Maker Pro
Maker Pro

How sweet it is to be an idiot

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
I have just deleted a massive post and banned the author. It basically went into great detail about how moon landings are impossible and that they were faked. Although I didn't read all of it, I think the arguments suggested that all spaceflight was impossible (including unmanned spaceflight).

I'm going to assume the author is younger than me. I watched various moon landings on TV as they occurred. I also remember the "special effects" of television and motion pictures of the time. We no doubt have members older than I who can remember details of the actual technology available then for generating special effects.

I wonder how many of the people who deny the lunar landings are part of the "Make America great again" crowd? Whilst I'm not going to blame the right wing of politics, or say that those who identify with this slogan are in any way unique (or even homogeneous), there is a strong streak of anti-science present there.

If my assumptions are correct, then there are a large group of people who want to take the US back to the 60's and 70's when America was great at faking science. Whilst this is kind of amusing (and almost certainly NOT what these people are actually thinking), it worries me that there is a strong and developing anti-science movement.

I wonder if we have reached a scientific maxima and are heading towards a minima again.

My arguments above are focused somewhat on the US, but only because the situation there is probably more well known than for my country. But have no fear, things are moving the same way -- although we lag the US by a few years.
 
Ignorance is bliss, but It's no a reason to ban someone. If he was disruptive Yes, that's a different story.
We are all ignorant to some degree until such time we are enlightened by reading or by encountering a patient individual (be it Steve or your 4th grade Teacher) that's willing to set you straight.
Why not hear someone out and offer your point of view? You could show that there is empirical evidence to support your claim and see if their thinking comes around.
For instance; How can one refute the moon landing when we can prove that we left mirrors on the moon that we can bounce lazers off?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
As far as politics goes, I see nutjobs equally on all sides. It all hinges on the media you choose to listen to. The difference between the right and the left is that people on the left look to government and other peoples money as the answer to all their problems, while those on the right see it as the problem.
 

davenn

Moderator
Ignorance is bliss, but It's no a reason to ban someone.

I disagree, these dopes are a whole 'nuther level of ignorance
1) you will never change the thoughts of these idiotic conspiracy theory people
2) the worse thing you can do is entertain their garbage, it only encourages them to continue on
3) last but not least, we don't want those clowns on a respectable science based forum like this !!


Dave
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Ignorance is bliss, but It's no a reason to ban someone. If he was disruptive Yes, that's a different story.

It was completely off topic for the place it was posted. It was also clearly a pre-prepared rant. If you want to respond to it I can PM you a copy and maybe @Ian can get you his email address so you can work it through with him... :-D

In a similar vein, and less than 24 hours earlier, I did the same thing to someone who posted a rant which started with what I think was a description of the "proper" use of human sexual organs.

Had it been a rant about the use of resistors I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Also I tried to specifically disclaim that this was a problem specific to the right. Anti-vax nonsense seems to be far more prevalent in the left side of politics, for example.
 
It was completely off topic for the place it was posted. It was also clearly a pre-prepared rant. If you want to respond to it I can PM you a copy and maybe @Ian can get you his email address so you can work it through with him... :-D

In a similar vein, and less than 24 hours earlier, I did the same thing to someone who posted a rant which started with what I think was a description of the "proper" use of human sexual organs.

Had it been a rant about the use of resistors I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Also I tried to specifically disclaim that this was a problem specific to the right. Anti-vax nonsense seems to be far more prevalent in the left side of politics, for example.

I would be interested in having a look when you have time PM me the contents of his thread please.
Cheers
Adam
 
And science in my opinion is very much alive, just recently they have proved that Ghosts don't exist. Well not in any other form than short lived blobs of energy. And this is not meant to start a debate :)
Adam
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
For everyone else, a short excerpt:

The Space Shuttle is used to justify that the lunar lander landed on the surface of the moon but the Space Shuttle cannot land on the surface of the moon since the moon does not contain an atmosphere that is required in utilizing the Space Shuttle's wings and the ceramic tiles used to slow the descent velocity of the Space Shuttle when landing on the surface of the earth.
 

Ian

Administrator
I've just had a read of that wall of text, and it's quite amusing indeed :D.

As the topic has come up, here's the full thing for anyone interested (the formatting hasn't been lost in the quote box, it just had no paragraphs):

The Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon since the lunar lander does not contain the amount of rocket fuel required in landing onto the surface of the moon. In addition, there are numerous indiscretions regarding the films and photographs of the landing and moon walk. The Surveyor 3 probe was initially sent to the surface of the moon to test for the possibility of landing on the moon. The Surveyor probe descends onto the surface of the moon and gains velocity because of the gravity of the moon; after the Surveyor probe begins to descent and achieves a velocity of 550 mph, the Surveyor's rocket engine is ignited and operates at full throttle until the Surveyor nears touchdown on the surface of the moon. The Surveyor engine's thrust is producing a flame that ambient temperature is over 3000o C which results in a 104 lb rocket thrust of the Vernier rocket engine which is reducing the speed of the descending Surveyor probe to allow the probe to land on the surface of the moon without disintegrating upon impact; consequently, the Surveyor rocket thrust would result in a shock zone beneath the Surveyor that would have cleared a circular area (d = 3 m) of the fine lunar particle matter that layers the surface of the moon but the fine lunar particle matter remains undisturbed underneath the exhaust nozzle in the Apollo 12 photograph of the Surveyor 3 probe. NASA's explanation is that the Surveyor rocket engine cuts off 4.3 meters before landing on the surface of the moon but the 104 lb rocket thrust at 4.3 meters above the surface would result in the disturbance of the fine lunar particle matter that layers the surface of the moon. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing on the surface of the moon. Using the approximation that the amount of fuel required for a rocket to liftoff a payload into the earth's orbit is equal to the amount of fuel required in descending a payload onto the earth's surface using a rocket engine descent reentry based on the potential and kinetic energies where the maximum potential energy of the Surveyor is achieved when the Surveyor probe is orbiting the moon and the maximum kinetic energy is at the moon's surface after a free fall; consequently, the potential energy of the Surveyor in the moon's orbit is approximately equal to the kinetic energy of the Surveyor at the moon's surface, after a free fall; therefore, the rocket liftoff payload weight from the surface of the earth can be used to calculate the fuel load required to land on the surface of the moon, using a descent rocket engine, by compensating for the moon's gravity. Using the moon gravity of .166 g, the 666 lb Surveyor 3 probe (dry) would be equivalent to landing a (666 lb) x (.166) = 111 lb payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. The TD-2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lb uses 114,913 lb of liquid rocket fuel which forms a fuel-payload weight ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115; consequently, to descent the Surveyor probe that has a moon weight of 111 lb using the fuel-payload weight ratio is (111 lb) x R = 12,765 lbs yet the total amount of fuel used in the descent of the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe is 1,596 lb. Furthermore, the Surveyor 3 probe photograph taken during the Apollo 12 mission shows boot prints next to the Surveyor 3 probe yet the lunar surface lacks an atmosphere required in producing the moisture that forms a boot print in the fine particle lunar matter on the surface of the moon. Example, when a person wearing boots walks on dry sand that has been kiln dried, an indentation of sand is produced, not a boot printed since the formation of a boot print in sand or the fine particular matter on the surface of the moon requires moisture to form a boot print. People argue that since talcum powder and flour form a boot print that the formation of the lunar boot prints is possible but talcum powder and flour contain a small amount of water that allows for the formation of a boot print yet the lunar surface lacks an atmosphere that moisture is required in forming a boot print. In addition, a radio signal cannot be used to communicate with the Surveyor 3 probe at the moon because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the fifth order of the distance I = K/r5. At 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 105 m) from the earth a radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-25, the strongest radio signal produced on the surface of the earth would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles; at 100,000 miles the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth. Also, Newton's gravity equation is used in the calculation of the moon's gravity but Cavendish's experiment is used to derive Newton's constant G that is used in Newton's gravity equation which is used to calculate the .166 g moon gravity that is used to determine the fuel load required in landing of the Surveyor 3 probe and Apollo 11 lunar lander onto the surface of the moon but Cavendish measured a force of 1.74 x 10-7 N ≃ 2 μg (equ 23) that is 1000 times less than the 1 mg weight measurement uncertainty in 1797. In addition, masses do not attract as implied by Newton's gravity equation. Example, .73 kg and 158 kg masses, separated by .01 mm, located in the international space station do not attract which contradicts Newton's gravity equation. Also, Newton's gravity equation is used to represent a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station that is located 249 miles (400,727 m) from the surface of the earth, a gravitational force of F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = (6.7 × 10-11) x (50) x (6 x 1024) / (6.721 x 106)2 ≃ 445 N or 45.4 kg is calculated. According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a 45.4 kg gravitational force pointed at the earth which is not experimentally observed since a 50 kg astronaut is weightless in the international space station. Also, according to Newton's gravity equation, a 100 kg satellite orbiting at 249 miles from the earth's surface would experience a 90.8 kg N force in the direction of the earth which is not experimentally observed since the 100 kg satellite remains in orbit. A 90.8 kg force in the direction of the earth would result in the 100 kg satellite losing its orbit and crashing to the earth. In the descent of the Apollo 11 lunar lander, after the lander begins to descent to the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph, the lander's rocket engine is activated and fires at full throttle and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb until the lander nears the moon's surface at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb. In the Apollo 11 lunar lander descent film, the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction. The reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage and a thrust from the right control thruster produces a horizontal motion of the lander if the reaction control thrusters are positioned at the center of mass of the lander but during the lander's descent the center of mass would vary because of the enormous decrease in the fuel. An off centered right horizontal thrust would cause the lunar lander to tip downward resulting in the spinning and subsequent crash of the lunar lander. In the testing the lunar landing, a Bell Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) that main engine is a GE CF-700-2V jet engine is used yet a jet engine cannot operate in the descent on the surface of the moon since the moon does not have an atmosphere that is required in the functioning of a jet engine. Only a rocket engine can produce a thrust in the vacuum of stellar space or in the descent onto the surface of the moon that lacks an atmosphere. Also, the LLRV project constructed a lander prototype with a rocket engine using spherical fuel tanks but the rocket engine LLRV did not function even when attached to a crane since it would be extremely difficult and expansive to emulate the lunar lander's extremely high descent reentry velocity and the rocket engine firing that is used to counteract the lander's descent velocity. Furthermore, the Apollo 11 lunar landing photographs do not show a thrust zone produced by the lunar lander's rocket engine 3,000 lb thrust during the final decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. At the end of the descent the rocket engine's thrust would result in a thrust zone and the accumulation of rocket smoke at the moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke from the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not depict rocket smoke. The lack of the lunar atmosphere is used to justify the absents of the rocket smoke in the descent film during the landing but the production of the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is missing from the descent film. Plus, after the landing, the close up photographs of the Apollo 11 lunar lander's landing pads do not have any lunar particle matter on the landing pads. A Lear jet Honeywell TFE731-20-AR turbofan engines is rated at 3,500 pounds thrust; consequently, the 3,000 lb thrust would result in a comparable disturbance as a Lear jet engine's thrust disturbing sand on the surface of the earth. The expectoration of the burning rocket fuel produces the change in the lander's momentum that results in a force that repels the descent velocity; consequently, the rocket smoke represents the mass of the rocket fuel that is producing the thrust which would disturb the fine particle matter that layers the surface of the moon yet the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 23) does not show a blast zone beneath the lunar lander. In the Apollo 11 photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the lunar shadows are pointing in different directions yet the sun's intensity would only produce shadows pointing in a single direction. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the shadow catastrophe but in another Apollo 11 lunar photograph (fig 23), the objects are on a level surface and are also forming shadows in different directions; consequently, the contour argument cannot be applied since a level surface does not represent a contoured surface. In another argument, the earth represents a second light source that forms the multiple directional shadows that appear in the Apollo 11 photographs but if the intensities of the Sun and the Earth formed the shadows then each lunar object would form two separate shadows yet each of the lunar objects is forming a single shadow which proves the earth is not the light source that is producing the shadows. In addition, the ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronauts were not on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate and exact pattern of the stars of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken which would be extremely difficult to reproduce if the lunar landing photographs were fake. No photographs were taken of the stars of the stellar universe that included an astronaut on the surface of the moon; in an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Neil Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular views from the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars because the moon does not have an atmosphere. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs because the short camera exposure time prevents the image of the stars to appear in the photographs. Nonetheless, the Apollo 11 mission astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the question was asked regarding the absents of the stars in the photographs taken on the surface of the moon. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his initial interview that included the question regarding why no stars appear in any of the Apollo 11 photographs. Moreover, numerous Apollo 11 photographs taken on the surface of the moon clearly contain a cross hair that is beneath the image yet all of the cross hairs would be in front of the image since the cross hairs are part of a filter that is attach to the camera lens; therefore, a lunar image would appear behind the cross hairs. After pointing out the cross hair problem NASA manipulated the Apollo photographs so that the cross hairs appear in front of the image. Only 20 photographs of the Apollo 11 lunar landing were released. It appears extremely suspicious that such and important and expensive Apollo 11 project would only result in the release of 20 photographs from the surface of the moon. In addition, NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector that was placed on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope (.1 arcsec) that is more than six times more powerful than the LICK telescope (.6 arsec) cannot view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon yet the LICK telescope is detecting an intensity of the lunar reflector that has an area of one square meter. Also, the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is based on a laser beam's intensity that does not disperse after propagating to the moon and back, a total distance of 460,000 miles. There would have been absolutely no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the fifth order of the distance I = K/r5. At 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 105 m) from the moon a radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-25, the strongest radio signal produced on the surface of the moon would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles; at 100,000 miles the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth. Furthermore, in a film of an Apollo astronaut walking on the surface of the moon shows the placement of the American flag on the surface of the moon but in the film, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of the flag. Likewise, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in a descent landing onto the surface of the moon. Using the extrapolation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit is equal fuel load to accent a payload into the earth's orbit, based on the potential and kinetic energies; consequently, the fuel load required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 4,783 lb descent module (dry) + 10,300 lb ascent module (wet) = 15,083 lb. The fuel of the ascent module is part of the descent payload. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a (15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb payload onto the earth's surface from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid fuel to reach the earth's orbit which forms a fuel-payload ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115. The fuel-payload ratio R and the moon weight of the lander (dry) is used to calculate the fuel load required to descent the Apollo lunar lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket, (2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb. To descent the 15,083 lb Apollo 11 lander onto the surface of the moon requires 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total weight of the lunar lander is 33,000 lb (wet). Plus, in the accent stage of the lunar mission, the mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb (dry) which represents a moon weight of (4,740 lb) x (.166) = 790 lbs. To accented a 790 payload from the surface of the earth into orbit would require (790 lb) x R = 90,850 lb of fuel which is part of the payload weight of the lunar lander. Normalizing the fuel requirement of the lander descent using the 90,850 lb fuel as part of the descent payload. To land the Apollo 11 lunar lander on the surface of the moon, using the ascent module fuel load of 90,850 lbs, would produce a total weight of the lander (dry) of 4,783 lb descent module (dry) + 4,740 lb ascent module (dry) + 90,850 lb (fuel) = 100,373 lb that moon weight would be equivalent to (100,373 lb) x (.166) = 11,643 lbs which would require (11,643) x R = 1,338,975 lbs of fuel to produce a Apollo 11 lunar landing. Plus, the accent film shows the ascent module lifting off from the surface of the moon but no flame of the rocket engine or smoke produced by the burning of the Aerozine rocket fuel is depicted yet the film of the Titan II rocket launched from the surface of the earth using Aerozine rocket fuel and an oxidizer produces an ignition thrust flame and exhaust smoke that trails from the surface of the earth to over 100 miles in the upward direction yet the Apollo 11 accent film does not show the production of rocket smoke cause by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel with the oxidizer. The non-existence of an atmosphere on the surface of the moon is used to justify the lack of smoke but rocket smoke is produced by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel with the oxidizer not the earth's atmosphere. The rocket smoke causes the rocket thrust; consequently, the absents of the rocket smoke proves the lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. In addition, it would have been extremely difficult to depict the rocket smoke produced by the liftoff from the surface of the moon that does not have an atmosphere and possesses a reduce gravity since it would require the slow motion of the rocket smoke plume formation and dispersion, and the fast motion of the ascent liftoff of the ascent module, in the same film. The Space Shuttle is used to justify that the lunar lander landed on the surface of the moon but the Space Shuttle cannot land on the surface of the moon since the moon does not contain an atmosphere that is required in utilizing the Space Shuttle's wings and the ceramic tiles used to slow the descent velocity of the Space Shuttle when landing on the surface of the earth. In addition, moon rocks are used to justify the lunar landing but the moon rocks are asteroids; consequently, NASA obtained asteroids that landed on the earth and passed them off as moon rocks.

There are some fantastic simplifications in there, if only rocket science was that easy :D.

Ignorance is bliss, but It's no a reason to ban someone. If he was disruptive Yes, that's a different story.

We occasionally get people posting pre-prepared rants like this, usually relating to conspiracy theories. They just blast it on to any forum remotely resembling their target audience. We don't ban very readily at all, but in this case it was certainly someone spamming - but instead of advertising, they were posting a wall of text verbatim across many, many forums.
 
Man that must have taken a while to write!
Pity they didn't spend a little extra time to put it into a form that was easier to read.

Was interesting to read that the lunar module had an accent, and I had better put my hard hat on in case one of those moon rocks comes my way.

Oh well, it takes all types to make this world the interesting place it is.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Ignorance is bliss, but It's no a reason to ban someone. If he was disruptive Yes, that's a different story

I think it's worth replying to this again.

This comment is very similar to things the moderators have said to each other about people and posts.

Whilst @fios agaibh isn't a moderator, after reading his post I did consider whether I had done the right thing. His opinion is valid regardless of whether it matches mine. (And posting this thread is really an invitation for people to offer their opinions on my moderation -- or if not an actual invitation, I can hardly complain if I am criticised)
 
I'm with you Steve.
After getting a more through explanation, It does sound like you did the right thing.

If someone is copying and pasting outlandish rants just to get a rise out of people, I'd certainly call that disruptive.
So yes, deleting the post was warranted although I do think one should be warned before banning their membership.

Moderators play an important job here to step in if someone is proposing something dangerous, being rude, or just mucking up our forum up with rubbish that flys in the face of logic. On the other hand we need to be patient to hear someone out before labeling them a nutjob.
People like Gaelileo and Tesla were considered nutjobs at one time.

Btw, I do really appreciate the contributions of our esteemed moderators.
 

davenn

Moderator
So yes, deleting the post was warranted although I do think one should be warned before banning their membership.

why ? when we know that if they are not banned they will just continue to spout their garbage

On the other hand we need to be patient to hear someone out before labeling them a nutjob.

99% of his post confirmed his status of a nut job we didn't have to do that ourselves :rolleyes: ;)

People like Gaelileo and Tesla were considered nutjobs at one time.

yes, but at least their science was sound .....
this characters science was not sound, and there in lies the difference

You have to understand that us mod's don't just delete posts/ban people without reason.
Over the many years, we see these sorts of people on a regular basis and our experience tells us when we have got a person
with just a few misunderstandings, but looks like they may be willing to learn, compared to someone that it's obvious
that they have a totally warped agenda and they are not interested in the truth.

It's just that Steve openly commented about this clown .... usually the general membership never see all the others we get rid of
before you guys get to read the trash

just as there are dozens of spammers that get banned and threads deleted before the majority get to see the garbage posts
We rely on you guys often to report posts that are suspect so that one of us mods can handle it next time one of us comes online

cheers
Dave
 
why ? when we know that if they are not banned they will just continue to spout their garbage
I'm just saying we should give people the benefit of the doubt at least initially, especially If they can offer proof to substantiate their claims.
When someones intent is questionable, you can always read their previous posts to decide.
I will say that our moderators seem to use good discretion in this area.

If one posts an idea or a position that differs from ours, they deserve to be heard out imo.
It should be remembered that much of what we learn is from asking dumb questions and making mistakes.

Oh, and the idea that earth is the center of our solar system used to be sound science of the day.
 

davenn

Moderator
I'm just saying we should give people the benefit of the doubt at least initially, especially If they can offer proof to substantiate their claims.
When someones intent is questionable, you can always read their previous posts to decide.
I will say that our moderators seem to use good discretion in this area.

If one posts an idea or a position that differs from ours, they deserve to be heard out imo.
It should be remembered that much of what we learn is from asking dumb questions and making mistakes.


Oh, and the idea that earth is the center of our solar system used to be sound science of the day.


You seem to be totally missing the point
It seems that you didn't even read and understand my last post, in particular ... please reread and understand what I said :)

There is NO ARGUEING with these people. They and their kind are right and the rest of the world and its scientists
are wrong .... yeah, you may have got away with that way back in the dark ages when science wasn't very advanced
but you cannot these days when science and the understanding of the world etc has advanced so far

10 minutes for them doing google would prove all their beliefs incorrect and all their incorrect formulas etc
but that is pointless, they will not believe what they are reading because it is all part of the worldwide conspiracy !!

Not when they are stating the facts that they believe. There is not changing their mind. They are not interested in the truth
you trying to correct them just puts you in the class with the rest of the world and the conspiracies that they are purposefully fighting against.


If one posts an idea or a position that differs from ours, they deserve to be heard out imo.
It should be remembered that much of what we learn is from asking dumb questions and making mistakes.

Again as I previously stated that you should reread, these are not just dumb and uneducated "mistakes"
They are full blown conspiracy theories

Again .... us guys that look after the forum are used to seeing these types ... we are not stupid, we KNOW the difference between the two types of people. Those that are just have a little misunderstanding and are ready for guidance to get things straight and those that total nut jobs and are not interested in listening to real science.


Dave
 
@davenn Yes, I'm with you on this on this one. I was speaking more generally.

In the future, many of these circumstances could be avoided simply by asking poster how their comments specifically relates to electronics.
 

davenn

Moderator
In the future, many of these circumstances could be avoided simply by asking poster how their comments specifically relates to electronics.

if it is posted in off topic lounge ... it doesn't have to be relevant to electronics ;)

and that part of the point ... us mods get used to what is good and what isn't regardless of where it is posted :)

reread my previous posts in this thread on how moderation is done :)
 
Top