Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: some pretty low tactics

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    155

    some pretty low tactics

    I just want to say that the moderators of this forum use some pretty low tactics.

    First example--

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52326
    On post #22 of this thread I said this.

    That's all the time I have today. I'll continue in a day or two.
    The only post by Tinaa before that had been this.

    David C do not start your video clip posting marathon again. Just like the movies, anyone can create anything on video. If you do not start using your own words this thread will be closed - sooner rather than later.
    (post #19)

    The next day there was another post by Tinaa that hadn't been there before my last post on the first day.
    This is part of it.

    This is your assignment David C: Write up what YOU think happened. No videos, no web sites, just your idea of what really happened. Post it today - before 6:00 PM CST - OR I will close this thread.
    It was pretty low of you to put this before my last post after I signed off for the day and logged out. If I had seen that message about the 6:00 deadline, I wouldn't have simply said "That's all the time I have today. I'll continue in a day or two.". I would have explained that I wouldn't have time to do any lengthy writing for a couple of days. Did you want the viewers to think that I was ignoring the deadline? Post #22 was post # 21 the day before the thread was closed.

    Second example--

    This is from the first post of the thread.



    Also--
    On post 1094 of this page of the Pentagon thread http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=37 I was asked to answer a list of questions.

    In post 1123 of the next page http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=38 I answered the questions.

    In the last post of the thread http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=39 (post 1166) the moderator said I hadn't answered the questions and closed the thread giving that as the reason for his closing it.
    Question for the moderator--why did you say I hadn't answered the questions when the answsers to the questions were in post #1123? I want to hear an explanation from the moderator on this.
    I still want to hear an explanation from the moderator about why he said I hadn't addressed the questions put to me when I had.

    I asked some specific questions about some specific issues on that thread. Here is one of them.

    My question on post #1148 was never answered because the thread was closed. We were discussing the mathematical proof that Laguna2 presented in post #1096. I'd like an answer to my question.

    Here it is.

    Quote:
    You state that the box is about five meters away from the camera in this proof you did.
    http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
    Getting the correct distance of the box from the camera and the width of the box are pretty important in a proof like this. A small mistake in precision will throw the whole thing off. I want to see some more detail in how you got those numbers.
    That's why I wanted to use the side of the Pentagon as the basis for the calculations--it's a lot clearer.
    I was referring to post #1148 on this page.
    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48507&page=39
    The thermite issue was also being discussed on the Pentagon thread.
    post #1163
    It ahs never been proven what that is. It could be metal, it could be plastic, it could even be wood. At the low resolution and being zoomed in all you can tell is it is something that is glowing and falling. It is not definitely molten. Burning wood embers breaking off looks very similar. Personally, I think it is either plastic or a light metal like aluminum from some office furniture.
    I wanted to continue this discussion.
    I also wanted to discuss this.
    http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/...95_comment.php
    We started talking about this on the Penagon thread and didn't finish because the thread was closed.
    I posted enough issues to start a healthy discussion and I posted some videos so anyone who wanted to add something could have done so. Why don't you want to discuss the issues I posted? Can't you deal with those issues? Asking me to write a lengthy summary of the info that was already there was a pretty lame excuse for closing the thread.

    I also asked several times for an explanation on why the moderator said I hadn't answered the questions put to me when I had in the Pentagon thread. It was ignored every time.
    Please answer the question.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    ...I would have explained that I wouldn't have time to do any lengthy writing for a couple of days.
    You expect those here to take the time to view the dozens of videos you link to, yet you can't seem to invest the same amount of time to your own threads.

    Why is that??
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    11,057
    First of all, it's pretty difficult to work out who said what in all these quoted bits.

    Secondly, nobody said "lengthy" apart from you.

    Thirdly, a lot of people on your last thread pointed out that your approach is not how things are done here.

    Finally, Tinaa said, "David C do not open a new thread posting the same stuff. If you have any new stuff, please PM a mod to reopen the thread. If you have taken the time to write your own analysis, PM a mod to reopen the thread." That's not exactly censorship, is it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    155
    Look at my post again.

    We started talking about this on the Penagon thread and didn't finish because the thread was closed.
    I posted enough issues to start a healthy discussion and I posted some videos so anyone who wanted to add something could have done so. Why don't you want to discuss the issues I posted? Can't you deal with those issues? Asking me to write a lengthy summary of the info that was already there was a pretty lame excuse for closing the thread.
    I asked some direct questions about some specific issues. Not addressing them because I'd posted some videos too is a pretty lame excuse.
    One was addressed though--building 7. I would have like to continue talking about the others too.

    When is the moderator who closed the Pentagon thread going to answer my question?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    155
    First of all, it's pretty difficult to work out who said what in all these quoted bits.

    Secondly, nobody said "lengthy" apart from you.

    Thirdly, a lot of people on your last thread pointed out that your approach is not how things are done here.

    Finally, Tinaa said, "David C do not open a new thread posting the same stuff. If you have any new stuff, please PM a mod to reopen the thread. If you have taken the time to write your own analysis, PM a mod to reopen the thread." That's not exactly censorship, is it?
    She put the post with the deadline before my post when I said I was signing off. That's deceit. She should have put it after my post.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    When is the moderator who closed the Pentagon thread going to answer my question?
    In a hurry??
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    She put the post with the deadline before my post when I said I was signing off. That's deceit. She should have put it after my post.
    Actually, that is not something we are capable of doing.
    If she posted it minutes before you posted yours you wouldn't have seen it while you composed your sign-out. Perhaps that is what happened.

    One of my concerns in all this is that you have some expectation that the moderators have a lot of time, but that your time is precious. If you think of us as other human beings who are doing this as a hobby, you'd realize that you could have simply PMed her and explained the situation. Tinaa is very nice, but very busy too.

    One thing that I keep trying to point out is that even though our debates are adversarial, that doesn't mean our relationships have to be. You can present as far from the mainstream view as you like and still be on good terms with everyone here if you:
    - Put the time in to make your points clear, concise, and unambiguous
    - Respect the time other people have to put in to read/watch your presentation
    - Answer direct qustions as best you can (which may simply be "I don't know yet")
    - Acknowledge other viewpoints
    Forming opinions as we speak

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    155
    When are you going to explain the bogus reason you gave for closing the Pentgon thread? Look at the last post of that thread and then look at the first post of this thread.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    When are you going to explain the bogus reason you gave for closing the Pentgon thread?
    David...listen to what Antoniseb has said. The mods here will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but that accommodation can be lost forever if you decide to "cop an attitude".
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,639
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    I just want to say that the moderators of this forum use some pretty low tactics.
    Boy, they sure do. You are told not to continue posting the same links ad nauseum, but to put your ideas into your own words. When you fail to do so, they close the thread just like they said they would.

    Of course, the Mods are also pretty stupid when it comes to censorship. They close the thread, but leave it there for anyone to access and read. They even tell you they will reopen the thread if you have something new to add.

    Man, talk about your low tactics...
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,261
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    <snip>
    I posted enough issues to start a healthy discussion and I posted some videos so anyone who wanted to add something could have done so. Why don't you want to discuss the issues I posted? Can't you deal with those issues? Asking me to write a lengthy summary of the info that was already there was a pretty lame excuse for closing the thread.
    No, you have not had healthy discussions. I for one can not watch all these videos. I have a dial-up connection at home and our corporate policy forbids watching videos at work. Yet all you ever post are links to videos.

    And when people present EVIDENCE that is counter to your points you just dismiss it with "watch the video". Plus, your rules of "evidence" are illogical; as near as I can tell, stuff that agrees with your points is "proof", stuff that disagrees is dismissed as "just evidence".
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,557
    and no matter how much "just evidence" is presented against your case, it remains worthless.

    no matter how little straws to grasp at are found for your case, it is conclusive proof.

    That is not what I consider a healthy discussion, especially not with the sauce of attitude in which it is held.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    That is not what I consider a healthy discussion, especially not with the sauce of attitude in which it is held.
    And yet, for all your seeming violations of our local customs, everyone here is ready to forgive everything as mere adaptation to a new environment if you will just follow the suggestions above. We like clear discussions. If you participate in a productive way, all the things we're complaining about will be regarded as stuff that happened before you 'got' the way we do business.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,557
    I can certainly agree on that, and even though we've had quite a long "history" I am still more than willing to have a serious, polite, clear, and productive discussion with you, as this is the goal of this board.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    619
    As a moderator in another forum I have taken a more than passing interest in this thread.

    I have read over many of your previous posts and you seem to have a very confrontational manner with those that seem to disagree with your ideas ("Isn't everything you need to know obvious from the pictures? It was obvious to me.") When your "evidence" has been proven to be erroneous by thoughtful and well-thought out arguments, you cry foul.

    When asked to provide evidence other than videos and pictures, you fall short. By expecting your "evidence" to be interpreted in a by others in your manner (ignoring testimony and evidence by reliable, knowledgable people, many who were there), you are expecting others to discard the sensible way in which they look at things.

    Moderators are volunteers with their time and efforts. There main job is to maintain the decorum and integrity of the forum. By asking you to provide RELIABLE evidence, instead of the same video stuff, they were asking you to follow the forum guidelines. While it may have been better if Tinaa had given you more time, it is likely that you would not have brought anything new to the post.

    By making a post of your problems with the moderators you have taken this to antother level. You should have PM'd the moderator(s) with your concerns. Instead, you have turned this into a whizzing contest, with you as the only contestant.

    tbm

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,331
    Can we at least put this whizzing contest in About BAUT, or something?

    Unless David has a bunch of blurry internet video clips that make it totally clear that there's a conspiracy going on, of course.
    Last edited by stutefish; 2007-Jan-15 at 10:37 PM. Reason: Proper categorization.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by David C View Post
    She put the post with the deadline before my post when I said I was signing off. That's deceit. She should have put it after my post.
    I would not do such a thing even if it were possible. Be glad you accused me of lying and not a user or you'd be out of here forever! I have absolutely nothing to prove here. I feel I am quite easy going - perhaps too much so at times. I like to give people enough rope to, well you know...

    Your holier-than-thou and in-your-face posting does nothing to further your cause. You may argue to your heart's content that 911 was done by my dog (or dogs to make it a proper conspiracy), but you must do it in the proper manner. Posting a bunch of garbage from CT sites and expecting BAUT members to spend their and my time watching the junk - (to use a BAUT appropriate word) - is not the proper way to present your case. Expect me to close each and every topic you begin if this is how who plan on presenting your case.
    If you have a problem with my moderation please follow the rules as posted:


    17. Moderator Actions

    If there is a rule violation, then a moderator will take action. This may include: the deletion of a word or phrase (if it breaks the rules), the removal of an entire post (if it is beyond redemption, or if it's a spam, etc.), the merging of a new thread with an existing one on the same topic, the closing of a thread if it wanders too far off-topic or gets too heated, a gentle warning to a user or users, a not-so-gentle-warning, and as a last resort, the banning of a user. This banning may be temporary or permanent, as outlined above. If a moderator gives you advice, we advise you to take it.

    If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.
    Last edited by Tinaa; 2007-Jan-16 at 12:04 AM. Reason: spelling

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    David C,

    In your other gigantic thread, you were asked to provide real answers and proof of several questions. I contributed greatly to those questions, and was one of those who felt that "It could have been planted" was not an appropriate answer.

    I don't input this to toot my own horn. I input this to note that not only moderators, but forum members in general have spent an enormous amount of time answering your questions in painstaking detail. You simply refuse to respond in kind. Along with many others, I also felt you were evading, not answering, questions put directly to you.

    I agree 100% with, and will whole-heartedly support, as will most of the board, clamping your link-bombing down until you agree to answer by the same rules you expect us to answer you with.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    619

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Tinaa View Post
    I would not do such a thing even if it were possible............. [/B]
    Look out, he may post a video showing evidence of time travel........

    tbm

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,562
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm View Post

    While it may have been better if Tinaa had given you more time, it is likely that you would not have brought anything new to the post.

    tbm
    You may be correct. David C, IMO, has never done anything I had previously requested. That is why I advised David C that we'd be happy to reopen the thread if he had anything new to add. I'd still be happy to reopen the thread when David C has taken the time to write up his ideas in a clear post so that members who wish to debate him may be able to quote David C's own words and NOT have to refer to a CT website.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,227
    David C has been permanently banned.

    He has been warned about his behavior via PM, and in a thread he was in. A repeated offense earned him a one week suspension.

    This thread itself is in violation of the rules, as others have pointed out here. Also, his aggressive attitude and inappropriate comments (calling another board member a liar is bad form, whether or not they are a mod) have earned him a permanent banning.

    Let me repeat this to any and all reading this: if you have a problem with the mods, take it to another mod or to an admin. That's the rule.

    This thread is locked.

Similar Threads

  1. 'Debating tactics' vs 'challenging an ATM idea'
    By Nereid in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2006-Sep-30, 12:30 PM
  2. Military tactics in First Contact
    By Glom in forum Small Media at Large
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-11, 10:31 PM
  3. Some Tactics and Technics for Debating
    By Wirraway in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2003-May-25, 12:13 PM
  4. Argument tactics and review
    By g99 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2003-Feb-09, 06:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •