Dedicated "Moon Hoax" Forum?

originally posted by: twitchy
...
I told myself about a page ago it will be a few posts more and one of the amigos will show up defensive and hostile over it, either I'm psychic or it's just that disgustingly predictable.

That's a joke right? You have a problem with something on the forum. One of the owners show up to address the issue calmly and professional. And you call it 'defensive and hostile'? You're not psychic you're obtuse.

Looking at your posts throughout this thread I cannot come to a conclusion other than you are

a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

YOu have an opinion on the issue of hoaxes and lies are handled on the forum. Many people pointed out that your opinion are misguided or perhaps just plain wrong. ANd if I may add Djw001 schooled you left right and centre. I think you should apply some cold water to fix that.

Thank you for ruining another member's thread with your offtopic moaning. Can someone jsut phone the whambulance for twithcy so we can concentrate on the actual thread?

a reply to: Gaspode

Thank you for ruining another member's thread with your offtopic moaning. Can someone jsut phone the whambulance for twithcy so we can concentrate on the actual thread?

It's not as off topic as it might seem. In fact, one of the reasons why I want a dedicated forum for the Moon Hoax is because it lies in a murky area. Most of the people who argue against the historical reality of the space program are sincere but misinformed. The "authorities" they rely on for their "evidence," however, such as Bart Sibrel and Jarrah White, know that they are pushing lies. Should a thread based on a video from Jarrah automatically be placed in [HOAX!] because its been proven that he knows what he's saying is a deliberate lie?

I'll simplify my point and maybe even offer a venue for compromise...
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this direction if the Hoax forum were simply retitled to "Possible or Likely Hoaxes", adjectives like 'highly questionable' or 'probable' avoid creating bias, the appearance of any bias, and preconceptions. Why is it so difficult to understand the objection here, it's about labeling.

a reply to: Gaspode

Try the other ankle.

a reply to: twitchy


Great posts! And you're absolutely right.

Bullet point the hoax claims with the answers. Use it as a Firewall for future threads on the subject.

a reply to: twitchy

I'll simplify my point and maybe even offer a venue for compromise...
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this direction if the Hoax forum were simply retitled to "Possible or Likely Hoaxes", adjectives like 'highly questionable' or 'probable' avoid creating bias, the appearance of any bias, and preconceptions. Why is it so difficult to understand the objection here, it's about labeling.

What's wrong with labeling something for what it is? Do you object to truth in labeling laws? Is deceptive advertising okay? Once something is proven not to be true, that's it. If the falsehood was intentional, it's a lie. There's no point in saying this proven lie may or may not be true. Why do you keep speaking out in favor of lies?

a reply to: DJW001

originally posted by

JW001
What's wrong with labeling something for what it is?

originally posted by: DJW001
Yes. To avoid libel, or the possibility that the defense will accuse them of prejudicing a case, responsible media will use terms like "alleged," "suspect," "person of interest," and so forth.

See there, I think you're perfectly capable of understanding what I'm saying.

a reply to: twitchy

See there, I think you're perfectly capable of understanding what I'm saying.

Yes I do: you're wrong. Too bad you aren't able to understand what I'm saying. A lie is a lie. If you can prove something is a lie it is not libel, it is a fact.

Actually, on second thought, I'm over it. I've been doing a little off site reading it's time for me to go.

originally posted by: twitchy
I'll simplify my point and maybe even offer a venue for compromise...
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this direction if the Hoax forum were simply retitled to "Possible or Likely Hoaxes", adjectives like 'highly questionable' or 'probable' avoid creating bias,

No, I don't want to avoid creating bias in this case.

I'm very biased against hoaxes.

originally posted by: twitchy
I've said my piece, knock yourselves out (of your own target audience even).

From your signature...
The Author of this Post assumes no Responsibility Or Liability, nor makes any Warranty or Guarantee of the Accuracy, or Validity of material Presented in this Post. Material Contained or Refered To in this Post is presented by Twitchy as Literary Material Only and is for Entertainment Purposes Only. This Material IS Not Intended to be Read, Inferred, or Interpreted as Information, Advice, News, Instruction, or otherwise Factual Information.
(Emphasis mine)

Got it. We shouldn't take you seriously. Thanks for the laughs.

a reply to: twitchy

posted by twitchy:
I told myself about a page ago it will be a few posts more and one of the amigos will show up defensive and hostile over it, either I'm psychic or it's just that disgustingly predictable.

You call this:

It's still exactly the way you describe it, the only reason we decided, years ago, to move utter bollocks into the HOAX and LOL forums was because we don't want to give the garbage free publicity and traffic. If you consider it from that perspective I hope it clears it up a little.

"Defensive and hostile"?

Really?!

As S.O. said we are hugely biased against hoaxes and lies.

Enough said already...

With reactions like this i think ats will soon be a webside like mythbusters was on tv.

originally posted by: webstra
With reactions like this i think ats will soon be a webside like mythbusters was on tv.

That will never happen. Mythbusters relied on objective investigation; ATS encourages speculation.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
With reactions like this i think ats will soon be a webside like mythbusters was on tv.

That will never happen. Mythbusters relied on objective investigation; ATS encourages speculation.

Yes, objective investigation if they were alouwed to. I wonder how that would have gone back then with their apollo investigation.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
With reactions like this i think ats will soon be a webside like mythbusters was on tv.

That will never happen. Mythbusters relied on objective investigation; ATS encourages speculation.

Yes, objective investigation if they were alouwed to. I wonder how that would have gone back then with their apollo investigation.

You're right: they got tasered every time they disobeyed their reptile overlords.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
With reactions like this i think ats will soon be a webside like mythbusters was on tv.

That will never happen. Mythbusters relied on objective investigation; ATS encourages speculation.

Yes, objective investigation if they were alouwed to. I wonder how that would have gone back then with their apollo investigation.

You're right: they got tasered every time they disobeyed their reptile overlords.

You can put it like that yes.

a reply to: webstra

Reactions like what?

We could only hope to be as popular as "Mythbusters" so i'd really like to know. ;-)

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: webstra

Reactions like what?

We could only hope to be as popular as "Mythbusters" so i'd really like to know. ;-)

Mythbusters labels every Myth with 'busted', 'plausible' or 'confirmed'. Maybe the key to succes :-). I don't think so.

By the way...The episode of the moonlanding was labeled 'busted' (in saying 'they went').