Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 154

Thread: New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    29,592

    New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy

    Phil and I have talked it over, and we feel that the Conspiracy Theory section of the forum is starting to get out of hand. If you take a look through the CT section, easily half of the stories on the homepage are about 9/11, and have nothing to do with space and astronomy.

    So, effective immediately, we're instituting the same policy that we have for the Against the Mainstream Section...

    ... only post topics relating to space and astronomy.

    We'll start closing up topics on Friday, and from this point on, any threads which aren't specifically about space-related conspiracy theories will be closed immediately.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

    Oh, joy, joy, it's back to the Apollo hoax, Planet X, Cydonia, and Area 51, and all the great space and astronomy conspiracies of old! Quality returns.

    Adios, 9-11. Farewell, Warren Commission. Sayonara, Sasquatch.
    Last edited by 01101001; 2007-Jan-25 at 07:45 AM.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,280
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001 View Post
    It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

    Oh, joy, joy, it's back to the Apollo hoax, Planet X, Cydonia, and Area 51, and all the great space and astronomy conspiracies of old! Quality returns.
    Indeed, I prefer those topics to those of recent memory.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by 01101001 View Post
    It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

    Oh, joy, joy, it's back to the Apollo hoax, Planet X, Cydonia, and Area 51, and all the great space and astronomy conspiracies of old! Quality returns.

    Adios, 9-11. Farewell, Warren Commission. Sayonara, Sasquatch.
    With a little luck, we'll see some new space conspiracies come out...some of those classics are starting to feel a little retread.

    Maybe WMAP or something fresh...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodler View Post
    With a little luck, we'll see some new space conspiracies come out...some of those classics are starting to feel a little retread.

    Maybe WMAP or something fresh...
    Planet X to the Z Xzibit, is that fresh (fresh, exciting) enough for you?
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  6. #6
    farewell spocks conspiracy of science, well after this round ends.
    From the wilderness into the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    878
    Good work - there are plenty of places for those discussions already.

    Of course there is still the "theory" that 911 was the work of reptile space aliens

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6
    Edited....
    Last edited by hoaxie; 2008-Mar-24 at 02:22 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    I am LOVING this rule change!!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,181
    Quality returns?
    You see more quality in the claims of Apollo CTs than in those of 911 CTs?
    We just get less junk.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,156
    How about also applying the other rules from ATM on this part, such as being required to back up statements, answer direct questions and to make points in more than a link?
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    How about also applying the other rules from ATM on this part, such as being required to back up statements, answer direct questions and to make points in more than a link?
    That's part of the Rule 13 change. It is now entitled:

    13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories
    It appears to me to be reworded to include space and astronomy conspiracies as another facet of ATM:

    If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    41

    possibility for moderator...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    How about also applying the other rules from ATM on this part.................., and to make points in more than a link?
    Speaking to making points in more than one link (or thread)...

    Is it possible for the moderator/administrator to combine all of the separate independent threads posted under the same topic and place all thread (and posts within threads) within one thread stemming from the main topic?

    When I first joined, I didn't understand the protocols until reading the rules where it is recommended to open an existing thread (if you are posting on the same topic) as opposed to starting a new thread within the same topic.

    Perhaps the multitude of threads located :Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Conspiracy Theories > (((here)))
    Could be consolidated into the same thread under the same topic.

    Not sure if the administrator can do this but it may be helpful in organizing all these threads under the same topic.

    Does this make sense?
    Last edited by k9trek; 2008-Dec-05 at 03:48 PM. Reason: wanted to

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by k9trek View Post
    Is it possible for the moderator/administrator to combine all of the separate independent threads posted under the same topic and place all thread (and posts within threads) within one thread stemming from the main topic?
    It's possible, but time consuming for the mods, and might end up being even more confusing for the reader.

    Quote Originally Posted by k9trek View Post
    When I first joined, I didn't understand the protocols until reading the rules where it is recommended to open an existing thread (if you are posting on the same topic) as opposed to starting a new thread within the same topic.
    Recommended, but there are pros and cons.
    First; It shows you actively understand the previous conversations and have at least made some attempt to do a bit of your own research.
    Two; A lot of times the comments are just different twists, or extensions of previous didscussions.
    But;
    A very old thread can be confusing and irrelevent (timeliness-wise) with many missing links.
    A very old thread has posters that no longer exist, so it's like talking to the wall.
    A newer thread may have a "train of thought" that would probably be best left alone. I prefer new thoughts with links and a bit of explanation of the relevence to a previous discussion in these cases.

    In other words, it can be a judgement call.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,156
    OK, thanks. So that means that if Spock wants to propose his "nobody ever went to the moon" idea, the thread would look a lot different than his previous threads. An encouraging thought.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Only CT's concerning space and astronomy eh?
    Well, 9/11 theories are concerning the *space* around ground zero. :-D Shouldn't that read "outer space and astronomy"?
    Attack of the symantics!

    But honestly, good move BAUT. I'm kinda suprised this wasn't already a rule. Just wonder how long it will take for the 9/11 CT'ers to realise that we're not part of the "conspiracy" but this just isn't the place to discuss it. It's funny that they get mad over being censored here at BAUT, as there's plenty of more suitable "venues" for thier rambling. It seems it's thier mission to convince the astro-enthusists of the world that the government is evil. Oh well, good riddance!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,156
    Attack of the symantics!
    counterattack of spelling: semantics
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    counterattack of spelling: semantics
    Counter-counterattack of grammar: punctuation and capitalisation!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    counterattack of spelling: semantics
    Ouch! I've been hit! But i can't tell if it was by a 747 or by the themite det-packs that were installed at birth. Regardless I'm going down faster and slower than free-fall. AAiieeeeeee!!!

    ...Sorry, had to get that in before the new rule comes into effect

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    counterattack of spelling: semantics
    Even the way he had it was right. I finally up and uninstalled Norton Internet Security because it was the most abusively controlling software I've ever used. I refuse ever again to use another software that tells me how I can use my machine.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    16,156
    "Symantics" is not in my dictionary. Symantec also isn't, but that is the way they spell it indeed.
    With sufficient thrust, water towers fly just fine.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    Phil and I have talked it over, and we feel that the Conspiracy Theory section of the forum is starting to get out of hand. If you take a look through the CT section, easily half of the stories on the homepage are about 9/11, and have nothing to do with space and astronomy.

    So, effective immediately, we're instituting the same policy that we have for the Against the Mainstream Section...

    ... only post topics relating to space and astronomy.

    We'll start closing up topics on Friday, and from this point on, any threads which aren't specifically about space-related conspiracy theories will be closed immediately.

    Thanks!
    It makes perfect sense to me, even though Bautforum and the JREF Forum are the best for debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories. I support your decision.

    I assume and hope the 9/11 threads will be preserved for posterity. There is a wealth of excellent posts from many who participated here - and maybe here alone - that those who write the history and post-mortem of the 9/11 Denial Movement can make excellent use of. I think, in particular, of JayUtah's posts which are worthy of being published in toto as a book on their own merit.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,536
    I agree Sky King. I thought at least some of the 9/11 threads were pretty interesting. One could say that some of the 9/11 CTs were pretty silly and were often repetitive, but you could also say that about the moon landing hoax too. I will not, however, miss the more "philosophic" threads.

    But this place is not a democracy, and we are all guests of our benevolent leaders. I can live with their decision.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
    Phil and I have talked it over, and we feel that the Conspiracy Theory section of the forum is starting to get out of hand. If you take a look through the CT section, easily half of the stories on the homepage are about 9/11, and have nothing to do with space and astronomy.

    So, effective immediately, we're instituting the same policy that we have for the Against the Mainstream Section...

    ... only post topics relating to space and astronomy.

    We'll start closing up topics on Friday, and from this point on, any threads which aren't specifically about space-related conspiracy theories will be closed immediately.

    Thanks!
    Smartest move I've seen yet, good call.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,675
    So where will the CTs go now to cry we we censored debate just because they were winning?

    I, too, welcome our new insect overlo....I mean, the new policies. There's plenty of web for the 9-11 junk. I do think there is some overlap, though. Sometimes to talk about a "theory" like the iron sun thing you have to get into sciences that aren't strictly astrophysics. And much of the Apollo discussion is basically engineering, with a little photography. So we may have to watch how far we let threads stray when they need to explore something like behavior of film in re the size of highlights in an Apollo photograph, and so forth.

    (And speaking of grammar, that sentence above needs to be put out of its misery.)

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    6,275
    I support the change too, though I'll miss the lunacy (pun not intended) of the 9/11 and other conspiracy threads.

    However, I'd like to ask: why the "Have a nice day" remark in all the thread-closing posts? Comes across as pretty snarky to me. Sort of a "Nyahh nyahh, fun's over" kind of feel to it.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,774
    Since the thread on the LHC is still open, I suppose the rules will allow for science-related conspiracies?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Argos View Post
    Since the thread on the LHC is still open, I suppose the rules will allow for science-related conspiracies?
    That's a bit of a grey area just now - do we allow "Einstein stole {insert favourite victim here}'s ideas!" or "We'd all have free energy today if the {insert favourite villian here} hadn't suppressed Tesla's discoveries!" or similar conspiracy theories (if that's what they are)?

    Personally, I'd get rid of them too.

    The LHC one is a little different, in that one can use good astronomy to challenge it (i.e. the daily rain of cosmic rays, on the Earth, millions (billions? more??) of which have more energy than the LHC will ever be able to produce).

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    642
    The two, things, you were talking about are not conspiracy theories. They're baseless accusations.

    EDIT: So yeah, they wouldn't have fit in here anyways.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,958
    Is Planet X really a CT?

    I mean, there are mainstream astronomers actively searching for it, no?
    Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?

Similar Threads

  1. maybe this should be in the conspiracy section, but here goes..
    By novaderrik in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2009-Oct-18, 09:50 PM
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-26, 08:43 AM
  3. New Change for Conspiracy Theory section: only space and astronomy
    By Fraser in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2007-Mar-04, 01:26 PM
  4. Moderating the Conspiracy Theories section - SAMU's opinions
    By SAMU in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-04, 06:15 AM
  5. Bad Astronomy and The Fox Conspiracy Theory Connection
    By Adolf Hitler in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2002-Nov-15, 02:33 AM

Posting Permissions

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