Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 154

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,143
    I decided to wait a few days before commenting, in order to reflect, and to attempt to minimize the impact of my own clear bias in favor of continuing to allow discussion of other conspiracy theories on my response.

    I can certainly understand where Phil and Fraser are coming from, and I admit that the September 11 conspiracists are well past the point of sounding like flock of parrots--all we get are the same tired arguments. I also agree that something had to be done.

    Having said that, I have to second (third?) PhantomWolf and Laguna2 and say that I wish we could at least try strictly enforcing the rule on backing up conspiracist claims (which I've advocated for a long time) and see if that improves the situation. I'd also like to revive a suggestion I made a while ago, which is to have a FAQ on the various major conspiracy theories, so that some broken-record discussions might be ended with "read the September 11 FAQ, Section 2.21," or some such reference.

    Finally, like some others, I don't feel that I have nearly as much to contribute on space subjects as I do on other CTs. However, I participated here back when the moon hoax and Planet X were the only conspiracies discussed, and I will continue to participate even if those are the only ones allowed. My participation will likely be limited, however.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    231

    The decision

    I sympathize with PhantomWolf's sentiments as regards critical thinking but I think the decision is correct.

    A few things distinguish this forum from all others: the intellectual quality of the participants, the restriction on discussing politics and religion under Rule 12, and the quality of the discussions as a result.

    The discussion of 9/11 conspiracies on the science of what happened has been rehashed over and over. Absent new information, we've been there, done that. We await the final NIST report on WTC 7 and we know what we'll get from CTers. New CTer's have come here in recent months not to learn anything but to troll. It has gotten boring. It is boring in every other forum discussing 9/11 conspiracies as well. I think the 9/11 Truth Movement will die a natural death from extreme boredom.

    I expressed a desire that we do not lose the threads and am glad that we won't. The quality of material in there is great.

    I believe shutting down the 9/11 threads under Rule 13 is a principled one from strength rather than from weakness. Phil and company are stating, "we discussed the science of 9/11 conspiracy theories as an exception to Rule 13, we covered the entire subject, there is nothing new, we are ending the discussion. See the archived threads."

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,985
    maybe, at the very least, have some sort of a "sticky" link to the various CT's that have been banned- or put them in their own section where no new responses are allowed. i've seen this on a few car related forums i go to where they archive posts from previous years, and it works quite well.
    kind of like a reference library where you can look but not touch.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky King View Post
    I sympathize with PhantomWolf's sentiments as regards critical thinking but I think the decision is correct.

    A few things distinguish this forum from all others: the intellectual quality of the participants, the restriction on discussing politics and religion under Rule 12, and the quality of the discussions as a result.

    The discussion of 9/11 conspiracies on the science of what happened has been rehashed over and over. Absent new information, we've been there, done that. We await the final NIST report on WTC 7 and we know what we'll get from CTers. New CTer's have come here in recent months not to learn anything but to troll. It has gotten boring. It is boring in every other forum discussing 9/11 conspiracies as well. I think the 9/11 Truth Movement will die a natural death from extreme boredom.

    I expressed a desire that we do not lose the threads and am glad that we won't. The quality of material in there is great.

    I believe shutting down the 9/11 threads under Rule 13 is a principled one from strength rather than from weakness. Phil and company are stating, "we discussed the science of 9/11 conspiracy theories as an exception to Rule 13, we covered the entire subject, there is nothing new, we are ending the discussion. See the archived threads."
    A final notice from me.
    You are right. Concerning 9/11 CTs we have been through with everything over and over again, but that is not different with the Moonhoax CTs.
    Or did you hear something new from the Apollo deniers?

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

    Seriously, good rule change.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Laguna2 View Post
    A final notice from me.
    You are right. Concerning 9/11 CTs we have been through with everything over and over again, but that is not different with the Moonhoax CTs.
    Or did you hear something new from the Apollo deniers?
    True, but that topic is consistent with Rule 13.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky King View Post
    <snip>
    The discussion of 9/11 conspiracies on the science of what happened has been rehashed over and over. Absent new information, we've been there, done that.
    But, I believe, the same could be said about the Moon Landing Hoax or 2012 and the Mayans. I've only been around here a few years, but it has been a long time since I've seen anything new for either of those. By that reasoning, we should also stop the discussions on Apollo.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    So much new info on here since last time I was on (Friday). Guess feelings are a little more split on the new rule than I remember them being when it was first announced. I understand the argument that some of those "other" CT's promoted critical thinking and what-not. But it doesn't have to be an ATM or CT to promote critical thinking. There's plenty of accepted and proven topics that can promote just as much (and probably healthier) critical thinking than any CT topic. The problem was, the 9/11 CT's and all that junk were not generating good thinking or conversation or new ideas. They were just generating hundreds of "you're wrong because i say so" posts.

    Besides, as pointed out, there's more than enough forums out there that deal specifically with those topics. I'm not saying you shouldn't visit BAUT, I love these forums. I'm just saying, you can't go into a mexican resturante and order chinese food. (i.e., you go to the place that offers what you're looking for). This is an Astronomy board...and I have to admit, I always wondered why CT'ers would even come here to discuss 9/11 CT's and the like.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    But, I believe, the same could be said about the Moon Landing Hoax or 2012 and the Mayans. I've only been around here a few years, but it has been a long time since I've seen anything new for either of those. By that reasoning, we should also stop the discussions on Apollo.
    Yes, I see how you can interpret my statement that way and I was not clear on that. I meant that more as my observation and opinion and not the justification for terminating the 9/11 threads.

    The Moon Landing Hoax is covered under Rule 13 and 9/11 CTs are not. I do not know the genesis of allowing the 9/11 CTs to begin with.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,643

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    [edit]This is an Astronomy board...and I have to admit, I always wondered why CT'ers would even come here to discuss 9/11 CT's and the like.
    Something called "Google".

    Eventually when the new rule has been in force for some time, the CT keyword references will work their way down the Google equivalent of a temporal metatag list and the CTers will no longer visit.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    12,592
    As has been said, this is Phil and Frazier's forum. They get to decide what gets discussed and how. This new policy will not send me running.

    However, I did enjoy the non-astronomy CT threads... mostly. The discussions were - for the most part - reasonably well conducted; there were none of the name callings, threats, political implications that make other fora just not worth visiting.

    Phantomwolf, Gillian and others make some good points. As for BigDon's concerns, no one can force you to post. I know I have written and deleted many replies, and in some cases, not even gone that far, rather than post something I shouldn't.

    Novaderrik brings up a good suggestion. If the 9/11-type topics are to abandoned, why not create a new forum - locked for replies but open to read - just for them? Post the explanation given as the OP for this thread so folks know why the discussion is closed on them.
    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

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky King View Post
    The Moon Landing Hoax is covered under Rule 13 and 9/11 CTs are not. I do not know the genesis of allowing the 9/11 CTs to begin with.
    Well, yes, now that rule 13 has been changed. Other topics were previously allowed.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,985
    i just don't want to see the world famous "moonman" thread disappear forever.. that was probably the most fun thread ever..anywhere..

    oops.. i meant to say the "firstcontact" thread about the twin towers...
    but moonman was fun, too..
    Last edited by novaderrik; 2007-Jan-29 at 10:30 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky King View Post
    Originally Posted by Swift
    But, I believe, the same could be said about the Moon Landing Hoax or 2012 and the Mayans. I've only been around here a few years, but it has been a long time since I've seen anything new for either of those. By that reasoning, we should also stop the discussions on Apollo.
    Yes, I see how you can interpret my statement that way and I was not clear on that. I meant that more as my observation and opinion and not the justification for terminating the 9/11 threads.

    The Moon Landing Hoax is covered under Rule 13 and 9/11 CTs are not. I do not know the genesis of allowing the 9/11 CTs to begin with.
    And I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - I took it as your observation, not as your belief. I just expanded upon it to argue that it is not a valid argument to eliminate the discussions about 9/11 and other CTs.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,885
    I've been waiting to make a responce, sorry to my fans. Waiting to decide where I stood. Of course we are just guests in this place and have no real say, but if this board was strictly supposed to be for space and astronomy stuff, how do you explain the general forum or that games forum? Here I think your argument falls flat. Could such CT threads be posted there? I think your responce the next time a 9/11 thread pops up will be pretty weak given the amount of trash that fills some other forums on this board.

    Perhaps it was a plea from the moderators. I can understand how they could get sick of the place, especially if all they knew or cared about was space and astronomy. But there are a lot of us who don't know much about astronomy and space but do know about other things. We weren't interested in playing games or reading general interest stuff. We liked to use our expertise for a change. To show what we know, outside space and astronomy. Here was our arena and I think we did a pretty good job, even without Jay's bombastic replys.

    Any way you slice it, there's no way that limiting this forum to space and astronomy will not be seen as an easy way out for us, by the 9/11/JFK/yadayada...CTers. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put him back without looking like we can't go head to head with lowly CT website copy and pasters.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by jt-3d View Post
    <snip>

    Any way you slice it, there's no way that limiting this forum to space and astronomy will not be seen as an easy way out for us, by the 9/11/JFK/yadayada...CTers. The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put him back without looking like we can't go head to head with lowly CT website copy and pasters.
    Yea, but the truth is we were never going to "win" with them anyway. If the threads stayed open for years and we all stopped posting out of sheer boredom the CT'ers would still say we stopped posting because they were getting too close to the truth. The genie is just a CT delusion, there's no bottle to put him back into. So yea, it's nice to know that this board is recognized all over as a site for critical thinking, and I think it's very cool that we have experts here from so many different backgrounds, but I agree that this forum should not be a centralized CT hub.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13,423
    The irony is that if you read what you have just said (this applies to all of you ) you see what others see when they lurk-
    I was a Lurker for a long time too.
    The arguments and counterarguments between the bunked and the debunker may seem silly to the participants- but there are MANY lurkers who simply read. Those people have two perspectives available to choose from, rather than just one or the other.
    And many debunkings really clarify beyond the shadow of a doubt how full of holes a lot the the CT and HB arguments really are.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    ...there are MANY lurkers who simply read.
    Well...they will now have less to read.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The arguments and counterarguments between the bunked and the debunker may seem silly to the participants- but there are MANY lurkers who simply read.
    True, and many participants simply post and do not read the other posts. Um...not that *I* ever am guilty of that....

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13,423
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Well...they will now have less to read.
    true
    but they can always go to Loose Change and read more


    this thread is a discussion about the many different Viewpoints about the change.
    Such things are necessary in any structure- its what makes the intellect we have such a great thing.

    Yes this is Phil and Fraziers site. nice. But if it was My site- id appreciate the input of those who use it. Which i'm certain they do too.

    There are as many good arguments on both sides. A decision was made and now we will see how it goes...
    But that doesnt mean those who read here cant express their opinions on it.
    You never know- someone may just make a point that the rest hadnt thought of before.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by jt-3d View Post
    Perhaps it was a plea from the moderators.
    Of course it was the moderators. They've been over-run by non-space/astronomy related CT's and were tired of moderatoring those threads. ToSeek said as much on the other thread. It should come as no surprise that after a certain amount of complaints from the mods., the Admin. would re-examine the rules to eliminate those threads.


    edited to clarify last sentence.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,440
    There's another aspect which I'd like to share ... if you were a passionate proponent of a CT (or an ATM idea), weren't getting anywhere, and a mod stepped in, would you be tempted to scream 'bad moderating!', 'bad moderator!!' as a tactic (never mind how well-founded or how ridiculous your complaint was)?

    If you noticed that what happened when you did this was that the mod in question recused herself*, and another mod took over, would you conclude that this tactic was quite powerful? And that you should try using it more often?

    While dealing with spam is certainly time-consuming (ToSeek's estimate of the number of spams a day that a mod deals with is, if anything, too low), it's not stressful. At one time I tried moderating the CT section, but found myself tempted to do too many drastic things. Towards the end, I would only venture in there if there were a Reported Post that no other mod seemed to have acted on.

    For myself, I'm here for the astronomy ...

    *There are, IMHO, many good reasons why such a mod should, irrespective of whether there are specific rules on it or not, and irrespective of the merits (or otherwise) of the complaint.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,448
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Well...they will now have less to read.
    Yeah, but how was it from the old BABB forum? A "high signal to noise ratio"?

    Those threads can sometimes be instructional when reading rebuttals, but all things considered, I'll sacrifice a little free knowledge for the sake of not having to read the other dross that made my eyes bleed.

    Like I said, I'm fine with the change, I just hope the Moon hoaxers come up with something new. Its getting to the point where we should be deflecting their accusations with form letters.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1
    I just joined tonight...I guess I'm too late (sic)

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    13,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley1 View Post
    I just joined tonight...I guess I'm too late (sic)
    Welcome to BAUT. All the same- there is Plenty to read

    And much more to the forum than CT. Browse around.. i started out mostly on the CT threads-Until they closed the Non astronomy i have been slowloy branching out.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    224
    Just read this entire thread...and as I have become accustomed to at the BAUT, a civil and enlightening discussion of all viewpoints.

    I'm interested because in a small way I probably helped to initiate the 9-11 discussions as I asked for help from some here for a Moon Hoax discussion on the old Loose Change Forum site, which several regulars most graciously responded, which is probably how many of those who posted on 9-11 found there way here.

    After some review, I think I agree with Fraser and the BA, the is nothing remotely astronomical in the 9-11 Conspiracy (unless your favorite name for them is "moonbats" ) and I have seen discussions spiral into monster threads that tend to consume other discussions (it led to the formation of a Conspiracy Therory sub-Forum at JREF). So in the balance, I concur with the actions to lock them here.

    However, if you ever get lonely for a good 9-11 discussion, may I invite you to visit http://forums.randi.org and click into the Conspiracy Forums. perhaps not quite as civil a discussion as one finds at BAUT, but a fair amount of expertise and knowledge to fight the good scientific fight.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The irony is that if you read what you have just said (this applies to all of you ) you see what others see when they lurk-
    I was a Lurker for a long time too.
    The arguments and counterarguments between the bunked and the debunker may seem silly to the participants- but there are MANY lurkers who simply read. Those people have two perspectives available to choose from, rather than just one or the other.
    And many debunkings really clarify beyond the shadow of a doubt how full of holes a lot the the CT and HB arguments really are.

    i second this

    i really didnt like the 11/9 c.t's BUT

    i learnt a lot by reading the considered replies by people who know how to pick the logical holes in the ideas and the links they provided

    its phil(and frasier-sorry but ive been around phils site a lot longer) site and indeed they can do as they like
    but as citizens of b.a id like to think that our `old insect overlords' actually would like our feedback on whether a desicion is considered right or wrong

    after all it is alright to say dont like it go elsewhere
    but
    if they made one that left them with just two members ie phil and frasier they probably would like to know about it before it happened

    yes its their board but its our community and im sure that they would be happy to allow us all our say in its direction

    of course the final say is theirs as always

    mostly lurker but always learning ..boppa
    R.I.P. Bad Astronomy

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    Well, what are the chances of just knighting someone a Mod who enjoys the section?

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Serenitude View Post
    ...what are the chances of just knighting someone a Mod who enjoys the section?
    Wolverine had no problems (that I am aware of) moderating the CT forum and was very well suited for it...

    However lately he hasn't (for whatever reasons)been posting.

    As far as "knighting" someone, this board will only become more popular with more and more people posting here. Since there are only about half a dozen (or so) "active" mods, there will come a time when new mods will have to be added.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,424
    BTW: No hidden agenda in my post. I'm not implying myself at all. There are dozens of people more qualified than I. Just want to make that clear

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
  •