to read what they wrote. This will create a negative emotional response, and it fits my definition of "trolling".
I realize you have a life outside of this forum so I don't expect you to respond to every person who replies to one of your claims. I simply ask you to show some respect to the users who put effort into their responses to you. Don't dismiss them so easily... if they ask for more explanation for why you believe something then please oblige them. Don't just parrot Bart Sibrel.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 3, 2005 12:09:33 GMT -4
LunarOrbit could even ban me, if I misbehave.
The main reason this forum exists is to debate the moon hoax theory. Where would we be with that if we just banned everyone on one side of the issue? Without conspiracy theorists this site is awfully boring.
But on the other side of that coin we find that any discussion, in order to be useful, has to obey some rules -- especially where different points of view are concerned, and especially given the propensity of some to co-opt any controversy for a sort of chain-yanking performance art. Interlocutors differentiate themselves from trolls by acknowledging the content of what is said in response. For all Turbonium's contention, the discussion with him progresses. The points he makes subsequently are in response to rebuttals made to his early points, not merely reiterations of those early points.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 3, 2005 16:42:55 GMT -4
Heck, even I can get banned since there are people even more "powerful" than me... the Proboards staff.
If people don't like the way I moderate (and I believe I'm pretty light handed) then it's quite easy to start a forum like this one. It has been my experience that forums ran by pro-hoax people tend to be more restrictive as far as membership is concerned.
I used to debate the moon hoax theory with a radio talk show host in Portland named Clyde Lewis. Whenever I asked him a question that he couldn't find the answer to on a conspiracy website he would rely on the same response: "I'm only asking questions, I don't know all the answers." In other words, he wouldn't take responsibility for the claims he made. It didn't matter that he was accusing people of committing serious crimes like fraud and murder, it was all for the sake of entertaining his audience.
My point is that if you're going to make claims about the Apollo Program (for or against) you have to be prepared to either back them up or admit that you were wrong. If you are unwilling or unable to do either of those things then you shouldn't be making the claims in the first place. People like Bart Sibrel sweep their critics under the rug and pretend that no one can find flaws in his claims. Admitting he is wrong would hurt his sales.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 3, 2005 17:06:02 GMT -4
I consider "trolling" to be when someone posts with the intention of creating a negative emotional response (ie. anger) from the other members of the forum. I will usually let a little bit of this kind of behaviour slip through before I ban someone beause I really hate banning people, but I will do it when necessary. . Look, I just don't believe it happened. I genuinely believe the whole thing was faked. This is, largely, my "gut-reaction". But it is genuinely held. No-one has offered me proof that it happened. The most I have been offered is the suggestion that it theoretically could have happened. The worst accusation that could be levelled at me is that I have an incomplete knowledge of a very complicated branch of physics- rocket science. So complicated that "rocket science" has become a cliche in British English, to describe a subject which is difficult to understand. I hope I am not banned from this forum.I am invariably polite and courteous to other members, and I can't see any reason why I should be banned, other than that I believe Apollo was a hoax. And as I have said before, Apollo.hoax is the place to discuss this belief.
|
|
|
Post by apollo18 on Sept 3, 2005 17:15:20 GMT -4
No-one has offered me proof that it happened. The most I have been offered is the suggestion that it theoretically could have happened. All right then explain how this is only a theoretical explanation of how it might of happened. G'day Margamatix There are three main pieces of evidence I use to prove the Moon landings happened. The first is rocks. Now you've previously argued that the rocks could be collected by sample return missions. I suppose I could just about grant that, even though you made little effort to explain (a) how rocks had been photographed on location, (b) how core samples a few metres long were collected, (c) how 10 kilogram rocks were picked up or (d) how fragile clods of compacted soil were picked up, given the robot technology of the time. The second is the radio signals. We know Mission Control was talking to the astronauts in real time, referring to events which were happening at the time (such as half-time football scores). We know that the ground stations were pointing their dishes straight at the Moon in real time. We know that ham radio operators pointed *their* dishes at the Moon and picked up signals. You haven't addressed how NASA might have faked these signals. The third is the behaviour of lunar dust in television images. It behaves like dust in a vacuum, and in reduced gravity. We can create vacuums in giant chambers. We can create 30 seconds of reduced gravity inside a plane. What we can't do is produce both a vacuum and reduced gravity together, nor do so in a location where you can see for kilometres. *That* is proof. It's *not* faith. *So there!* :-)
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Sept 3, 2005 17:39:10 GMT -4
Ah yes, the famous "half-time football score"
Did you know that, when street corner bookmakers took bets on the seemingly random last four numbers of the Dow Jones index, that the Mafia arranged, on the 4th of July, that this number would end in "1776"?
So if a handful of dodgy Italians could do that, what limits could there be to the US Government's powers of flim-flammery?
|
|
|
Post by apollo18 on Sept 3, 2005 17:46:37 GMT -4
You've ignored the rest of the quote,
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 3, 2005 17:49:20 GMT -4
Margamatix, this is a fine example. Offered three pieces of information, you grab a chunk of the middle one and wave it off with a half-witted analogy (that I don't belive in ... what's your source for this urban myth?), and act as if that's enough to invalidate the math behind the orbital mechanics of the commmand module.
How do you drive a truck? Do you know how or do you just use a "gut reaction" to figure it out?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Sept 3, 2005 18:01:39 GMT -4
And, once again margamatix, you are using your assertion that the Government could have done this as "evidence" that it did.
You just don't get it, do you ...
|
|