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 Slippery Jim » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:51 am

pigswillfly wrote:Thanks Danny, and seasons greetings to you. Time to restore my flying santa pig avatar, I confess to being an avatar junkie. :)

Its really good to be okay with you, Annette. I really don't enjoy arguing with people so its nice that we have sorted things out. I hope you will contribute to RU for the forseable future.

Like the avatar!

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 pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 1:53 am

Slippery Jim wrote: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.


Yes, I'd be glad to share sometime after things settle down around here. :)
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 2:03 am

pigswillfly wrote:Yes, I'd be glad to share sometime after things settle down around here. :)


Okay. Whenever you're happy to do so.

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 Access Denied » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:29 am

pigswillfly wrote:
Access Denied wrote:So pwf, before you fly from RU as promised, care to repost your reply to me that you deleted so that I can see it was “tongue in cheek” as you claim in your latest PM?

This is an example of the assumptions based on poor comprehension that have been "flying around" since the original ufo wackjob thread, which was taken on face value without reading the quoted thread from ufomania. Go back and read the pm again Tom, the "tongue in cheek" thread I was referring to was the 9/11 thread on Ufomania.

Actually, this is what you said in your PM…

“…when I provide AD's requested source for my claim about the toilets (which was written tongue in cheek but that seems to get lost in the translation by RU members) someone else…”

I’m not sure it is I who is having reading comprehension problems. I didn’t ask you for the source of your claim, I asked for your evidence that nobody saw any toilets. Of course you deleted whatever you wrote so I don’t know whether it could be seen as tongue in cheek or not…

pigswillfly wrote:If you had read that quoted thread instead of accepting mosfet's critique as gospel there would have been no need for your following post about "Argument from Ignorance" as you would have discovered that the statement about the toilets was designed to get a discussion started, ie. tongue in cheek. #-o

I did read the thread in question back when mosfet originally posted it and I honestly didn’t see anything to indicate to me it wasn’t simply a whack claim from you. Apparently nobody else did either and there are plenty of people here who would have no problem pointing out errors in other people’s logic regardless of which “side of the fence” they’re on.

At any rate, if, as you claim now, it was merely “tongue in cheek” and intended to “get a discussion started” I still have a serious problem with that… it’s intellectually dishonest. You see if it were me and I wanted to get a discussion started I would have simply said something like this to avoid any confusion…

“(So and so) claims there were no toilets in the debris. I (_) do (_) do not (check one) believe this (_) is (_) may be (check one) the case but I would like to get your opinions…”

I’m sorry but in my opinion, to do otherwise is to become part of the problem, not the solution.

pigswillfly wrote:I don't keep copies of posts I delete, why would anyone do that?

I didn’t suggest that you should (look up the straw man fallacy) but it seems to me if you wrote it once you should be able to write it again, or at least be able to produce a reasonable facsimile thereof, no?

pigswillfly wrote:But since you say that my reply to being labelled a "wackjob" wasn't tongue in cheek, I will tell you now that it was. Did I swear? Did I call anyone names? Did I rant? No. I simply corrected the incorrect statements made about me, my affiliations and my associates, in a polite manner. How exactly is one supposed to respond to an insulting personal post like that? I think I did alright.

Perhaps you’re confused, I’m talking about your reply to my post that was in reply to your OP and you deleted before I got a chance to read it.

pigswillfly wrote:If you had taken a moment to read my reply properly instead of going on the offensive, perhaps other members wouldn't have responded with such vigor.

I take it you missed my smiley face? My initial impression was you were displaying some fairly thick skin, was I wrong? Now if you or anybody else took my response to the question you posed about the absence of toilets as “going on the offensive” then I’m sorry, perhaps I could have worded it better. I saw it as a teachable moment… an opportunity to explain what was wrong with the claim regardless of who made it so that others (and perhaps even yourself) might not fall into this all too frequent trap.

(shifting the burden the burden of proof)

pigswillfly wrote:
Access Denied wrote:At this point I'm really sorry I wasted my time trying to help you and gave you the benefit of the doubt before all this went down as I'm ure chrLz is now too... playing the victim isn't going to wash around here.

Really? How did you waste your time trying to help me, by saying "welcome, don't be afraid to ask questions, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask"? "Just don't make any claims and you should be alright"?

Actually, this what I said in my PM…

“…sorry to hear about your forum troubles. Welcome to RU and don't be afraid to ask questions... remember the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask. Just be careful not to word them too much like a claim and you should be fine here.”

How that got interpreted by you as “don’t make any claims” I don’t know but to be absolutely clear, you’re certainly welcome to make any claims you want here but don’t be surprised if you get your head bit off if you don’t have any evidence to back it up. :)

pigswillfly wrote:Look at all the claims made about me in the wackjob thread! It seems people here can write anything they like about someone else but heaven forbid that person try to set the record straight and speak up for themselves, they get set upon left, right and center.

I don't need to "play" the victim.

AussieMike » Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:37 pm Pigswillfly is a
lunatic barking

mosfet » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:56 am am curious to see if mufon approves this
one?

PWF now wants to be on the mufon board, have these bulliten board junkies no pride?

I’m not going to comment on anything posted elsewhere related to whatever forum drama you and others were involved in but I will say this about what was posted here… again, it did appear to be a whack claim by you after reading the thread in question. If it wasn’t then I’m afraid you only have yourself to be blame for not making yourself clearer from the outset…

Just my opinion.

pigswillfly wrote:I do recall posting this in my deleted reply to you AD - "And now ... NEWS UPDATE ... I resigned from Ufomania two months ago and after much consideration have moved on to greener pastures, so now you have a resident ufowackjob." If you can't discern that this is written tongue in cheek, you aren't as smart as you'd like to think you are.

Again, perhaps you missed the smiley face after I quoted that last part?

pigswillfly wrote:It should be obvious that I was prepared to overlook the wackjob thread as a piece of fun until it became clear that for some people it was not funny but deadly serious, as if their honour depended on it. Even SJ jumped into the fray with absolutely no idea what he was talking about, but hey, why let that get in the way of a good lynching? I found Chrlz's post to be patronising to say the least, and now it's become a running joke. Been a few slow weeks with no fraudsters to expose?

You appear to be trying to blame everyone else for their misgivings about you but since you deleted your subsequent posts before I got a chance to read them, I’m afraid I’m not in a position to judge anybody else’s reactions one way or the other… sorry.

Again I refer to you the advice I gave you in private before all this went down… you have to be careful what you say around here. We didn’t all just fall off the turnip truck yesterday…

The worst thing is that I am disappointed. I took my time reading the material on this board and on the blog and was impressed with the intelligence and critical thinking. So much for that, the outspoken few here are guilty of doing the very same thing they rigorously critisize others of doing - jumping to conclusions without researching the facts first. It's just so bizzare, I expected much more.

:-({|=
[/joke]

Anyway, I see you’ve made some new friends here so no need to reply if you’d rather just put this all behind you, I just wanted to set the record straight from my point view…

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby pigswillfly » Sat Dec 04, 2010 5:58 am

Thanks for taking the time to make yourself clear Tom, I understand and can appreciate all that you have said. I cannot help but interpret there is a disclaimer here not to discuss anything that happened on another forum, unless that forum was ATS or perhaps OMF.

"I’m not going to comment on anything posted elsewhere related to whatever forum drama you and others were involved in but I will say this about what was posted here… " (Accesss Denied)

It was not me that brought their grudge along with them to RU, it was mosfet who dedicated a whole thread to his disdain of the old Mufon forum and it's members, and that grudge has been directed towards me personally. Although I have had "my head bitten off" over this thread and 9/11 conspiracy claims that weren't expressed to your satisfaction, mosfet has not been held accountable for his part in provoking, lying and stalking me and no one has challenged his ability to morph from someone with limited written comprehension/expression to somebody quite eloquent and machiavellian. So be it.
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 6:08 am

Access Denied wrote:Anyway, ... if you’d rather just put this all behind you, I just wanted to set the record straight from my point view…Tom


Ditto. Let's do that. Now can I have my "edit" function back, please? oink!~pigs.
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 Access Denied » Sat Dec 04, 2010 6:26 am

pigswillfly wrote:It was not me that brought their grudge along with them to RU, it was mosfet who dedicated a whole thread to his disdain of the old Mufon forum and it's members, and that grudge has been directed towards me personally.

That was before you were a member here. Now that you're both here you are expected to treat each other with respect. How you two work that out now is up to you...

pigswillfly wrote:Now can I have my "edit" function back, please?

We haven’t had a chance to talk about it yet but for the time being I’m inclined to say no. We’ll see how things go though…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby Access Denied » Sat Dec 04, 2010 7:58 am

murnut wrote: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.

Wow, where to start? I suggest the 9/11 forum... :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby mosfet » Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:40 am

pigswillfly wrote:It was not me that brought their grudge along with them to RU, it was mosfet who dedicated a whole thread to his disdain of the old Mufon forum and it's members, and that grudge has been directed towards me personally. Although I have had "my head bitten off" over this thread and 9/11 conspiracy claims that weren't expressed to your satisfaction, mosfet has not been held accountable for his part in provoking, lying and stalking me and no one has challenged his ability to morph from someone with limited written comprehension/expression to somebody quite eloquent and machiavellian. So be it.



Talk about misinterpretation, what I described was a condensed history of how what started out as a laudable effort by Mufon (still a credible organization) turned into a cabal of tinfoils. Since RU is juxtaposed, for the most part, in their philosophy towards the subject it seemed appropriate to review the downslide slippery slope leading to the demise of the old Mufon board.

RU is very atypical of most of these UFO bulletin boards. And it's obvious to me that given the nebulous nature of the subject, UFO tinfoils tend to attract one another especially when the moderators themselves are of this persuasion. I followed the trend on the old Mufon board which started out with some very interesting discussion and some very knowledgeable researchers. The only decent moderator there was Steve Reichmuth.

He was a very capable researcher and in my opinion extremely tolerant. And his efforts were unrewarded. He eventually found himself surrounded by tinfoils who believed that every splotch on a photograph was a UFO, every light in the sky was a UFO, and most were in communication with aliens with frequent visits to other dimensions or planets.

Unfortunately he was surrounded by tinfoils and his enthusiasm, tenacity and scientific approach were wasted and eventually eroded to the point were he just quite. Ultimately you and your kind drove him out. And after driving all the rational people from the old Mufon board, it apparently became evident to Mufon that the remaining board was not consonant with their program objective i.e. the scientific investigation of UFOs.

Now don't get me wrong I believe that the tinfoils need a place, however the choice afforded to them is much more available with a wide range of bulletin boards in fact just about all of them and that is why RU remains distinctive, atypical, and probably foreign to the tinfoil mindset, and probably explains why you have such a problem comprehending here.

Since I have seen this progression before especially when one tinfoil plays the victim card, garners a few supporters and as like attracts like others of similar mindset feel comfortable in joining to a point where rational discussion is overwhelmed and no longer possible.

So from an individual's perspective it may seem at a personal level, from my perspective I see it as a warning to what I perceive as contrary to the mainstream philosophical approach at RU which I find unique, refreshing and have not found anywhere else not even on the struggling new Mufon board.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby mosfet » Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:25 pm

Access Denied wrote:
murnut wrote: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.

Wow, where to start? I suggest the 9/11 forum... :)



I started to read some of that nuclear BS but after a while I had to quit. I had a top secret clearance with the Air Force, might still have, and I had to deal with the NRC, that's nuclear regulatory commission, on a verity of issues, quite frequently, and was also involved with issuing permits for nuclear power plants. So I was familiar with the topic.

I am not a nuclear scientist, however I have some serious doubts about this latest theory and would welcome comment from those more familiar with the topic as I'm sure this is just another line of bull s^~t.


Also I'm an accomplished welder; if you merely bend a steal bar it will generate heat. Iron or steel loses strength significantly when heated. Steel girders in construction are usually encased in cement, not necessarily to increase strength but to provide insulation.

What most people don't understand about the collapse of the twin Towers is that once the "strength" of the supporting steel members was compromised collapse was inevitable. The steel did not have to melt or even become red hot. I don't think the buildings were designed to be insulated from a full tank of jet fuel.

I've also worked in the petroleum industry and all the steel girders are heavily insulated with thick layers of concrete. This is because a refinery is more likely to experience a catastrophic fuel ignition than a towering office building.


The mere collapse and bending of steel within the building itself would generate heat without the addition of any jet fuel.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby murnut » Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:56 pm

I started a new thread on the Nuclear Demolition theory

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1927


I'm not endorsing it as fact, but I find it worthy of consideration
"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 skunk » Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:41 am

Ah so this is why pwf was banned.
skunk
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 2:33 am

Re: RU members don't check their facts.

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:31 am

skunk wrote:Ah so this is why pwf was banned.

And this is why you're here?

skunk wrote:Wow that site blows.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Previous

Google

Return to New Members

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron