This is rather amusing. I do have many of you in a tizz.
And this entire post suggests that's basically all you are interested in.
Understand this: this forum has been here for many years. I have been on it for over a decade now. In that time we have seen countless hoax believers come on and claim they have questions they want answered. Questions they have never seen answered. Questions that for them are the whole basis of their belief that Apollo was fake. And then they don't post them. They post stuff like this, concentrating more on their perceived persecution when we ask them to actually do what they said they would than on the substance of Apollo. When we see this over and over again, yes, it does become irritating, and when we see a new person come along and apparently do exactly the same yes, it sets off alarm bells for us and we react accordingly.
If you want to prove us wrong then pose your questions. So far all you are doing is exactly what we expected to see but hoped we would be wrong about.
Andromeda and ChrLz, it's not for either of you to tell me when I should post any questions. I said I have a number to post, and I will - in my time - not when you demand it.
Just get on with it. It's boring and nothing we haven't seen before to watch you dance around picking on the regulars here rather than doing what you said you would. You could have posted your questions in the time it took you to write this post, or even added a couple to the end of it. Why won't you?
Both of you are bordering on being obnoxious.
Stop the attacks on other members and get to the point.
Unlike yourselves, although I am very interested in the Apollo programme, my life does not revolve around it.
And stop this as well. No-one here has a life that 'revolves around' Apollo. We do this in our free time as you do.
Andromeda, it is not for you to tell me what to do, or what not to do.
So do what you suggested we do: don't read our posts if you disapprove of the way we reply. If you're here to debate Apollo then debate Apollo. So far you seem to have more time to debate the conduct of people here than to get to the substance of your questions, which unfortunately puts you squarely in the same camp as a whole bunch of other hoax believers who have done nothing but waste our time so they can crow about how badly mistreated they think they were when they go to other forums.
You state that 'I've already tried to insult three established members'. I usually return like for like. After my very first post, which was not contentious in any way, I had certain members replying in a rather cocky, know-it-all fashion.
Rubbish. You had members respond by suggesting you consider a question that would answer your original qurery: namely, what would the dust 'billow' or 'float' in on the moon? your question is something we have seen countless time before in the past ten years. There were certainly no responses that have justified some of the comments you have made against us.
It unneccesarily riles hoax believers, and is certainly not conducive to winning any over. I suggest less of a superior attitude on the part of many members (even if certain members are indeed bona fide physicists).
Considering the attitudes we have seen from hoax believers, I don't think I feel like being lectured on how to conduct a debate by one, thank you.
No regular members will agree with the following statement, but it seems that some are competing with others in their professed intellectual ability. As a new member, this is readily apparent.
As a regular member, what is readily apparent to me is that you have come here to rile us and conduct more of a metadiscussion on the way your questions are answered rather than the substance of the answers. That's nothing new, nothing original, and frankly nothing I have any patience for. If you have questions, just get on with posting them. If you don't like the way some people reply, ignore it. After ten years of doing this, I would love to be proved wrong about a hoax believer's attitude. So far you're not convincing me.
Andromeda, you ask whether I will accept answers. I will accept answers - if they adequately answer the questions.
Question: how do you decide if they have adequately answered the question? I have seen this said many times, but on every occasion (and I do mean
every occasion) the answers have not been accepted simply because the questioner did not understand them or refused to do the work needed to understand them, or even in some cases refused to do some very simple experiments that would have demonstrated the principles to him quite simply with minimal effort. In short, I have yet to see anyone who says they will accept answers actually accept them. The caveat: 'if they adequately explain' has too often been used as an excuse to move the goalposts in my experience. So yes, that probably does result in a somewhat belligerent response from me. But if you had been asked by a passer by on the street if you'd seen a policemen in the area, and every time you said no you got mugged and had your phone and wallet stolen, wouldn't you be wary of anyone asking you if you'd seen a policeman after a while, even though the person may just want to find one to report a crime rather than with any criminal intent to deprive you of your wallet for the fifteenth time?
