Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[ineluki]

Dat heb je mooi gezegd. Overigens, ik ben Nederlands.
(I'm Dutch)

... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ...

[raven]

Hmmm....Latvia, eh? You seem to care an awful lot aboot American politics ...

He's really Canadian?

No idea if he was, but I am.

[Rob260259]

Dat heb je mooi gezegd. Overigens, ik ben Nederlands.
(I'm Dutch)

... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ... must not tell soccer joke ...

:-)

[Noldi400]

I know I'm an evil person, but I really do like it when they break into goon babble and flounce off in a huff.

[Glom]

Just to be clear. Advancedboy hasn't been banned but rather flounced.

[Andromeda]

http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

[Tedward]

Probably on the forum for Seers, Naughty wizards and evil mages and general tomfoolery finding out how to make a mysterious grand exit.

Should have used this "Oh puny mortals, I shall grant thee one last answer to the tortuous questions that trouble thy sorry souls"

[ka9q]

But things are so boring without people like advancedboy around...

[Luke Pemberton]

But things are so boring without people like advancedboy around...

True. Even his handle is hilariously funny. I do wonder how long it took for him to think of 'advancedboy' as his name, and then think he could present such a rambling gish gallop. Even by the standards of some HBs, the rantings were hilarious to watch as they unfolded.

[Noldi400]

I think at this point all the HB "arguments" about radiation, shadows, etc. have become irrelevant. It seems to me to come down to the LRO images. If they're genuine, we went to the moon; if not, we faked it.

To refer back to the subject line, there never have been any 'strong' arguments, of course; just misinformation, picking at trivial anomalies, and unfounded speculation.

The Nameless One, I'm convinced, will never admit the truth - to do so would be to admit that the last several years of his life have pretty much been spent pointlessly. Which they have, of course, but what a blow it would be to his ego to admit it.

Many HBs have compared themselves to Galileo, crying out against the conventional belief. I submit that they have the roles reversed. The HB crowd clings to dogma with no real foundation; the rest of us base our beliefs on science and observed fact.

[Luke Pemberton]

The Nameless One, I'm convinced, will never admit the truth - to do so would be to admit that the last several years of his life have pretty much been spent pointlessly. Which they have, of course, but what a blow it would be to his ego to admit it.

I think he knows it is true. He's either dug himself in too deep and cannot admit it, or he's just using it as a money making scam. That's only my speculation of course.

[Noldi400]

I think he knows it is true. He's either dug himself in too deep and cannot admit it, or he's just using it as a money making scam. That's only my speculation of course.

He's making money from somewhere, judging by his travel habits. I see he's supposed to be "presenting" at a so-called Conference in Italy next month.

[Bob B.]

To refer back to the subject line, there never have been any 'strong' arguments, of course; just misinformation, picking at trivial anomalies, and unfounded speculation.

From what I've observed from HB behavior, a "weak" argument is one that was once considered strong but has been so thoroughly debunked that even most HBs now realized it is wrong.  A "strong" argument is one that has also been thoroughly debunked but the HBs haven't yet been able to bring themselves to abandon it.  The main difference is that the debunking arguments against the "weak" arguments are simple enough that the HB mind can mostly understand it, while the debunking arguments against the "strong" arguments are beyond what most HB minds can understand.  It is simply a perception thing and has nothing to do with the actual strength or weakness of the argument.  As we know, all HB arguments are truly weak.

[Count Zero]

http://greylining.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/flounce-bingo.jpg?w=510

<Bookmark!>

[Noldi400]

Bob B:

From what I've observed from HB behavior, a "weak" argument is one that was once considered strong but has been so thoroughly debunked that even most... <snipped for space>

So a "weak" argument might be the lack of stars, since the average second-grader should be able to understand that, while radiation effects or the capabilities of the Apollo computer might be considered "strong" arguments because some knowledge of the subject matter is required to understand the debunking?

I may just be paraphrasing your point, but it sounds like the perceived strength of the argument is directly proportional to the depth of the ignorance of the person making the argument.