RU members don't check their facts.

Tell a little about yourself here

Moderators: ryguy, Zep Tepi

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby m0r1arty » Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:48 pm

pigswillfly wrote:@m0r - my mistake, it wasn't you who called me a wackjob in the first place, I had your name confused with mosfet.


Would've been nice to have this in one of those frequent posts you make after posting another without anyone replying to it.

Call me fickle but an apology for your accusations and inferences would have been nice too :p

Either way it does seem that the air is getting cleared all round and that you have heard why people take such umbrage over walls of claims with no evidence to back them up and have resolved to at least drop the toilet thing (or discuss it with those involved in the appropriate thread here and not start up an intro thread about it with no links to it's relevance).

With that said; I knew you would be back and hope that you will stick around and play the game the way it's meant to be played - on the level.

I apologise if my remarks seemed harsh (as they certainly were not appropriate for an open discussion forum) but know that the passion for the reason behind them remains and I shall pick on you, more succinctly and verbosely, if I ever feel the need to ever arises again.

I do hope you will be open to fighting back and proving me to be an ass (or your favourite term that day) by utilising rationale and good debating skills.

Until that day - please oink! around and make the place a more polarised one :)

-m0r
Thanks to BIAD for the avatar!
User avatar
m0r1arty
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:54 pm


Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby murnut » Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:39 pm

pigswillfly wrote:I was invited to co-admin PARAUFO, which I accepted but I took leave of absence and the Admin shut the forum down several weeks after that. There are others who are members here that can testify to that.


This is true
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:24 pm

To be fair Ryan, the whole thing kicked off after pwf posted a huge list of claims about 9/11 - a post which was then deleted and the context of everything that then happened was removed. (steve)


To be fair Steve, the whole thing kicked off after AD called "Argument by Ignorance" and asked me for evidence of the toilets claim. To be fair, I also posted "Sigh. Oh man, do I really have to. A ufowackjob until proven innocent". I didn't want to debate the merits of toilets or lack thereof, I was merely addressing the elephant in the room, the fact I had been called a wackjob on this board. The posts were deleted because Charles gave me a lecture after confessing he hadn't even read the whole list and after m0r told me to F.off with various other insults (which he posted before I referred to him in any way).

To be fair Steve, this is what I mean by lack of comprehension and Reality Re-Invented, which you just did in your quote above.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:41 pm

by Access Denied » Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:55 pm

pigswillfly wrote:
Well, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what happened to all the toilets.
Please present your evidence that "not a single piece of porcelain debris was found" by anyone. If you can't you're question proposes a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option: there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Most if not all conspiracy "theories" are based on ignorance.


ETA: I see you started a new thread for this in the New Member forum so please continue this there...

hello from ufo wackjob of the week -
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:01 pm

M0r, please forgive me for posting more than one post in a row before getting a reply. Since my edit function has been removed I can't get into the previous post to add a comment.

I also wanted to say, to be fair Steve, everybody on this thread so far has focused on the 9/11 toilet comments and been quick to diss on those. Nobody has addressed what I painstakingly pointed out, that the original personal comments by mosfet were wrong, he lied about what I wrote, he mistakenly made claims about my affiliations and p.o.v based on an inability to comprehend what was written in front of him, plus the account appears to be a sock operated by more than one person. Not to mention the bizzare behaviour of allegedly coping and saving my posts verging on stalking, and the fact mosfet joined a week after the old mufon forum shut down and during the first week of Ufomania's existance. Doesn't this seem like mosfet has an agenda and you guys are blindly being led down the "anti-pwf" garden path?
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby Slippery Jim » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:18 pm

pigswillfly wrote:
Slippery Jim wrote:I fell out with the owners of ATS. You're on your third fall-out with 3 seperate forums. What does that tell you?


I beg your pardon, someone is feeding you pork pies SJ.

I have been banned from one forum, the one I co-admined, but I was banned after I deleted my account.

I was on good terms with the admin of the former Mufon forum, starchild, was never banned from there but I did raise ruckus enough, together with some others, for a moderator to have his moderating privleges removed. This moderator resigned from the former Mufon forum before it was closed down and, curiously enough, was not made a moderator on the new Mufon forum.

I never joined the new Mufon forum so I can't have been banned from there. My beef with the Mufon establishment is partly due to the way they treated their forum members with such little regard and their cosy arrangements with Bigelow.

I was invited to co-admin PARAUFO, which I accepted but I took leave of absence and the Admin shut the forum down several weeks after that. There are others who are members here that can testify to that.

I haven't been banned from any other forum that I'm aware of. I had a thread locked on OMF but that's the worst that happened there.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what other forums I've allegingly fallen out with, please. oink!~


I didn't say you were banned from 3 forums. I said you fell-out with them. There is a difference.

I, myself, am not technically banned from ATS. They just removed my posting rights, then my U2U rights and then changed my password. I'm still listed as a member.

Perhaps we can start all over again?

Hello, I'm Slippery Jim. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool skeptik. I have seen things that even my skeptik-leaning eyes can't explain. I came here from ATS where the owners seem to favour the more credulous posters and have an agenda against the more rational thinkers.

Can we be friends?

Best Wishes,
Danny.

ETA: How did you come across RU btw?
You couldn't find your own arse with two hands, a map and Google!
User avatar
Slippery Jim
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:14 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby m0r1arty » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:32 pm

pigswillfly wrote:M0r, please forgive me for posting more than one post in a row before getting a reply. Since my edit function has been removed I can't get into the previous post to add a comment.


While that may be the case you are able to create new posts are you not (as evidenced by your ability to create new posts one after the other.

pigswillfly wrote:The posts were deleted because Charles gave me a lecture after confessing he hadn't even read the whole list and after m0r told me to F.off with various other insults (which he posted before I referred to him in any way).


This isn't in any way shape or form true now is it? My posts still stand as they were posted here. Feel free to point out any insults I posted before, or after, you referred to me in any way.

pigswillfly wrote:...Doesn't this seem like mosfet has an agenda and you guys are blindly being led down the "anti-pwf" garden path?


I have no idea whether or not anyone here has an agenda - I can say though that you do corrupt things to your own ends and that, to me at least, appears to be an agenda.

-m0r
Thanks to BIAD for the avatar!
User avatar
m0r1arty
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:06 am

I can say though that you do corrupt things to your own ends and that, to me at least, appears to be an agenda. (m0r)


Yes, I do have an agenda of defending myself against name calling, stalking, lies and misinterpretation, if this is what you call corrupting things to my own ends, so be it. It seems you have an agenda of sententiously justifying your unassailable right to insult people as you please in the name of skepticism.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:32 am

Slippery Jim wrote:I didn't say you were banned from 3 forums. I said you fell-out with them. There is a difference.

I, myself, am not technically banned from ATS. They just removed my posting rights, then my U2U rights and then changed my password. I'm still listed as a member.

Perhaps we can start all over again?

Hello, I'm Slippery Jim. I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool skeptik. I have seen things that even my skeptik-leaning eyes can't explain. I came here from ATS where the owners seem to favour the more credulous posters and have an agenda against the more rational thinkers.

Can we be friends?

Best Wishes,
Danny.

ETA: How did you come across RU btw?


Danny, I came across RU by introduction via some members here, mur for one and others I won't name as they may not want to be associated with this brawl.

Yes, let's be friends, like you I am normally an affable person.

I am not a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic either but I might have been if I hadn't had a type of contact experience up close and personal .. and no I didn't 'see' aliens of any description. I have found my own experience best explained in terms of ultra-terrestrials, paranormal or supernatural. I lean towards Keel, Vallee and the trickster hypothesis.

"I, myself, am not technically banned from ATS. They just removed my posting rights, then my U2U rights and then changed my password. I'm still listed as a member." lol, that's one way of looking at it. :wink:

I haven't technically "fallen-out" with any other forums, that I'm aware of, aside from Ufomania. I've had a thread locked on OMF but I wouldn't say that qualified as a "falling-out". Certainly I have fallen out with individuals but who hasn't?

Best wishes to you too,
Annette aka pwf aka fishmerised.

ps. For the record I have always acknowledged that both my usernames are the same person, I have never used a sock even though it means some baggage follows me around. I aim for transparency, I do not orchestrate clandestine smear campaigns against others via pm or other means, although countering such campaigns can be messy and difficult as I have learnt by experience. Dealing with issues in the open has it set backs, things said in anger can come back and haunt one, but at the end of the day I have nothing to hide. Cheers! oink!
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:53 am

"pigswillfly wrote:
The posts were deleted because ... and after m0r told me to F.off with various other insults (which he posted before I referred to him in any way)."

"m0r wrote:
This isn't in any way shape or form true now is it? My posts still stand as they were posted here. Feel free to point out any insults I posted before, or after, you referred to me in any way."


Yes, it's true. Go back and read post #5 on this thread where you insulted me without provocation, I had never previously communicated with you, period, you jumped in to exercise your unassailable skeptics rights. Because I had never communicated with you before and had no reason to expect you would be so quick to insult someone you never dealt with, I confused you with mosfet. Hey, the first two letters of your usernames are the same and I am a newby here. Grant us some slack. Even at that point I didn't abuse you, I asked what you're problem was and said I wasn't looking for a fight, you replied with F.Off.

I can see it was a big mistake to delete my first few posts, re-writing history is such a temptation for some, but maybe they don't do it intentionally, perhaps it is just a flawed ability to comprehend the intricacies of conflict. Perhaps that is why they so offensive? If they make a big noise it gives the impression they know what they are talking about.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby Slippery Jim » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:04 am

pigswillfly wrote:Danny, I came across RU by introduction via some members here, mur for one and others I won't name as they may not want to be associated with this brawl.


Understandable.

pigswillfly wrote:Yes, let's be friends, like you I am normally an affable person.


I'm glad for that. I think we really got off on the wrong foot. I responded to your post which I wrongly assumed was an attack on the members of this site without referencing the background behind it. That was a huge error on my part and one which I should never have made given the level of research usually shown on this forum. I should, and do, apologise to you and the Admins here for that lapse.

pigswillfly wrote:I am not a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic either but I might have been if I hadn't had a type of contact experience up close and personal .. and no I didn't 'see' aliens of any description. I have found my own experience best explained in terms of ultra-terrestrials, paranormal or supernatural. I lean towards Keel, Vallee and the trickster hypothesis.


I'm intrigued! Care to share on here? I'm of the same belief. I don't think they're nuts-and-bolts but something other. Saying that, the one instance when I saw a physical craft was when 2 RAF Phantoms were chasing a silver sphere across Northumberland in the mid 70s.

pigswillfly wrote:"I, myself, am not technically banned from ATS. They just removed my posting rights, then my U2U rights and then changed my password. I'm still listed as a member." lol, that's one way of looking at it. :wink:


I suppose it is. I'm still over there and now have posting and U2U rights because I changed my username. They are so desperate for members they don't check IPs when someone applies. :lol:

pigswillfly wrote:I haven't technically "fallen-out" with any other forums, that I'm aware of, aside from Ufomania. I've had a thread locked on OMF but I wouldn't say that qualified as a "falling-out". Certainly I have fallen out with individuals but who hasn't?


As I said, I didn't research your background and apologise for not doing so.

pigswillfly wrote:Best wishes to you too,
Annette aka pwf aka fishmerised.

ps. For the record I have always acknowledged that both my usernames are the same person, I have never used a sock even though it means some baggage follows me around. I aim for transparency, I do not orchestrate clandestine smear campaigns against others via pm or other means, although countering such campaigns can be messy and difficult as I have learnt by experience. Dealing with issues in the open has it set backs, things said in anger can come back and haunt one, but at the end of the day I have nothing to hide. Cheers! oink!


You have a new friend, Annette.
Danny.
You couldn't find your own arse with two hands, a map and Google!
User avatar
Slippery Jim
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:14 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby murnut » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:24 am

As crazy as it sounds, and it does sound crazy, I recently came across a guy claiming to explain the lack of debris at the WTC site.

A few things have always bothered me about the collapse.

The lack of debris...like file cabinets and telephones and furniture etc has always bothered me. It is as if portions of the towers has turned to dust.

That the site remained hot for 8 weeks, with Firemen claiming the fires were still burning.

The speed of the actual collapse and the time from impact to collapse

That fact that no high rise has ever collapsed due to fire before.

Now I do not subscribe to the "no plane" theory, or the pentagon "missile" theory....but official explanations of the collapses themselves just seem off to me.

I'm afraid I will end up as the whackjob of the week but I watched all the video's in this series, and the nuclear demolition theory seems to fit with the towers being pulverized, and why the area underground was so hot for so long.

I'm not saying this guy is right on all or any of his points, but he does reconcile some of my nagging questions

Here is the link to the main video page

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-kh ... 21675.html


Here are 2 10 minute video out of 26

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_10_26/

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo ... ion_12_26/
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:32 am

by mosfet » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:35 pm

I just want to add my voice to the chorus. What a refreshing board. And in the form of an introduction and background I’ve added, a perhaps too long submittal but nonetheless, here it is.

While I’ve had an interest in UFOs from an early age, I never actively pursued the subject until the past few years. As the Internet matured it seemed like a golden opportunity for the tinfoil crowd to proliferate along with it. So with this knowledge at hand I was hesitant and cautious about joining Mufon. I attended several meetings and finally asked the state director what their attitude was about the tinfoil types. He assured me that they were concerned as well and that ultimately a tinfoil type would be excluded. With those assurances, and a comforting knowledge that we were on the same page. I joined Mufon. (I know it is a highly decentralized org, but for an all volunteer group, discrepancies notwithstanding)

Then in 2006 (I believe) maybe 2007, Mufon started its own bulletin board. I also joined several other bulletin boards. Eventually you learn which boards are predominately tinfoils types, and especially how the membership tends to reflect the predominate board philosophy. The Drones were an eye opener for me on OMF and also that stupid side bar with the electrical wire connector and lunar eclipse. I watched as OMF spawned the DRT. While I tended to stay out of the tinfoil discussions it became obvious to me that OMF was predominately a tinfoil group.

To make a long story short, I watched the mufon board slowly degrade into a mirror image of OMF with many on the mufon board from OMF. I could never understand how mufon allowed this parasitic infestation to dominate there own board. It became obvious that two (of 3) of the moderators were tinfoil types so it was not too surprising to see the membership as a reflection. (pwf - herein lies the motivation for mosfets agenda. The 3rd, allegedly non-tinfoil moderator mentioned here is the one I had a hand in bring down. I dubbed him the forums "post deleting fairy" after his habit of anonymously deleting posts in the wee hours of the morning, fortunately myself and others were witnesses to this. His non-tinfoiledness is a matter of opinion or degree. He was an adament supporter of the Hills case, I was a skeptic, he cultivated whistle-blower sources and appeared on TV with one of these sources to discuss alleged secret ufo crash sites and the AF cover-up, he was also in the throes of cultivating secret sources on the cattle mutilation phenomenom. My skeptical comments on these endeavours led him to cultivate a clandestine smear campaign against me at the old Mufon forum, seems he had a degree of success, lol. But what always confused me was why mufon allowed a seemingly obvious contradiction, a tinfoil bulletin board yet mission objectives dedicated to seeking the truth in as scientific an approach as circumstance would allow.

The answer was not so simple as several factors were involved in the mystery. Recent events eventually brought this to light. Mufon did not actually own the board. It belonged to former ID Carrion, and even though Carrion, not only stepped down from his position as ID, he quit Mufon entirely. Yet he was still in control of the board.

After a long drawn out attempt to convince his membership that Roswell was a disinformation campaign by the government, and failing that, he eventually turned the board over to Mufon at which point they promptly (and rightly) closed their rogue board. (pwf - I might add I stringently supported J. Carrion in this thread and in all of his endeavours)

And out of the ashes of that board, like the Phoenix, the diehard tinfoils have resurrected their own version of the Mufon board to continue their, mastications, without fear of ridicule from someone in the real world.

I thought it funny how, on OMF, a poster lamented, that with the closing of the mufon board 10,000 members were left with out solace, and the commensuration they all shared. So far they have resurrected 40 plus but I hope their numbers grow as this would be a good place to keep the tinfoils happy and occupied.

And so it is with this background I find RU a welcome oasis in a desert of flourishing deception.mosfet

Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:48 am
Private message


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1824&p=29351#p29351

At this point I am not aware of mosfets alter ego on the old mufon forum. It is not the moderator in question as he got on great guns with jokelly, auntym and others that mosfet has shown his disdain for.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:34 am

mur, you are a brave man indeed to put yourself on the line after this display of anti-9/11 conspiracy sentiments. oink!~
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:36 am

Thanks Danny, and seasons greetings to you. Time to restore my flying santa pig avatar, I confess to being an avatar junkie. :)
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to New Members

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron