PDA

View Full Version : Ad hominem allegations



JayUtah
2002-Mar-10, 03:22 AM
Just in case it gets here, a group of hoax believers have begun making public accusations that I am a "proven liar."

The basis for their accusation is this. I wrote a four-line review of Bart Sibrel's video on Amazon.com. I did this after seeing only small portions of the video, and not the entire thing. I have since withdrawn the review. I believe the review is correct, but I do not feel it is ethically justified to write a review that any reader will assume is based on the entire video.

Just a heads-up.

odysseus0101
2002-Mar-10, 03:43 AM
On 2002-03-09 22:22, JayUtah wrote:
Just in case it gets here, a group of hoax believers have begun making public accusations that I am a "proven liar."


Jay, if I had to choose between a review you made based on the cover art of the video box, and a review made by nearly anyone else based on extensive research into the entire video, I'd go with yours.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-10, 04:08 AM
On 2002-03-09 22:22, JayUtah wrote:
Just in case it gets here, a group of hoax believers have begun making public accusations that I am a "proven liar."


Yes, and they are truly insane at apollohoax.com.

I'm not going back there, because it's too scary there, with those crackpots.
_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-03-09 23:18 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-10, 04:12 AM
I'd go with yours.

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I stress that the substance of the review was not inaccurate, merely the implication that it was based on a full viewing of the video.

SpacedOut
2002-Mar-10, 12:59 PM
I agree with AstroMike about staying away from the apollohoax thread – I just finished reading it in its entirety – and think I’ll need to take a shower!

I didn’t put a post on that site because I’ve never posted on the site before and felt by adding my two cents I’d probably make things worse (If you’ve read the thread you know what I mean). For those of you thinking about visiting the thread – its eight pages long – be prepared to be there for a while and make sure you’ve taken your blood pressure medicine!!!

For what its worth – after reading the whole thread, its obvious that to the person(s) attacking Jay, it is far more important to win the (personal) attack on Jay than any real discussion of the truth. At least on this board, the discussions tend to be more technical in nature, and for my time, far more worthwhile. I doubt the people attacking Jay will show up here, it just isn’t the kind of forum they would frequent - and if they did, I know the BA wouldn’t put up with the kind of stuff going on in the other forum.

Off to the showers!!!

P.S. I also agree with odysseus0101 regarding my faith in Jay’s review. While Jay may not of viewed the entire video (DVD or VHS) I have read enough of his responses on this forum and the information on his own site, to know that the review he made was not done in a vacuum – it was based on a good deal of knowledge of Bart Sibrel's work and a review of enough of the video to know that Mr. Sibrel hadn’t altered his opinion. (left out of the original post…)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-03-10 08:07 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-10, 02:03 PM
Is the review available anywhere, in some form, so we can check it out ourselves? Which threads are discussing this?

SpacedOut
2002-Mar-10, 02:20 PM
GOW – Thread is titled “ The UK reviews of "Dark Moon" ” – there is a link to a review that is supposedly by Jay, but I won’t list it here because I’m not really sure it is the one.

As I said before, I hope you’re wearing HAZMAT garb if you plan to visit the thread!

JayUtah
2002-Mar-10, 05:04 PM
The review is still at Amazon.com under the entry for Sibrel's video, A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Moon. I have requested that the review be removed in order to alleviate any semblance of malice. I will resubmit the review at a later time after viewing the entire video. For those who don't feel like navigating through the Amazon, here is the review in its entirety.


I'm an aerospace engineer. I'm also a photographer. This video just rehashes a lot of pseudo-scientific garbage, most of which has already been refuted by knowledgeable people. The "evidence" presented is nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture accompanied by misleading testimony. Save your money.

I have expounded upon it at length in the ApolloHoax thread.

I know most of you believe this is an accurate review. So do I. But it is nevertheless misleading to offer my opinion on something I haven't fully seen, so I withdrew the review on principle.

The issue is simply that a group of disgruntled hoax believers who failed to prevail in a technical debate are now attempting to exact their revenge in less honorable ways. You will surely hear amplified and exaggerated versions of this story from them.

Lord Brompton
2002-Mar-10, 08:58 PM
I have seen the blood and guts flying around at Apollo Hoax too.
Although I am strongly in favour that the astronauts did go to the moon I have reluctantly come down on the side of Shelock and Slime on this one.
I read the review that JayUtah put up at amazon and if you analyse it sentence by sentence there is certainly the implication that the review was intended to be for the whole programme and not just a few minutes.
JayUtah at first seemed to admit his error and is now re-evaluating his position.
I understand why such a supporter of NASA would assume the video had nothing new to offer but an assumption was not what was asked for.
All the supporters and enemies of Jay are now jumping on the bandwagon making it a pathetic spectacle.
Cant we just put it to rest with Jay apologising for his unscientific departure from the truth.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-10, 09:04 PM
The irony is that, of course, Jay was almost completely correct in his assessment of the video. I have sat through Sibrel's painful documentary, and the only new bit in it is the "missing reel" of footage, showing the astronauts practicing for a press conference in space. Sibrel mistakes this for fakery, which is ridiculous, but then, Sibrel's case has been hashed out in grim detail in other places. Also, of course, he makes a lot of the same old arguments about no stars (though he adds a new, but no less ridiculous, twist to it) and radiation; ideas that are trivially easy to prove wrong.

Lord Brompton
2002-Mar-10, 09:29 PM
Very ironic. But had it been the smoking gun it would have been curtains for Jay's "good" name.
You have actually hit the crux spot on.
Jay only saw the new Sibrel missing reel so could not possibly be justified in describing the video as 'rehashed'. I cannot see any other meaning.
Jay got lucky but that should not be his defence.
Some very childish behaviour on the part of Jonathon Ploegman by resorting to name calling has probably finished Apollo Hoax as a serious discussion board.
Now the Hoax believers will probably feel they hit a raw nerve. Perhaps they did?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-10, 10:00 PM
I have been involved with some very long, dragged out "discussions" with various pseudoscientists on this board and others. Regulars here will remember who I mean. They go on and on, ignoring any real issues, use name calling, and claim that because they don't understand something (whatever it might be) it must be wrong.

They are irritants. They poke and poke and poke, and when you finally snap they claim victory. It is extraordinarily rare that they make a valid point.

In this case, the mistake Jay made was not in facts, but in posting a review of something he hadn't seen. Yes, that was a mistake, and I understand why he did it, but as he has already said that doesn't make things any better. The real problem, as others have already pointed out, is that the HBs can use this to their advantage, even when they are still factually wrong.

It's a losing fight sometimes. I try not to convince the True Believers, because their faith blinds them. I stay calm, rational, and phrase what I say to talk to the folks sitting on the fence. They are the ones who concern all of us. They still have a chance to see reason.

johnwitts
2002-Mar-10, 10:52 PM
This thread at Apollohoax has turned into just the type of thing that Mr. Badastronomer has managed to keep out of this forum (and told me off a couple of times too /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif ). It started out as nothing, and has developed into an attack on Jays credibility which is totally unjustified. I believe Jay was totally justified in his review at Amazon. I've seen the film, and Jays comments are accurate. He does not imply he's seen the vid, but he knows enough about it anyway from descriptions from those who have seen it to make an informed judgement. Sometimes Jay is just too damn moral for his own good. He's removed his review just in case someone may get the wrong impression from his statements. However, which ever way you look at it, his review was spot on.

Lord Brompton
2002-Mar-10, 11:08 PM
Hello John,

I see you are also getting a pasting at the moment on Apollo Hoax. I would like to correct you, as well as others of Jays defenders on that board. Without bringing it down to the level of a slanging match!

"He does not imply he's seen the vid"

He certainly did by a look at the review. After much pressure from HB's and Jay haters he sort-of retracted.

"but he knows enough about it anyway from descriptions from those who have seen it to make an informed judgement."

Very unprofessional conduct and hearsay. Jay is an educated man. He must surely know this sort of behaviour is unforgiveable.

"Sometimes Jay is just too damn moral for his own good."

Perhaps until now. Lying is not a moral value in my book.

"He's removed his review just in case someone may get the wrong impression from his statements."

Good. I congratulate him. He must now admit to deceit and trying to cover up the facts.

"However, which ever way you look at it, his review was spot on."

Thats the sort of moral value that makes my blood boil. As long as you dont get caught thats OK. I'm sorry to have to say this but for the first time the HB's get my vote.
Truth is what we should all be looking for.

johnwitts
2002-Mar-10, 11:13 PM
I suggest we take this argument elsewhere. This is not the place to discuss a debate happening on another board. See you at Apollohoax.com

Lord Brompton
2002-Mar-10, 11:24 PM
I will have to sign up there and at the moment I dont trust Admin to not delete my post or fill it with vulgarities. Goodbye John. You are right about this being a bad place to squabble.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-11, 04:05 AM
On 2002-03-10 18:08, Lord Brompton wrote:
Hello John,

I see you are also getting a pasting at the moment on Apollo Hoax. I would like to correct you, as well as others of Jays defenders on that board. Without bringing it down to the level of a slanging match!

"He does not imply he's seen the vid"

He certainly did by a look at the review. After much pressure from HB's and Jay haters he sort-of retracted.

Not at all. Jay is much smart enough not to take this crap.


"but he knows enough about it anyway from descriptions from those who have seen it to make an informed judgement."

Very unprofessional conduct and hearsay. Jay is an educated man. He must surely know this sort of behaviour is unforgiveable.

No. The behavior these people have sprouted on is totally unforgiveable in my opinion.


"Sometimes Jay is just too damn moral for his own good."

Perhaps until now. Lying is not a moral value in my book.

So do you excuse David Percy or Bart Sibrel, who is much bigger liars than Jay will ever be?


"He's removed his review just in case someone may get the wrong impression from his statements."

Good. I congratulate him. He must now admit to deceit and trying to cover up the facts.

No. These people must admit they do not see Percy's arguments get ripped to shreds on a discussion forum. These people are the real cowards.


"However, which ever way you look at it, his review was spot on."

Thats the sort of moral value that makes my blood boil. As long as you dont get caught thats OK. I'm sorry to have to say this but for the first time the HB's get my vote.
Truth is what we should all be looking for.

Jay is interested in discovering the truth about Apollo. Percy and Sibrel are most certainly not.

The people making these accusations are just monsters. They do not want see Percy's and Sibrel's arguments get destroyed, so they target at Jay by accusing him a liar, which is completely unfair and unjust. This is something I will not stand for an innocent person.

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-03-10 23:08 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-11, 05:34 AM
Good. I congratulate him. He must now admit to deceit and trying to cover up the facts.

I am being asked to admit to sweeping allegations of wrongdoing far in excess of what I, and many others, believe was actually committed. This I will not do.

The act of writing a review, regardless of the accuracy of the content, implies that the reviewer has made a complete observation of the work under review. My act of writing a review conveyed an impression that was not true, namely that I had seen all the video. Because I do not wish to convey such a false impression, and did so inadvertently, I have removed the review.

My attackers are claiming that the review was "false", "fraudulent", and a "lie". Insofar as the review was based on what I consider reliable information about the video, I do not consider it false. Others who have seen the entire video and who have read my review agree that the content of the review substantially agrees with their opinion. I believe it to be a fair opinion based on a sufficiency of fact. That this fact did not derive from actually viewing the video itself did not seem important when I wrote the review, but I have since concluded that it is.

I do not and will not admit to deceit in this matter because deceit implies prior motive to mislead. I had no such motive, although the unfortunate and unintended outcome conveys a misleading impression.

I do not and will not admit to covering up fact. When the possibility of my review misleading readers was brought to my attention, I immediately disclosed the basis upon which I wrote the review, and what my intent had been. I solicited recommendations for a course of remedial action and as a result removed the review.

I have repeatedly and unswervingly acknowledged fault in having conveyed an inaccurate impression of authority to those who may have read my review. It is ludicrous to suppose that such an admission must necessarily slide down the slippery slope toward the utter demonization of my entire character, a goal currently being pursued vigorously by people with ulterior motives in doing so.

frenchy
2002-Mar-11, 06:36 AM
LOL! Talk about a tempest in a teapot!

Simon
2002-Mar-11, 11:42 AM
Or a mountain out of a molehill?

David Hall
2002-Mar-11, 01:35 PM
Gads, I just finished reading that entire thread (up to 11 pages now), and it's the most laughable, sickening pile of slanderous and nit-picking pile of garbage I've ever seen.

The two posters who keep going at Jay act like total fools, blowing even the most minor detail way out of proportion and trying to turn it into a black mark against Jay. But when someone tries to turn the tables on them, they just twist and squirm and try to reflect the criticisms back on others. That they are only making themselves look ridiculous seems to be completely lost on them.

If it wasn't so disturbing I'd just look at it humorously. As it is, it's almost unforgivable. JayUtah, you are completely right in this regard, and you are also wise to just back out of it and let the flames die out.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Mar-11, 01:52 PM
On 2002-03-10 18:13, johnwitts wrote:
This is not the place to discuss a debate happening on another board. See you at Apollohoax.com

Sorry, I must be browser challenged. Do you have a direct link to the forum? Thanks.

David Hall
2002-Mar-11, 02:00 PM
Here ya go Grapes:

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/

and the nasty thread in question:

http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=759&forum=5&265

odysseus0101
2002-Mar-11, 04:59 PM
On 2002-03-11 08:35, David Hall wrote:
Gads, I just finished reading that entire thread (up to 11 pages now), and it's the most laughable, sickening pile of slanderous and nit-picking pile of garbage I've ever seen.


You are a much more patient person than me. I started reading the thread in question, but I found I just couldn't control my temper. That thread is filled with some of the most idiotic excuses for human intellect I have ever encountered (and I teach at a state university, so I've seen more than my share). That thread makes me want to revise my idea for Local Smacking Boards - the smartest people in each city/township would simply be authorized to smack people who do or say such mindlessly stupid things.

DaveC
2002-Mar-11, 07:14 PM
I just made my first visit back to Apollohoax in a couple of weeks and it reinforced my decision to quit posting there. For what it's worth, I've always considered attacks on an individual to be the last bastion of the intellectually bankrupt - and there's a fair amount of bankruptcy evident at that Forum.
Jay has set himself up as the enemy of HB's because they can't argue with his logic and factual correctness. Too bad they found an error in what he'd done - not a factual error, but an inferrence drawn from a "review" that wasn't a complete review.

If I had a dollar for every time a professional reviewer has said "The movie was such a piece of cr*p that I left after 20 minutes", I could retire comfortably. That's hardly a lie on the reviewer's part - might be a bit unfair because the movie may have gotten really good at minute 21 - but it's a review, just as surely as Jay's was. The mistake, Jay, was in not adding that the video (DVD? laser disc? VHS? Beta?) was so bad you couldn't force yourself to watch the whole thing.

I'm with the rest of Jay's supporters on this - it's an overblown attempt by a few (maybe 1) individual to make something out of nothing. I wouldn't have dignified the garbage they (he?) spouted with any response at all.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-11, 08:08 PM
Welcome DaveC. I really appreciate what you have just written.

There is no doubt in my mind that "Slime" is really "Carrot Cruncher", and he got a new friend to support him.

I'm pretty sure that "Sherlock" is just a colleague of Sibrel or Percy.

FYI
2002-Mar-11, 08:54 PM
The particular review in question has been removed from amazon.com.

The seeming lack of concern for ethics displayed in this thread is quite disturbing.

FYI

johnwitts
2002-Mar-11, 09:40 PM
Ethics? Jay made a mistake. It happens. He did not realise the review would be that misleading. I read it and agreed with it, so tar me with the same brush. After it was pointed out to him, he removed his comments. And that was wrong. What more can he do. He's admitted his mistake, removed the offending review, and apologised. I'm sorry, but this all smacks of someone with a grudge bending over backwards to destroy one man's credibility. Jay's ethics would only be in question if we believe he was deliberately trying to hide something. He was not. Nowhere in the review did he even imply that he'd watched the vid in its entirety. He did not consider this to be misleading. When it was pointed out that it was, he corrected his mistake. This shows more ethics than someone who is trying to cover something up. If he had no ethics, he would have just lied, and said he'd seen the whole thing from start to finish. Twice. Get a grip people. It's hardly the same as claiming to be a profesional photographer, and then making up anomolies within non anomolous photos, to sell books and vids for money.

AstroMike
2002-Mar-11, 09:41 PM
On 2002-03-11 15:54, FYI wrote:
The particular review in question has been removed from amazon.com.

The seeming lack of concern for ethics displayed in this thread is quite disturbing.

FYI


What? What you has just said is quite disturbing to me. I can't imagine if anybody with a fair amount of critical thinking skills and logical reasoning finds this behavior towards Jay acceptable.

johnwitts
2002-Mar-11, 09:50 PM
Just what do you want Jay to do? Another review? To say at Amazon 'buy this, it's great. Sibrel is my personal hero'? Maybe he should sit down and watch the video, then do another review. I started posting comments about 'Dark Moon' and 'What Happened on the Moon?' before I'd finished reading/watching them. Does that invalidate my comments?

FYI
2002-Mar-11, 10:27 PM
On 2002-03-11 16:50, johnwitts wrote:
Maybe he should sit down and watch the video, then do another review.

If he can scan a copy of the receipt onto his review, that could satisfy some people, but after this debacle, I don't think it would.


I started posting comments about 'Dark Moon' and 'What Happened on the Moon?' before I'd finished reading/watching them. Does that invalidate my comments?


As long as after you started posting comments, you finished viewing the material. Anyone can skim the material, but a reviewer should actually view all of it. A review should not be hearsay.

If the reviewer doesn't view all of the material, the last thing that reviewer should do is, post that admission on the internet for someone else to see. Especially if that reviewer is not popular with everyone. You may now have an idea of what can happen.

Do you review at amazon.com under the name of John Witts?

I am not associated with amazon.com.

FYI

johnwitts
2002-Mar-11, 10:40 PM
I can't remember if I've ever reviewed anything at Amazon. I know I've never ordered from them. I would have used my name if I had, so it wouldn't be too much trouble to find any reviews. I don't usually put a space between my names, so it's easier to remember my usernames (same as my E-mail). If you do find any reviews I have done at 3am with bleary eyes that I don't remember doing, please tell me so that I can get Jay to give them the once over to check I've got my facts straight.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-11, 11:46 PM
Anyone can skim the material, but a reviewer should actually view all of it.

One of the reviews for Dark Moon states that the reader only skimmed the book. Yet he wrote a lengthy review for it. Nobody seems to have objected to it.

If the reviewer doesn't view all of the material, the last thing that reviewer should do is, post that admission on the internet for someone else to see.

True, if the reviewer's intent was to deceive his audience. If the reviewer had no malice and no intent to deceive, then he might feel perfectly comfortable discussing the extent of his authority in public. Thus those who wish to accuse him of malice in writing the review would have to answer why he spoke so freely and candidly about the circumstances surrounding the review.

Those who wonder about ethics ought to turn their attention to the review widely believed to have been written by Bart Sibrel himself. Is it ethical to pose as a supposedly unbiased third party to artificially inflate the appeal of one's own product?

FYI
2002-Mar-11, 11:57 PM
On 2002-03-11 18:46, JayUtah wrote:
Anyone can skim the material, but a reviewer should actually view all of it.

One of the reviews for Dark Moon states that the reader only skimmed the book. Yet he wrote a lengthy review for it. Nobody seems to have objected to it.

Do you happen to know the person's name? I will see for myself.


If the reviewer doesn't view all of the material, the last thing that reviewer should do is, post that admission on the internet for someone else to see.

True, if the reviewer's intent was to deceive his audience. If the reviewer had no malice and no intent to deceive, then he might feel perfectly comfortable discussing the extent of his authority in public.

Only you are aware of your intent and your feelings. Others are only aware of your words and their meaning.


Thus those who wish to accuse him of malice in writing the review would have to answer why he spoke so freely and candidly about the circumstances surrounding the review.

Many admissions slip out in the form of free and candid statements. Maybe the reason you spoke so free and candidly is because you thought nothing like this could ever happen. Now you know better.


Those who wonder about ethics ought to turn their attention to the review widely believed to have been written by Bart Sibrel himself. Is it ethical to pose as a supposedly unbiased third party to artificially inflate the appeal of one's own product?


You are the one who made a mistake. Dragging others into it will not make your mistake go away.

FYI

Ian R
2002-Mar-12, 12:28 AM
FYI,

What the hell do you want us to do with Jay? Give him 10 spanks and send him to bed without any dinner?

FYI
2002-Mar-12, 12:38 AM
The way I look at it is, the price you pay for a mistake is, the mistake.

You only pay more if you don't learn from the mistake.

FYI
2002-Mar-12, 01:52 AM
Maybe some of you are wondering why I didn't post this information at apollohoax.com.

To be honest, I didn't think "FYI is a fool" was very becoming of me.

I'll leave that task up to someone else.

That thread had quite an audience, and people who have never been to that site were reading it. The only thing that young administrator proved was, he has a lot of growing up to do.

What disappointed me most was, that young man admittedly looks up to the much older Jay Utah, and he may have listened to Jay Utah, if Jay had advised him to mellow out. For the sake of appearance.

The way you appear is, in most cases, directly proportional to how seriously you are taken.

I'm not judging the entire debate, I'm just saying that part of it looked pretty bad.

FYI

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-12, 01:54 AM
I've heard enough. Stop this. My board is not for character assassination. Take it to Apollohoax.com if you want, but keep this off here.