APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAX

[Len Colby]

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Good question Len!

You weren’t being sarcastic with me now, were you Sid? If not I’m glad we can finally agree on something.

[Duane Daman]

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Why does the Conspiracy section here, which usually includes controversial, informative, and possibly some of the better discussion/debtae on salient current affairs spend so much ink on the NASA hoax?

It seems that half of the recent posts on page 1 are dedicated to some issue related to the apollo program or space travel in general. The energy spent on this topic at this forum could almost power a space mission to escape velocity.

I would like to suggest that a separate section be dedicated to the apollo 'hoax'.

This is a forum for POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES .... Apollo was a POLITICAL CONSPIRACY .. Therefore it belongs here on this forum ...

Copying and pasting articles is NOT trolling , but what Len Colby does , IS !

When the only thing one adds to a discussion , are insults to the one who posted the topic , instead of discussing that topic , THAT would be considered TROLLING !

Peter ... If you are not interested in the Apollo moon hoax , then I would suggest you not read the threads which discuss it ... This forum is big enough for ALL conspiracy subjects ... There are many which don't interest me , so I don't read them and I don't criticize them either ... It's as simple as that .

[Sid Walker]

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Good question Len!

You weren’t being sarcastic with me now, were you Sid? If not I’m glad we can finally agree on something.

No Len. You read me right.

I considered pointing out the rarity of the event myself, then thought better of it.

I'd rather you experience the shock of agreement without prompting

Who knows where this might lead? One of these days I may be able to say that some of my best friends are Brazilians.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Why does the Conspiracy section here, which usually includes controversial, informative, and possibly some of the better discussion/debtae on salient current affairs spend so much ink on the NASA hoax?

It seems that half of the recent posts on page 1 are dedicated to some issue related to the apollo program or space travel in general. The energy spent on this topic at this forum could almost power a space mission to escape velocity.

I would like to suggest that a separate section be dedicated to the apollo 'hoax'.

This is a forum for POLITICAL CONSPIRACIES .... Apollo was a POLITICAL CONSPIRACY .. Therefore it belongs here on this forum ...

Copying and pasting articles is NOT trolling ,

And I never said that is.

Many members frequently cut and paste articles Mike Hogan, Sid Walker, Peter Lemkin and Douglas Caddy come to mind but they don’t “continuously [start] new threads on the same topic”, rather they post articles on a wide variety of topics and when they post articles on the same topic do so in the same thread. Normally they don’t seem to be posting these articles in lieu of making an argument it’s more along the lines of ‘here’s something interesting you might want to read it’. In Sid’s case the cutting and pasting is part of his argument.

but what Len Colby does , IS !

When the only thing one adds to a discussion , are insults to the one who posted the topic , instead of discussing that topic , THAT would be considered TROLLING !

I doubt that even my most consistent "opponents" (Jack, Sid, Mike Hogan, Mark Stapleton, and Fetzer) would say that is what I do here.

Peter ... If you are not interested in the Apollo moon hoax , then I would suggest you not read the threads which discuss it ... This forum is big enough for ALL conspiracy subjects ... There are many which don't interest me , so I don't read them and I don't criticize them either ... It's as simple as that .

The problem is that by starting so many threads you push other topics off the 1st page. If a separate section isn’t started you should refrain from starting so many threads but rather make new posts on existing ones and before doing so ask yourself “is this adding anything new to the discussion or is it a rehash of what I’ve already posted ad infinium?”

Another suggestion is that you reply in a more meaningful way than saying ‘This crap from Clavius’ to rebuttals before advancing new points (let alone rehashing ones you’ve presented numerous times already).

If two people with such disparate (and desperate -LOL) views on just about everything as Sid and I agree that your behavior is xxxxx like perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is.

EDIT - typo (see below)

Edited May 6, 2007 by Len Colby

[Sid Walker]

If two people with such desperate views on just about everything as Sid and I agree that your behavior is xxxxx like perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is.

Len, I hope you won't think I'm being pedantic, but I'm sure you meant to type 'disparate'

It's one typo we have a shared interest in correcting.

Edited May 5, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

If two people with such desperate views on just about everything as Sid and I agree that your behavior is xxxxx like perhaps you should consider the possibility that it is.

Len, I hope you won't think I'm being pedantic, but I'm sure you meant to type 'disparate'

It's one typo we have a shared interest in correcting.

Duly corrected! Thanks for the tip. It must have been my spell checker

[Duane Daman]

Since there is so little room for all of the various political conspiracies , then maybe having one just for the Apollo Hoax would be a good idea ... That way , it won't bump the more important , current topics off of the front page ... and those who aren't interested in this subject won't have to be annoyed by it anymore .

Maybe one of you can take this suggestion to John Simkin to see what he might suggest ....Or , if he wants me to stop posting about Apollo on the Education Forum , that will be fine also .

[Sid Walker]

Since there is so little room for all of the various political conspiracies , then maybe having one just for the Apollo Hoax would be a good idea ... That way , it won't bump the more important , current topics off of the front page ... and those who aren't interested in this subject won't have to be annoyed by it anymore .

Maybe one of you can take this suggestion to John Simkin to see what he might suggest ....Or , if he wants me to stop posting about Apollo on the Education Forum , that will be fine also .

Duane,

I am not, thank heavens, someone who decides what goes in this forum and what does not.

In general I suppose an inclusive approach. I have no particular desire to see the Apollo debate run off the forum, nor confined to a sole thread. I did, however, find the sheer number of threads tiresome - especially when there seemed to be so much overlap between them. Hence my concurrence with Len's remark. Perhaps with this feedback you can hone your approach so it is more effective to a wider range of people. Alternatively, of course, you might want to reconsider the thesis itself.

Either way, don't misunderstand my support for Len's comment as support for censorship. Nor, in fairness to Len, do I believe he was taking the position that the topic should not be discussed here at all.

A selection of rose bushes, nicely pruned, make for a pleasant garden. A tangle of thorns is not as appealing, either to residents or guests.