looks outside
Well, it looks pretty fucking black to me, seeing it’s almost midnight here.
Asshole.
SPOOFE
[quote]
The point, dear inor, is thus: If you’re disagreeing with the majority simply because they’re the majority, you have no argument. You want to try to disprove general thinking? Fine. Present some proof. But if you want to be a nonconformist (and believe me, I’m about as nonconformist as you can get) just because you feel like being contrary, don’t expect to be taken seriously.
[quote]
Nowhere do I even imply one should automatically disagree with the majority jsut because they’re the majority.
Nowhere do I try to disprove “general thinking” - whatever that is.
Nowhere do I even hint that I wish to be nonconformist jsut for the sake of being contrary.
And nowhere, prior to the post you are, I don’t know what the hell you’re doing, except being pissed at me, refuting my arguments? I don’t know, but nowhere, prior to that point, do you even hint that your point is that sometimes the minority is in the wrong. Not that that has any fucking thing to do with what I’m saying, except as a corollary to what I’m saying. But I get the idea you just trot out those examples to have something to take shots at me with. Anyway, up to that point, all you were doing is slamming Bick. Whether or not you were right, and I personally believe the moon landings are a real thing- but that’s beside the point in this conversation: That’s what you were doing.
I made the comment about you seeming to sock for the majority sometimes- this is IMO, I didn’t present it as fact, and clearly said so.
Whereupon you reply with 'since when did majority opinion=bad? (Not at all what I was saying, but since you asked-)
Whereupon I offer up the infamous ‘Since…’ examples.
You’re, at this point, going to say, yah, but those’r shit man- Pl debunked your ass…
Not so- we’re currently having a discussion about one of my examples, maybe others. But some of them still stand- they make my point- which I have stated more than once, more than one way-
SOMETIMES the majority isn’t right.
SOMETIMES it is.
It is good to not AUTOMATICALLY accept the viewpoint of the majority as gospel.
It is good to THINK FOR YOURSELF.
So, in short, in my opinion, you didn’t like what I said about you, you jsut can’t stand to be called on something, and you brought up something that I wasn’t even addressing, in order to somehow ‘prove me wrong’, and endowing me with certain characteristics that I don’t believe I display for the same reason.
When PL came in with the knowledge he did, I readily acceded the point, didn’t drag it on and on. True, we’re currently a little on the fight, but that’s not because I disagree with his info, it’s because I take exception to how he addressed me and some other stuff, not the information itself.
If he does so on some of my other examples, I will do so again. How do you get from this and my oft-stated main thrusts that I am being contrary jsut for the sake of it?
Yeah, yeah, you’re gonna have a 3 page booklet ‘de-bunking’ my arguments here, pointing out my spelling mistakes and whatever else, and I jsut know you’re going to end with some mealy statement about ‘fighting ignorance’, which all is pretty much only going to reinforce what I’m saying here.
Cold, there any room on that wall?
PL- I’m too tired right now and our stuff deserves better than I can give it at the moment. I will come back later.
Don’t know what the hell happened there…
Bick, what exactly DO you believe about this?
What did you believe before the fox thing?
Curious.
Sure ya did. When you attacked me because your very limited experience showed that I “always take the majority’s side”. Maybe you should learn to think before you open your mouth, you dumbshit, you’d look like less of a fool.
Again, I say to you… you’ve seen me “on the majority’s side” because that’s the side I agree with. Just because a bunch of other people also have the same viewpoint as I is immaterial… additionally, the fact that you have nothing else to lambast me with shows that you’re just trying to stir up trouble.
Well, at least Cervaise got the point I was trying to make. Every little bit counts.
Robot Arm: I still don’t thnk all the elements of the hoax theory “can be debunked fairly easily.” My previous “script” re: radiation would fall into this category, I think. And, IMHO, anything involving calculus like emarkp was busting out does not qualify as “fairly easy”! (Certainly it doesn’t fall under the “you must be a fucking idiot not to get it” category.)
Again, I freely admit that (given certain esoteric philosophical considerations) it is impossible to conclusively prove that we DID go to the moon. I would be satisfied at this point to DISPROVE that we COULDN’T go to the moon. I didn’t realize going into this debate that I would come to that particular junction, but there it is.
Cervaise: As for the “fresh start” concept, I deeply appreciate your offer and your apparent empathy. But given the wealth of new information I’ve recently been presented with (as well as a general malaise regarding the topic), it had seemed like the best idea to lay low for a while on the moon hoax to let the tempers cool.
Now if the other posters (or at least a few of them) will agree with you to “reset their impatience odometers,” I’d gladly repost my knowledge/objections thus far, but I still haven’t had the time to fully assimilate all the new data (particularly re: light in the shadows), so I fear such a list would be incomplete.
The radiation issue, though, pretty much stands as I explained it in my last post to you, so if you wanted to get a fresh start on just that point (which, I’ve more or less conceded, is the only point that is really going to satisfy that deep yearning in my soul to put this fucking issue to rest), I’d be more than happy to. But if I’m going to do this as a good-faith gesture, I’m going to need your help to keep the knee-jerk debunkers off my ass.
I promise to be reasonable, to listen, and to defer to others’ judgment if I am perceived as trolling or otherwise promoting ignorance. Cervaise, I’m ready if you are. Who else is?
inor—Forgot about ya there, sorry. Before I watched the Fox special, I honestly had never even considered the possibility of a moon hoax. Haven’t I mentioned this?
I read the GD thread, read this one. I think Bick’s motives are honest and I am REALLY learning a lot from the GD thread. He’s an honest debater whose grasp of physics is as good as mine. THe lengthy and detailed discussion over there would not have been near as enlightening without his probing (yuk-yuk) questions and polite demeanor.
“But, hey, he’s not acknowledging ANY piece of evidence that’s good enough!” I know, I know; I’m still enjoying the whole thing and heartily support the debate/discussion as a means of fighting ignorance (my own ignorance of all-things-physics, for example). Stop with the pig-piling already.
Bick, I like you and hope you stick around the boards, and hope you’ll check out and contribute to the other fora too.
I hope he sticks around, if only because it’s refreshing to see someone stir up so much “trouble” without active trolling.
Hmm… say, his gives me an idea…
Hey, Bicky, which do you think would win in a fight… an Imperial Star Destroyer or the U.S.S. Enterprise-D? 
PLdennison
-I agree with you on using facts- I fully expected to be called on the Galileo thing- this is not only the SDMB, but the for-christ-sakes pit. I jsut dind’t expect to get called in what I took to be such a condescending, superior attitude. Which IMO, continues with the ‘one more free ride…’ post. No, Ogre’s post didn’t change my mind- I was biting my tongue when I first read your post, and was doing all I could to be conciliatory in my first reply. Then, I thought, why the hell should I be conciliatory?
Here’s the way I see it- details are not my strong point- I’m more of a big picture guy. The point I was making was a big-picture type of point. I trusted that someone would come along and fill in my errors. You did. You did so with condescension. Re-read that post if you don’t think so. When I responded, I brought up point again, from how I saw it- you did seem to have contempt for Galileo. I didn’t expect that you really did, I have read some of your stuff, and thought it well done, but I was jsut at a bad place for taking what, again, I saw as a slight towards myself. At that point, I was pretty fucking mad- seems that people here jsut fuckin gotta be a smart ass most of the time, instead of simply correcting one. When a poster has proven themselves to be an ineffable jackass, that is when hunting season opens, IMO. But, I thought my main point was so reasonable, even with the gaps in knowledge I used to support it, I really didn’t think I was falling into the jackass category. So, when you approached me that way, yeah, I went off. I’ll do it again, to anyone who does that. I don’t mind it when I am being a jackass, but I don’t cotton to it out of the blue.
I also don’t think my witch arguments are full of shit- many people were burned- the majority, no matter what they believed, let it happen. The Socrates thing- I expect you know more than me about it. But, if you are meaning that some details are wrong, but not refuting that he was put to death, then my use of that as an example stands. If I am completely wrong, then I am completely wrong and touche to you sir.
We have different strengths. I expected to be pointed out as to my errors. I expected it to be done in a non-antagonistic way, as my point was a very good one, and I was flaming no one. Even Mr Diddly, who I shall get to in a moment.
If you really did not mean to be antagonistic, then I apologize.
If you did mean the slightest bit of uncalled for antagonism, I remain,
Your jackhammering fuckstick
inor
Mr. Diddly
I trust I have taken some time to increase my very limited experience as to your glowing, bottomless wisdom, such a suprise in one so young. Not that I hadn’t been following you for some time, and stated exactly what I have seen to date. I shall expand here though.
This’ll be kinda quick, youngster, I gotta go snowshoeing here in a bit, so it might not be as comprehensive as I would like, but I do hope to get enough across that even your pre-puberty, alleged mind can garner some understanding.
I won’t repeat myself, I have made, IMO, some very insightful remarks as to your groundless arguments against me so far in this thread. I would think anyone with (paraphrased) ‘two brain cells to rub together’ would be able to read our posts, as they occured chronologically, and plant themselves firmly on my side of things with respect to your absolutely cute self, especially if they treated themselves to some of your gems in other threads.
I have looked over several threads, paying attention to your posts. You have this habit of dropping in with a smart-ass statement of “fact”, unsupported, un-cited, and then skipping away for a bit till you decide to come in again with a repeat. Oh, sure, some of your posts contain sites, but my point is many do not. This seems to be your problem with me. I would like to point out, I often make a somewhat different type of point, as with this thread, which doesn’t lend itself to pages of statistics, spreadsheets, reports, etc. You, however, often do make statements of the type that could, possibly, be backed up with some nice references. But, sadly, this is not the case with you. Just some (I’m sure you find them so) ‘pithy’ remark or other, which, in my mind, reveals the shallowness of your possible intellect.
You remind me of the little mean-hearted guy on the edge of a crowd watching a fight, speciously aligning yourself with whomever you think is winning, insulting whomever you think is losing, never doing any fighting yourself, resorting to some kind of psuedo dogma that you don’t really believe (Hey, I’m just fighting some ignorance here…) but think will save your sorry, sweet, tender ass.
Except with respect to Mr.Biro, having apparently, recently changed your mind somewhat about him, I have yet to see a post in which you take the un-popular side of things.
In short, Mr. Diddly, I invite you to go fuck yourself or valiantly die trying.
Failing this, as you no doubt will, please go play with your leggos for a few years. Won’t that be nice?
I said it seemed so, not that you in fact did align yourself with the majority every time.
I made up a term in the ‘What do we call these people’ thread.
I would like to honor you with it’s cherry.
You fucking squit
Wow. What a brilliant argument. I’m, like, so SHOCKED about how one can address the topic of argument so well.
Face it, Inor, you made a boo-boo. No amount of blathering and windbaggery will erase that.
Note- Pldennison has corrected the ‘ahh, shit, what’s that one guy’s name…’ example
Summary of my argument:
Nowhere, dear diddly, do I even imply I am disagreeing with the majority just because they’re the majority
Nowhere do I even imply the general thinking on whatever the hell you’re talking about is to be disproved.
I went out of my way to not be contrary, as any fool can see with my posts.
I don’t need to be taken seriously. Most of my posts are, in fact, for purposes of laughter.
And as for your examples above? In every case, what happened or is happening is because of the majority within that sub-group of people went/goes along with it-way to bolster my point, dear diddly.
<long post by inor not included, but it’s up there, starts with <sigh>- The part dear diddly chose to address is included with his quote below>
[quote]
Naw, I didn’t. Re-read, dumbshit.
Attacked? Re-read, sensitive dumbshit.
Lambasting you? Re-read, microcephalic, sensitive dumbshit.
Trying to stir up trouble? (This one made me laugh)
Re-read, pot-calling-the-kettle-black, microcephalic, sensitive dumbshit.
Maybe, given that you will most likely never learn to think, you should just sew your mouth shut, dumbshit.
This brings us to the three immediately preceding posts, the last of which is yours, with a quote from one of mine:
Wow, what a brilliant argument. Topic of argument? What the hell are you talking about?
I know your problem youngster- you hate to lose, and can’t see it when it’s slapping you upside your unbalanced head.
Squit
Gosh, what did I just say about windbaggery? Nevermind.
Inor, you can play with semantics all you want. The fact remains that you accused me of “always agreeing with the majority” (okay, it “SEEMED like I always agree with the majority”). I responded by saying “So? Is that a bad thing?” Your post in response to that seemed to imply that “Yes, agreeing with the majority IS a bad thing”… otherwise, why the hell would you have made that post?!?
Now, YOUR next post is supposed to begin with “because…”
Here it is. Real simple:
Agreeing with the thoughts of the majority of other people is not a bad thing. Do you wish to dispute that or not? Because you are SAYING you don’t, yet your other actions display otherwise (lest why would you bring up examples of the majority being in the wrong?)
Goddammit, you idiot, just answer a question the first time it’s asked, 'k? 'k.
Spoofe
I’m pretty sure I have said more than once that agreeing with the majority is not necesssarily a bad thing, but that to do so automatically is.
It’s possible I didn’t say it in exactly those words, so maybe that’s why you’re having such a problem understanding me.
One other thing I noticed when I was checking your posts to various threads is that many, many people seem to ignore you.
Which is what I’ll be doing from here on out.
inor, no I was not trying to be antagonistic (I don’t know you well enough to antagonize you). If anything, I was shooting for sardonic, or maybe just tongue-in-cheek.
I apologize for being 1/2 a wit and not picking up on it.
And thanks for the Galileo clarifications…
Yes, well here’s how many of us are reading it:
Fox Special: The astronauts would have been knocked out of space by Santa and his vigilant Moon-protection reindeer.
Me: Maybe they’re right–sure it’s Fox, but you never know…
SDMB: Actually, Santa doesn’t exist.
Me: Can you prove it?
You see, you’ve been giving more weight a priori to Fox than to NASA. And that simply is unfounded. The only difficulty in “proving” the issue has been in your standard for accepting evidence.