Is the Scientific Process, Standards of Proof ignored by NASA Supporters?

[frenat]

He's admitted it on GLP.

GLP? Where's that then? Is it God Like Productions Forum??

Oh bye bye, Romulus I would say it's been a pleasure but that would be a lie.

yes, GodlikeProductions.  A lovely board with little moderation that allows completely anonymous posting that has both free and paid memberships.  Paid members can ban people from threads they create and are immune from other bans.  Post there long enough and you'll get banned either "randomly" (all available evidence points to the random bans really being an attempt to extort money for paid memberships) or because you posted a link to a different website off some secret banned list.  As far as I know, only the forum admins know the websites on the banned list (the bans are autobans that kick you off before your post goes through) but it includes Above Top Secret, JREF, and Snopes.  When banned you can't even see the forum, you just get redirected to a page saying that paid members are immune to bans and a link to request to be unbanned which nobody ever responds to.  Wait long enough and everyone banned gets unbanned (they do it every few weeks).  The moderation there only really cares about threats of violence or egregious spamming and a few will go on power trips and ban those they don't like for the heck of it.  Free and paid memberships have a Karma system where other posters can rate you up or down once a week.  Karma points can be exchanged for various perks (pin a thread, temporary upgraded membership, etc.)  Karma rating are supposed to be anonymous unless you put your name in the comment but I had a mod track me down for a comment he didn't like about himself.

Venture at your own risk.

[Luke Pemberton]

The moderation there only really cares about threats of violence or egregious spamming and a few will go on power trips and ban those they don't like for the heck of it.  Free and paid memberships have a Karma system where other posters can rate you up or down once a week.  Karma points can be exchanged for various perks (pin a thread, temporary upgraded membership, etc.)  Karma rating are supposed to be anonymous unless you put your name in the comment but I had a mod track me down for a comment he didn't like about himself.

It sounds like a cross between the Wild West, Nazi Germany and Buddhism. 

[frenat]

There was a recent comment of his on GLP comparing the CSM to the size of a semi-truck.  He posted a link for the semi and claimed the weight was lower than the only figure on his link (seems the figure on the link might have been the towing capacity but was not labled as such) then when the difference was pointed out he derided the poster claiming they should know better.  Because apparently everyone drives semi-trucks.  It was this that makes me wonder if he's a truck driver, an angry truck driver perhaps?

[smartcooky]

There was a recent comment of his on GLP comparing the CSM to the size of a semi-truck.  He posted a link for the semi and claimed the weight was lower than the only figure on his link (seems the figure on the link might have been the towing capacity but was not labled as such) then when the difference was pointed out he derided the poster claiming they should know better.  Because apparently everyone drives semi-trucks.  It was this that makes me wonder if he's a truck driver, an angry truck driver perhaps?

Oooh. What was that poster's name again?

[Al Johnston]

Sounds like Margamatix

[BazBear]

He is a profoundly alienated guy who lives out of his rich and idiosyncratic inner life and is deeply frustrated that others can't understand his flawed constructs developed through mere glimpses and glances of the real world.  Or to put it another way, he is one of Samuel Becket's characters trying to live in a Marcel Proust novel.

One thing that really stands out to most normal people about individuals who try to psychoanalyze other people who disagree with them is that more often than not they're actually describing themselves, they're more often than not projecting their own feelings of inadequacy and alienation.

I wasn't attempting to "psychoanalyze " you, as something like that would require personal contact and an interest on my part that is unapparent from my few posts in your threads.  Rather I was treating the personality presented here, on this forum, as a literary character.  A creation one gets to know through a few words scattered among various other voices.  Whose reality is not expected nor important.  It is all one has to go on.  Thus the reference to Beckett and Proust, authors whose characters I have been spending time with lately. 

It is an impression of one who goes to great lengths to justify a view that is disconnected from any observable reality. 
So while you may find that more often than not, people are projecting, your presence on this forum leaves an ample evidence of your tendency to respond to others through an idiosyncratic focus.

In other words your post was psychobabble with the sole intent of personally deriding and attacking my character and integrity while actually having no idea or concern of the validity of my position or my competence in arriving at my conclusions.

 It all you folks do here on these trap and whack NASA propaganda forums.Why do you think I posted here in the first place if it were not to prove you have no interest in approaching the question of the Apollo saga in a scientific manner devoid of these personal attacks and these non-intellectual ego driven displays of defective personality traits and mental abnormalities. You're all living in some sort of alternate reality where you don't realize how socially isolated ,obnoxious and WRONG you are about a wide variety of things.

The Apollo hoax is the focus of your attention because it is your job, and you are given this job because you have all of the qualifications, a disregard for truth, a personal interest in promulgating the hoax and personalities that allow you to lash out and attack people not because they are wrong, but because they are right. I wonder do you ever think about the possibility that these methods that are calculated to be psychologically damaging may actually be destroying people who are not mentally strong simply because they see a truth you are hired to cover up?

Sure, some of them are whacked out loons with crazy ideas (and trust me, you have some whacked out loons on your side of the debate!), but even a whacked out loon can see the truth sometimes and with NASA and it's many outrageous claims, it tends to bring out the worst in everyone including you

Well my goodness  If your feelings are that easily hurt, especially after all the vile shit you've dished out, perhaps it would be best for you not to play on interwebz forums, at least until you find your big boy pants.

If you believe you have "hurt my feelings" you are giving yourself far too much undeserved credit. I am quite aware of the effects I am having on at least some of you and I am satisfied that I have proved what I set out to, that you are not at all interested in proving your claims of great achievements using any acceptable scientific method or civilized rules of debate, you're really just a bunch of cretinous monkey brained idiots throwing feces on anyone who provides scientific disqualifications that you cannot address and patting each other on the back. Not a one of you has an independent opinion on anything because your opinions are bought and paid for and part of a larger agenda to corrode society and imprison the human race in a self serving fabricated reality with zero in common with actual reality.

HAVE A NICE NITE....keep in mind, if you find yourself having to censor the words of one man engaging many in a wildly unbalanced contest, you are admitting you are totally inadequate to the task..

More delusional rubbish.  (feigned surprise)

Well, now that you've finally pushed LO into banning your bigoted, foul mouthed, and hypocritical butt, you can go enjoy your martyrdom at whatever nutjob echo chambers you prefer.

[JayUtah]

There was certainly a lot of bluster.

Bluster often seems to work against reasonable people because they become frustrated and simply give up.  Then that can be reinterpreted to mean the reasonable person has resigned the debate and conceded the point.

I don't see what he had to gain knowing that his posts were moderated, what a waste of effort and time...

He gains the ban.  Someone else takes reasonable action that he can then redefine as censorship and oppression and go on to play the victim.

[Luke Pemberton]

Bluster often seems to work against reasonable people because they become frustrated and simply give up.  Then that can be reinterpreted to mean the reasonable person has resigned the debate and conceded the point.

Except that the reasonable people here tend to keep hold of the bone once they have it in their grasp. I had to smile when he complained about having no chance at this forum because there would be one against many. He even used the phrase 'Windely and his pack of wolves' very early into the proceedings. It was clear early on that he was looking for a fight with you.

He gains the ban.  Someone else takes reasonable action that he can then redefine as censorship and oppression and go on to play the victim.

Yes, I'm looking through the eyes of someone that is reasonable, I tend to do that and not see it from their mindset. Maybe the self destruct button is something they opt for once they realise there are many dogs here with large teeth and powerful jaw muscles (which reminds me of something my dentist once said - but I'll leave that story here). I guess he can skulk his way to GLP and claim his moral victory.

[ka9q]

Paid members can ban people from threads they create and are immune from other bans.  Post there long enough and you'll get banned either "randomly" (all available evidence points to the random bans really being an attempt to extort money for paid memberships) or because you posted a link to a different website off some secret banned list.

This is a trend with electronic media that has me worried. Rather than expose themselves to a diverse range of viewpoints, people often form insular "echo chambers" and actively isolate themselves from those they disagree with. E.g., on Facebook it seems common to "friend" a lot of former colleagues and school classmates, distant family members and the like, only to quickly defriend them when a heated (usually political) argument develops. Then everyone is left talking only to like-minded people. You even see them developing their own distinctive language and culture, as isolated groups always do. E.g., hoaxers using "LEM" instead of "LM".

Computers are just tools, and it's vital that their end users always remain in control. You obviously can't force anyone to talk to anyone, and even the most open-minded people still need "defriend" and "ban" mechanisms to deal with outright spam, abuse and the like. So this is a people problem, and I don't know what to do about it. I'm an engineer, not a sociologist.

Computers do introduce some new social problems of their own, such as the well-known lack of tonal inflection in written text. Key & Peele did a sketch recently that illustrates this problem beautifully (and hilariously):

[gillianren]

That was my thought, although I cannot think of examples to illustrate the difference. A quick Google and the Guardian comes up with a neat discussion. There is some foul language in this article, not something that I want to see written by women, I have to admit (cue irony, and cue slap from Gillianren and Andromeda):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny

Just an eye-roll, I promise.

Okay.  In the Dresden Files series of books, Harry is sexist.  He opens doors for a female friend whom he knows it irritates, and he has a real problem hitting women even if they hit him first.  That's treating women differently than he treats men, usually without regard to their actual abilities or actions.  That's sexist.  But I would never call Harry misogynist, because he likes women in general about the same as he likes men in general, and there are plenty of female characters that he comes to rely on--but he still doesn't like doing it, because they're women and he should be protecting them.  Even the ones who can kick his butt.  Unless they're faerie queens or similar, and sometimes even then.

[smartcooky]

I would say that "misogyny" is a subset of sexism.  You can be sexist without being misogynist, but you cannot be misogynist without being sexist.

That was my thought, although I cannot think of examples to illustrate the difference. A quick Google and the Guardian comes up with a neat discussion. There is some foul language in this article, not something that I want to see written by women, I have to admit (cue irony, and cue slap from Gillianren and Andromeda):

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/difference-between-sexism-and-misogyny

Sexism can go either way. A club that is exclusive to men is every bit as sexist as a club that is exclusive to women. They are both gender based discrimination

Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women. It can include sexual discrimination, denigration and sexual objectification of women, and violence against women. Its counterpart (NOT its opposite) is Misandry; the hatred of men

[Dalhousie]

I don't open the door for you because you are a woman, I open the door for you because I am a gentleman.

[gillianren]

I open the door for you because I'm going through it and you will be soon.  If you do not accept my opening the door for you because I am female and you are male, you are sexist.  (Though Simon likes pushing the handicapped button to open the door, and a very patient woman at the mall waited for him to do it the other day even though she got to the door first.  Why take away his pleasure?)  And, yes, I've had that happen.  None of my disabilities prevent me from opening a door, nor do my two X chromosomes.

[Luke Pemberton]

Just an eye-roll, I promise.

I think that means I got away with my cheeky comment. 

In the Dresden Files series of books, Harry is sexist.  He opens doors for a female friend whom he knows it irritates, and he has a real problem hitting women even if they hit him first.  That's treating women differently than he treats men, usually without regard to their actual abilities or actions.

That clarifies it, thanks. I was brought up never to hit women, but now I think hitting anyone is unpleasant, regardless of gender. I tend to live a very defensive life and not get myself into situations where there is violence. It is one reason you won't find me in clubs (also too old now) or out drinking in towns on a Friday night. I would like to think that I open the door to people because I am polite. I will hold a door for someone, even if they are several yards behind me, usually because I want to portray that there are still nice people in the world. At work I do it because it's nice to to engage in a conversation when that person arrives at the open door. I'd like to think that the person I am holding the door open for thinks nothing of it, other than it being a gesture of manners and social nicety.

[Zakalwe]

I would like to think that I open the door to people because I am polite. I will hold a door for someone, even if they are several yards behind me, usually because I want to portray that there are still nice people in the world. At work I do it because it's nice to to engage in a conversation when that person arrives at the open door. I'd like to think that the person I am holding the door open for thinks nothing of it, other than it being a gesture of manners and social nicety.

^^This^^

After all, it would be terribly sexist for a woman to think that a man holding the door open is doing so because she is a woman. He may hold the door open to anyone that follows him through.  Automatically assuming that he is being sexist is itself sexist, especially if the woman does not think the same of another woman if she held the door open.

I will hold the door open as a measure of politeness, without considering the gender of the person coming through. A little politeness can go a long way towards making an otherwise dreary day a little bit brighter.

Lets not even consider the dreaded toilet seat conundrum other than to say that if it's up and you need it down, then just put it down. And, if it's down and you need it up, then just put it up. Life's too short to be worrying about such things.