ApolloHoax.net

Announcements => Announcements => Topic started by: LunarOrbit on June 06, 2012, 09:08:15 PM

Title: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 06, 2012, 09:08:15 PM
I almost forgot to start a new ban log.

The first person officially banned from the new forum is... (drum roll, please) ...DAKDAK. He was banned for deleting all of his posts, which as Playdor could tell you, is a sure fire way to tick me off.

As a result of DAKDAKs revisionism/vandalism I have installed a plugin that will track changes to posts and allow me to revert them if necessary. I have also imposed a 2 hour time limit to editing posts, but I might remove that if the plugin works well.

I hope conspiracy theorists will eventually learn that by doing things like that they are demonstrating to us that they lack integrity. If they can't even stand behind their words when they are totally anonymous on the internet, then what should we expect from them in the real world?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: peter eldergill on June 06, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
Do you think playdor and dakdak were the same person?

Pete
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 06, 2012, 11:55:47 PM
No. But Playdor is here. Isn't that right, Profmunkin?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on July 18, 2012, 08:19:25 PM
profmunkin has been banned.

1) He is a sock-puppet of a previously banned member of the old forum (Playdor). This alone is normally grounds for an instant ban, but I guess I was in a forgiving mood.

2) After being banned from the old forum he asked Proboards to delete all of his posts (http://support.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=support&thread=410658&page=1#4739707). While this is apparently allowed under Proboards rules, I consider it a cowardly act of vandalism.

3) Refusing to defend his claims in the JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=67.0) thread. More cowardice. If you aren't willing to stand behind your claims while using an alias on the internet then what does that say about the kind of person you are?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 19, 2012, 07:19:49 AM
Well, who saw that coming a mile away...

At least this time he won't be able to delete his posts. I think allowing him back was a good idea, since it meant he had time to show the kind of person he was, and he now can't erase it.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on July 19, 2012, 12:50:11 PM
Glad that's over.  Way too much attention was being diverted away from the primary topic.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: DataCable on July 19, 2012, 10:35:58 PM
So, wait.... does this mean I won't be getting his detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to my completely unsubstantiated assertion that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was, in fact, a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Not Myself on July 21, 2012, 11:38:24 PM
Gad, it's a bit of a soap opera trying to keep track of who's who  :(
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bobdude11 on August 23, 2012, 11:42:24 PM
So, wait.... does this mean I won't be getting his detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to my completely unsubstantiated assertion that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was, in fact, a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society?
I see the fallacy in this already - I know for a fact that the Illuminati do not have holographic projectors. I have the uncle of a friend of the sister of a man with a dog that belongs to a lady who married to the first cousin of a man that once worked for NASA. I will post his wife's mother's email confirming this once he gives me the ok.

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: AtomicDog on October 25, 2012, 04:42:49 PM
profmunkin has been banned.

1) He is a sock-puppet of a previously banned member of the old forum (Playdor). This alone is normally grounds for an instant ban, but I guess I was in a forgiving mood.

2) After being banned from the old forum he asked Proboards to delete all of his posts (http://support.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=support&thread=410658&page=1#4739707). While this is apparently allowed under Proboards rules, I consider it a cowardly act of vandalism.

3) Refusing to defend his claims in the JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=67.0) thread. More cowardice. If you aren't willing to stand behind your claims while using an alias on the internet then what does that say about the kind of person you are?

You might want to check his profile. He was active on October 16, 2012.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on October 25, 2012, 09:14:31 PM
He tried (unsuccessfully) to login three times and the forum counts that as activity. Bans only prevent people from logging in or registering new accounts.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 11, 2012, 12:40:40 PM
Edwardwb1001 has been banned for trolling (which he even admitted to) and for insulting the other members of the forum.

I'm surprised that no members have twigged on why I've asked for the exact resolution capabilities of the LRO. Not so smart after all it seems...Nevermind, I'm sure I'll get my 'marching orders' (as suggested by a particular member) before I actually get around to coming to the point of my question - and you all know how long THAT might take! Of course, I only keep members waiting because I derive tremendous satisfaction from the attention obtained therefrom.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Andromeda on November 11, 2012, 12:42:19 PM
He went into meltdown faster than I expected.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 11, 2012, 12:48:02 PM
He was more interested in a fight than a discussion. He's probably surprised that it took this long.

When will the few remaining hoax believers learn that we are more than willing to discuss the hoax theory with them IF they can remain civil and stop playing games?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Andromeda on November 11, 2012, 12:51:17 PM
Probably they never will.  I'm not convinced anyone truly examines the evidence and believes in the Hoax - I suspect these people neither know nor care what happened but are using it as a convenient excuse to start fights.

The "I'm going to make you wait for my ideas" is very annoying though.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Zakalwe on November 11, 2012, 01:01:02 PM
A quick Google search shows his posts on here to be typical of this troll. I see that he appears to post on a lot of body-building  YouTube videos....perhaps he suffers from 'roid-rage?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Nowhere Man on November 11, 2012, 08:24:59 PM
Edwardwb1001 has been banned for trolling (which he even admitted to) and for insulting the other members of the forum.
If he's banned, shouldn't his name be crossed off when it's displayed?

Edit to add:  Well I guess the board software doesn't do that.  But Edward's display still needs some kind of indicator that he's been bounced.

Fred
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on November 11, 2012, 09:29:44 PM
Edward's display still needs some kind of indicator that he's been bounced.

You're right. I usually add a "BANNED" title to someone's profile after I ban them but I forgot this time. I've corrected it.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on November 12, 2012, 07:08:27 AM
It got out of hand when the streetlight experiment came into it.

The problem is that when it comes to his personal experience, he can say whatever he wants and we can't directly contradict that. We can say it doesn't make sense, but it will inevitably come off as incredulity.

He may be lying, maybe he's just misinterpreting, but we can't say positively that his experience is wrong, only that it doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on November 12, 2012, 01:38:16 PM
Oh, I don't know.  I think there reaches a point where you can be pretty definitive that something didn't happen the way someone described it.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Donnie B. on November 12, 2012, 04:15:59 PM
"I dropped my book, and it flew up and slammed into the ceiling!"

And it wasn't even made of upsydaisium.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Laurel on November 12, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
"I dropped my book, and it flew up and slammed into the ceiling!"
You should have paid the gravity bill.
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2008/07/14 (http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2008/07/14)
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: ChrLz on November 13, 2012, 02:53:30 AM
Oh, I don't know.  I think there reaches a point where you can be pretty definitive that something didn't happen the way someone described it.
Exactly.  And that one of Edward's shameful deceptions was a perfect example of that.

I suspect I may be one of (or 'the') 'particular member/s' who suggested he be given those marching orders, and I'm very pleased to see that LO took action - well played as usual, LO!  But allow me to explain a bit more..

I accept that this forum relies to some extent on people proclaiming wildly inaccurate stuff - and that some latitude (maybe quite a lot) must be applied.  I don't mind crazy ideas, as long as the holder of said ideas is prepared to discuss in good faith and does not *deliberately* lie or misinform.  I've had many quite pleasant debates with some pretty crazy folks here and elsewhere.

But of late, I've noticed that an increasing tactic with the last dwindling few who push Apollo denial, and also some UFO=alien and Nibiru/PlanetX/Mayan-calendar-extinction believers/trolls is to simply lie their ****s off, whether by completely misrepresenting authoritative references (a special hello to 'MacG' at Unexplained Mysteries.. :D), or by giving very obviously false accounts of their personal experiences, eg Edward's absolutely ridiculous assertions about his streetlamp-(un)affected stellar viewing ability.

That was very obviously not debating in good faith, and makes it very clear that the person is trolling (or perhaps completely deluded), and in either case I don't think they should be allowed to continue getting their fifteen Kb of 'fame'..

It's been a pleasure to note that this website (and a couple of notable others) are taking action against such 'people'.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Donnie B. on November 13, 2012, 04:48:09 PM
There is, I suppose, one way he might have been telling the truth about the streetlamp experiment.  If he walked out of a brightly-lit room just before doing it, he may well have seen little difference in his view of the stars.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Zakalwe on November 14, 2012, 05:28:55 AM
There is, I suppose, one way he might have been telling the truth about the streetlamp experiment.  If he walked out of a brightly-lit room just before doing it, he may well have seen little difference in his view of the stars.

This is probably not the place for this discussion, to be fair.
If he had walked out of a bright room then he would not have been able to see "medium to faint magnitude" stars. The faintest magnitude reckoned visible by the naked eye is about mag 6. You would need a superb dark site, perfect seeing and extremely good eyesight to see a mag 6 object. Under urban skies you can probably see mag 3-4 with good dark adaption. There's about 500 objects in the celestial night sky in this magnitude range. How many are visible from his location?

Non dark adapted eyes? I reckon that you would only see the very brightest stars and the brightest of planets (Jupiter is normally visible under streetlights). As an example, when Mars, Jupiter and Venus were in apparent alignment earlier this year I could see them from a well-lit supermarket carpark. Virtually nothing else was visible in the sky. Which is why I called his claim that he could "easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo" [of the streetlight] as B.S.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 12:17:41 PM
Heiwa has been banned for 7 days after trying to moderate the discussion after repeated warnings not to do so. I can only assume he is attempting to provoke me.

He also responded to other members in an insulting manner.

If upon his return he continues this behavior he will be permanently banned.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 12:19:42 PM
My sick curiosity wants to know what he said...
Title: Banned members
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 05, 2013, 02:15:35 PM
As I said in my last post, his intransigence is actually good in that it brings out the best here. Although he should not be insulting, I'd recommend that all possible effort be made to keep him around (within reason, of course).
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 02:25:51 PM
My main concern is that people are going to become frustrated and angry if he continues to ignore the explanations they give him. They are putting a lot of time and effort into those explanations and he responds as if he isn't even reading them. I don't want the discussion to go in circles endlessly.

But if other people are benefiting from the explanations then the time is not wasted.

I'm going to maintain the 7 day ban for now, but I'll take the threat of a permanent ban off the table unless his behaviour worsens upon his return.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: sts60 on January 05, 2013, 02:38:55 PM
As usual, I am learning things from the thread.  Guys like ka9q, Bob, and Jay flat-out know more about rocket propulsion than I do, so I'm happy to absorb some of it.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: BazBear on January 05, 2013, 02:41:52 PM
As I said in my last post, his intransigence is actually good in that it brings out the best here. Although he should not be insulting, I'd recommend that all possible effort be made to keep him around (within reason, of course).
I agree with this. Even if he truly is just a troll, watching his piss poor physics get demolished and then corrected is very educational. Thanks again to all of you who share your knowledge with us.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Donnie B. on January 05, 2013, 03:08:08 PM
As usual, I am learning things from the thread.  Guys like ka9q, Bob, and Jay flat-out know more about rocket propulsion than I do, so I'm happy to absorb some of it.

If there's one thing I've learned from this and other online fora, it's that for any area of knowledge anyone cares to mention, there's always at least one person who knows more about it than I do!
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 03:15:07 PM
I'm one of those that has gone almost completely ignored by Heiwa, but I really don't care.  Not receiving the attention of a goofball like that is certainly nothing that's going to get my blood pressure up.  I've found much of the discussion interesting and informative, and as long as we're learning from each other, I'm happy.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: pzkpfw on January 05, 2013, 05:46:35 PM
My main concern is that people are going to become frustrated and angry if he continues to ignore the explanations they give him. They are putting a lot of time and effort into those explanations and he responds as if he isn't even reading them. I don't want the discussion to go in circles endlessly.

But if other people are benefiting from the explanations then the time is not wasted.

I'm going to maintain the 7 day ban for now, but I'll take the threat of a permanent ban off the table unless his behaviour worsens upon his return.

Just wanted to say: you do a very good job of moderating, and this post is a great explanation.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on January 05, 2013, 06:03:56 PM
How about, LO, you instruct him to give a direct response to the simple questions on pain of suspension. I want to see what happens when he's forced to answer the point about the propellant type.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Donnie B. on January 05, 2013, 06:06:47 PM
How about, LO, you instruct him to give a direct response to the simple questions on pain of suspension. I want to see what happens when he's forced to answer the point about the propellant type.
You mean, when Logic takes him by the throat and FORCES him to answer? ;)
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Andromeda on January 05, 2013, 06:20:19 PM
My main concern is that people are going to become frustrated and angry if he continues to ignore the explanations they give him. They are putting a lot of time and effort into those explanations and he responds as if he isn't even reading them. I don't want the discussion to go in circles endlessly.

But if other people are benefiting from the explanations then the time is not wasted.

I'm going to maintain the 7 day ban for now, but I'll take the threat of a permanent ban off the table unless his behaviour worsens upon his return.

Just wanted to say: you do a very good job of moderating, and this post is a great explanation.

Agreed.

I liked that you posted in the thread when you prevented a post of his from appearing, explaining why you stopped it.  It makes things transparent and honest.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
Thanks for the support, everyone. I'll tell you, it isn't always easy.

I want to be fair to everyone. I want to give the hoax believers a chance to make their case, and don't want to appear so strict that they are afraid to post here. I want to make sure the Apollo supporters get satisfactory responses to their questions. I want to weed out the trolls from the people with legitimate doubts. I want to make sure that the people who get frustrated by a troll's behaviour are appeased. But it's not always possible to satisfy everyone. So I'm glad to hear that you think I'm doing a good job.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 07:19:25 PM
I liked that you posted in the thread when you prevented a post of his from appearing, explaining why you stopped it.  It makes things transparent and honest.

Yeah, I did realize that by not approving his posts he could claim I was censoring him. If there is ever any question about why a post wasn't approved I am able to restore it. They are not deleted, they're just moved to a hidden section of the forum. Most of Heiwa's unapproved posts were just him complaining that something was off topic and didn't actually contribute anything to the discussion. There were a couple that I thought were insulting and intended to provoke me into banning him.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: cjameshuff on January 05, 2013, 07:44:03 PM
He's amply demonstrated that he has no interest in actual discussion, so banning is certainly merited. You can individually moderate each and every post, but how much effort is it worth going through just to avoid giving him the banning he evidently (heh) desires?

This does illustrate a weakness of forums for this sort of thing. He would just ignore corrections and responses, pretending they didn't exist, and repeat issues that had long been answered. I've occasionally considered the possibility of applying something like a bug tracking system to online debate, where individual issues could be raised, addressed, closed, marked as duplicates of others, etc.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 07:54:29 PM
How about, LO, you instruct him to give a direct response to the simple questions on pain of suspension. I want to see what happens when he's forced to answer the point about the propellant type.

I agree that he needs to answer the questions he has avoided. Maybe we need to consolidate all of the unanswered questions into one post just so that he isn't flooded with questions by a dozen people.

If everyone wants to submit their questions to me privately I can merge them into one post and make sure there aren't any duplicates.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 05, 2013, 08:03:45 PM
You can individually moderate each and every post, but how much effort is it worth going through just to avoid giving him the banning he evidently (heh) desires?

It's not much effort for me, I'd just be reading the posts I would be reading otherwise. It's more of an annoyance to the person who is being moderated because they may have to wait hours for me to approve their posts (Heiwa had the tendency to post at 2am my time). And sometimes by the time I approved his posts they would appear after the thread had grown by a dozen posts, so people would miss them. I ended up quoting them just so people would notice them.

Quote
I've occasionally considered the possibility of applying something like a bug tracking system to online debate, where individual issues could be raised, addressed, closed, marked as duplicates of others, etc.

I kind of like how stackoverflow.com (http://stackoverflow.com) works. Someone asks a question and people are free to answer. Answers can be voted up or down, so hopefully the best answer rises to the top. But it's also similar to how YouTube comments work, and we've all seen how the best answers get voted down by trolls so that they go unnoticed.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2013, 10:52:52 PM
As I said in my last post, his intransigence is actually good in that it brings out the best here. Although he should not be insulting, I'd recommend that all possible effort be made to keep him around (within reason, of course).
I agree with this. Even if he truly is just a troll, watching his piss poor physics get demolished and then corrected is very educational. Thanks again to all of you who share your knowledge with us.

Honestly, I disagree.  I'm one of the only people around here who wholeheartedly endorses BAUT's direct-questions rule.  While I'm learning, I'd rather it be from a real conversation.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Bob B. on January 05, 2013, 11:44:19 PM
I like the idea of having Lunar Orbit post a list of all the unanswered and applicable questions (pared-down to a concise and representative sample) with instructions that upon Heiwa's return, he must answer point-by-point every question or his ban will become permanent.  It's pointless for him to come back and parrot the same crap all over again with no movement in the discussion.
Title: Banned members
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 06, 2013, 09:03:11 AM
As I said in my last post, his intransigence is actually good in that it brings out the best here. Although he should not be insulting, I'd recommend that all possible effort be made to keep him around (within reason, of course).
I agree with this. Even if he truly is just a troll, watching his piss poor physics get demolished and then corrected is very educational. Thanks again to all of you who share your knowledge with us.

Honestly, I disagree.  I'm one of the only people around here who wholeheartedly endorses BAUT's direct-questions rule.  While I'm learning, I'd rather it be from a real conversation.

The trouble with BAUT's way of doing things, and why I don't go there anymore, is that it cuts off the real fun of having knowledgeable people explain things.  The real conversation here isn't with Heiwa, but with the people who know what they are talking about. 

My suggestion is that Heiwa be allowed only to post only answers to direct questions; once answered, he can put up other posts.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on January 06, 2013, 09:11:42 AM
Heiwa has had ample opportunity to be heard on his own terms and has chosen to put a substantial amount of this opportunity to prove a moon hoax into trying to control the conversation, repeat his unsupported claims and deflect challenges by shifting the burden of proof.  His hoax claims are as well documented as they will ever be by letting him go on un-moderated.  It is time that we impose a requirement to answer a list of direct questions if we are to ever get any more out of him.
Title: Re: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on January 06, 2013, 09:35:04 AM
As I said in my last post, his intransigence is actually good in that it brings out the best here. Although he should not be insulting, I'd recommend that all possible effort be made to keep him around (within reason, of course).
I agree with this. Even if he truly is just a troll, watching his piss poor physics get demolished and then corrected is very educational. Thanks again to all of you who share your knowledge with us.

Honestly, I disagree.  I'm one of the only people around here who wholeheartedly endorses BAUT's direct-questions rule.  While I'm learning, I'd rather it be from a real conversation.

The trouble with BAUT's way of doing things, and why I don't go there anymore, is that it cuts off the real fun of having knowledgeable people explain things.  The real conversation here isn't with Heiwa, but with the people who know what they are talking about. 

My suggestion is that Heiwa be allowed only to post only answers to direct questions; once answered, he can put up other posts.

I'm with you. BAUT's strict moderation strangled threads at birth. Here, we allow threads to grow. It's now after we've seen Heiwa's evasion, that tighter controls can be imposed. But that's after the thread has developed in this way.

Give the thread a chance before sitting on its face. That's what the mods at BAUT refuse to countenance and that's what has killed its once great conspiracy forum stone dead.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: peter eldergill on January 06, 2013, 10:18:38 AM
Not that I want to make this off topic, but I don't even read baut anymore, especially since it merged again. I just don't enjoy it there anymore.

Pete
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Donnie B. on January 06, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
In Heiwa's case I don't think it would work to require direct answers to specific questions.  It's a foregone conclusion that he will either ignore or evade such a requirement.  It's easy enough to do; he can just give a non-responsive or non-sequitur reply and claim to have met the requirement -- or just ignore it altogether.  LO would have to ban him even though his behavior was not all that objectionable.

For me, the real issue is to prevent the repeated insults, jibes, and moderation attempts that raise the frustration level and threaten to produce angry responses.  LO has been doing pretty well there, but it's a big burden on him.

How about this: set a fixed limit on the number of posts that will be suppressed due to those specific issues, say 5 or 10 from now on.  Once he hits the limit, banhammer.  As long as he can keep posting without violating those limits, we keep the chew toy around for general edification.  But if he keeps up the snide stuff there's an end point for LO.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: AtomicDog on January 06, 2013, 11:25:34 AM
Which includes any of those cutesy insult plays on the word "astronaut."
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 11:40:32 AM
I'm going to add all of variations of astronaut (asstronot, astronot, astronaut, etc.) to the forums censor. I did it on the Proboards forum but haven't bothered here until now.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Bob B. on January 06, 2013, 11:45:22 AM
For me, the real issue is to prevent the repeated insults, jibes, and moderation attempts that raise the frustration level and threaten to produce angry responses.

I think it's more than that.  When a guy goes on for 50+ pages repeating the same flawed argument over and over while ignoring all the replies that debunk it, something needs to change.  I'd rather put up with insults and childish behavior than deal with someone who ignores his opponents and refuses to admit errors.  I just try to not let the juvenile behavior of a buffoon get to me because it's not worth the aggravation.  But this is a forum, which by definition is a place where ideas are to be exchanged and discussed.  Heiwa isn't doing that.  In fact, he's doing everything he can not to engage in any real meaningful discussion.  That is the behavior that I believe is irritating most people, and it is the behavior that I believe must change as a condition of his return.

In Heiwa's case I don't think it would work to require direct answers to specific questions.  It's a foregone conclusion that he will either ignore or evade such a requirement.  It's easy enough to do; he can just give a non-responsive or non-sequitur reply and claim to have met the requirement -- or just ignore it altogether.  LO would have to ban him even though his behavior was not all that objectionable.

I agree with you on this part because that is exactly what I suspect will happen.  And what will happen as a result?  People are going to get frustrated and mad.  And why is that?  Because Heiwa's evasion is the real problem, not his childish insults and attempts at moderation.  If he doesn't change the behavior that is the root of the real problem, then he should be banned.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Donnie B. on January 06, 2013, 12:12:53 PM
If he doesn't change the behavior that is the root of the real problem, then he should be banned.

Whatever criterion is used for the banning decision, I think it's gonna happen pretty definitely.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on January 06, 2013, 12:15:24 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason for the "truth about Apollo" section is to have this kind of conversation without requiring some stubborn and ignorant person to dump all over everyone throughout it.  Couldn't the discussion be had there and allow the hoax section to have some structure?
Title: Re: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on January 06, 2013, 02:22:43 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason for the "truth about Apollo" section is to have this kind of conversation without requiring some stubborn and ignorant person to dump all over everyone throughout it.  Couldn't the discussion be had there and allow the hoax section to have some structure?

But that has been proven to not work. That's what they did at BAUT and now there is neither conspiracy shenanigans nor general discussion about Apollo. BAUT killed itself with its addiction to stifling rules.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on January 06, 2013, 03:05:47 PM
I think it's still going strong.  The conspiracy section isn't, Gods know, but I don't think that's the rules.  I think it's that the new home of conspiracism is YouTube, where you can't argue effectively and therefore they don't have to listen to any voices but their own.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 05:31:45 PM
I think what I'll do is tell him that until he answers all of the outstanding questions he will remain on moderation and none of his posts that don't answers questions will be approved. And if he answers the questions to our satisfaction I will take him off moderation. Maybe a carrot will work better than a stick.

I've received some questions from Bob B. which I will be posting for Heiwa to answer. I'd like to get all of the questions compiled before Heiwa's ban expires on January 12. So if anyone else has questions that they would like him to answer please submit them to me via a private message.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: sts60 on January 06, 2013, 06:05:06 PM
I'll work on a list of items, but I would recommend being careful on the "to our satisfaction" clause.  Posts should not be disapproved simply because he doesn't understand something.  However, I have no problem with requiring him to explain, for example, why he keeps calling the SPS engine "PK-22S" or whatever when it is unquestionably not - a very simple matter of fact, which cannot be written off as an error of understanding (like his inability to grasp how an energy balance equation works).
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 06, 2013, 06:09:06 PM
I'll work on a list of items, but I would recommend being careful on the "to our satisfaction" clause.

What I mean is that he will at least have to provide an answer to each of the questions, even if the answers are wrong. He can't just ignore the questions or dismiss them as stupid or "off topic".
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: grmcdorman on January 06, 2013, 06:10:30 PM
Indeed. I was tempted to ask my posts about the KE equation he's using to be included, but I felt that errors of fact such as the above should be address first - especially since we should keep the list down in size.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on January 06, 2013, 07:07:37 PM
I think this checklist should consist of questions quick to answer. So don't include ones about the theoretical flaws in his energy balance.

Instead focus on more straightforward ones like the energy density he's using.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on January 06, 2013, 08:03:42 PM
I'll work on a list of items, but I would recommend being careful on the "to our satisfaction" clause.

What I mean is that he will at least have to provide an answer to each of the questions, even if the answers are wrong. He can't just ignore the questions or dismiss them as stupid or "off topic".


The phrase I like in this situation is "directly address."  Meaning that whatever he answers must be obviously (not "evidently") pertinent to the question to an informed reader or it's pertinence must be explained in the answer.    He needs to give specific answers and not wander from the point of the question.  We (ultimately LO) are the target informed reader.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Abaddon on January 06, 2013, 09:30:27 PM
Just my 2 cents.

1. LO is to be commended for his handling of heiwa.

2. It is probably unfair to post too much to the thread when heiwa has no right of reply. I know the suspension was self inflicted, but he will have one hell of a backlog to deal with after. (and may even use it as an excuse)

3. List of claims to which he must respond. Hmm. He still asks for the numbers, despite being handed the numbers multiple times. Feet to the flames on that one. Hold him to account. Still, a compiled list of outstanding questions which must be answered could be useful.

4. Heiwa can clearly learn, given the reported edits to his site on foot of conversations here. There may yet be hope. He just cannot bring himself to admit error as yet. The LES debacle comes to mind.

OK, that's 4 cents.





Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 09, 2013, 09:02:53 PM
I don't think it'll be a surprise to anyone that chrisbobson has been banned. I banned him at about 8am my time, but I was too busy with work today to do much else until now. I'm just reading his posts now and cleaning up some of the mess. I'm deleting any of his posts that were not responded to, but leaving the ones that were.

It's obvious that he's a sock puppet of a well known internet troll, but even if I'm wrong about that he still flooded the forum with over 80 posts in an hour. Anyone who is seriously interested in having a discussion would not do that because their earliest posts would be so deeply buried by the more recent ones that it would be counterproductive.

He's already tried to re-register, but now that I know the IP range of his proxy server it was easy enough to recognize him.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on January 10, 2013, 02:03:42 AM
Can you put posting limits on New members?
Title: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 10, 2013, 07:43:32 AM
I'm not sure, I'll take a look.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 14, 2013, 09:28:10 PM
Heiwa has been banned for 7 days for insulting the members of the forum and for ignoring my warnings to not try to moderate the discussion (which is what got him banned last time).

He made several posts today, some of which I decided to approve (but just barely). I have copied the unapproved posts to this post to demonstrate that he is trying to provoke me into banning him.

He wants to be able to brag to his friends that I had to ban him in order to prevent him from publishing his "proof" here. So this is what I'm going to do. If he insults the members or violates any rules after being warned not to, he'll get another 7 day ban. If he follows the rules and is polite to the other members of the forum I will allow him to post. That means it is entirely up to him whether his "message" is published here. If he gets banned he'll be back in 7 days for another try. Maybe he'll eventually realize that the only thing preventing him from spreading his message is his behaviour. It's like trying to train a puppy not to pee on the carpet.

Here is the first post in which he insults the intelligence of Zakalwe:

I wonder will he (Heiwa) come back on here after he has had his a*se resoundably handed to him in quite such a manner.

I just want to assist you winning my Challenge - see post #1 - but I wonder if you manage it.

In the next post he tries to warn Daggerstab not to post off topic. Now, I've warned him enough times not to do that, so I have to wonder... is he trying to provoke me or is he just too stupid to understand simple instructions?


Heiwa, I suggest looking up the ownership of the different components of the ISS and who put them up there. I guess it will be a surprise to you that there is a sizable Russian part. I also suggest updating your page, because it talks about the Dragon's flight to the ISS in future tense, and it's already old news. You also seem to be unaware of the initial Dragon flight and reentry that didn't go to the ISS. For your education, here's SpaceX's website:
http://www.spacex.com/

Thanks for visiting my web page about Moon travel. Yes, I know SpaceX' Dragon module allegedly landed in the Pacific just outside LA, after a visit to the ISS October 2012 - I describe the preparations/link for it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#EM .

The Dragon re-entry is just copy/paste of the Soyuz re-entry that I describe in detail, i.e. both are impossible. Part of my Challenge - see post #1 - is to demonstrate that they are possible and that I am wrong. Try to stay on topic, pls.

Followed by another post in which he insults the intelligence of the members of this forum:


Heiwa, does that include the people on this forum? Who do you think gets paid by the military here?

Judging from the last 200-300 posts in this thread I think many people on this forum are not very intelligent or clever but as they all hide behind strange xyz123 masks I do not really care. I just notice they have all failed my Challenge - post # 1.

And then a post where he insults the members of the forum and warns Frenat to stay on topic. A two-for-one violation.

  He appears to have his own cheering section that is just as clueless as he is. 

Appears! I am very popular. Are you jealous? Or sorry that you cannot win my Challenge? See post # 1.
Pls, try to stay on topic! Moaning and groaning about stupid things you do not understand is ... off topic.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: sts60 on January 15, 2013, 01:29:09 PM
Nice job applying the rolled-up newspaper of suspension (or temporary ban).  I agree, do not permanently ban him.  Let's see if he is capable of learning the rules, and besides, what other kitty toys are there to play with right now?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on January 15, 2013, 01:34:42 PM
Does it have to be a week?  Think of our amusement.
Title: Banned members
Post by: Sus_pilot on January 15, 2013, 01:48:20 PM
Nice job applying the rolled-up newspaper of suspension (or temporary ban).  I agree, do not permanently ban him.  Let's see if he is capable of learning the rules, and besides, what other kitty toys are there to play with right now?

Agreed.  Besides, as has been mentioned, it's clear to me that he wants to be banned.  Why give him the satisfaction?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: RAF on January 15, 2013, 06:14:35 PM
...and besides, what other kitty toys are there to play with right now?

Now that's just plain evil...I like it. :D
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 03, 2013, 10:21:39 PM
alexsanchez has been permanently banned for trolling. He even admits to it here:

Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money. 

I really don't understand the point of trolling. Why would anyone intentionally make themselves look stupid just to provoke people into answering questions? Is it supposed to be embarrassing for us some how? I really only see it as embarrassing to the troll.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: ka9q on February 03, 2013, 10:41:16 PM
I really don't understand the point of trolling. Why would anyone intentionally make themselves look stupid just to provoke people into answering questions? Is it supposed to be embarrassing for us some how? I really only see it as embarrassing to the troll.
There's a reason most trolls remain anonymous.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on February 03, 2013, 10:56:31 PM
I really think they think they're bothering us a lot more than they do.  I go most of my day without even thinking about these twits unless I'm actually on the board at the time.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on February 03, 2013, 11:19:32 PM
And in the meantime, we learnt a lot about rendezvous.

I thought he was fun until he gave up all pretenses.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on February 04, 2013, 07:18:27 AM
I really don't understand the point of trolling.
It is hard to understand.  My observation is that it is an attempt to bring down people that know something.  After that fails trolling turns into a perverse form of performance art designed to "force" us to  jump through hoops. It certainly is an obsession for some trolls that make one wonder about how they deal with the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: twik on February 05, 2013, 12:00:26 PM
I really don't understand the point of trolling. Why would anyone intentionally make themselves look stupid just to provoke people into answering questions? Is it supposed to be embarrassing for us some how? I really only see it as embarrassing to the troll.

Well, I think on many boards, particularly those with a paranormal or conspiracy bent, trolling can induce other members to melt down in spectacular explosions of ranting and namecalling that, to some people, must be entertaining.

The problem is on this board, you don't get people screaming "YOU SPAWN OF SATIN!!1!!!," you get people saying, "No, you're wrong, and here's why." So, the only entertainment would be, presumably, saying something ridiculous, and being told why it's ridiculous. Over and over again. Which is why our trolls usually flounce away, finding little to chew on.
Title: Re: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on February 05, 2013, 12:10:31 PM
I really don't understand the point of trolling. Why would anyone intentionally make themselves look stupid just to provoke people into answering questions? Is it supposed to be embarrassing for us some how? I really only see it as embarrassing to the troll.

Well, I think on many boards, particularly those with a paranormal or conspiracy bent, trolling can induce other members to melt down in spectacular explosions of ranting and namecalling that, to some people, must be entertaining.

The problem is on this board, you don't get people screaming "YOU SPAWN OF SATIN!!1!!!," you get people saying, "No, you're wrong, and here's why." So, the only entertainment would be, presumably, saying something ridiculous, and being told why it's ridiculous. Over and over again. Which is why our trolls usually flounce away, finding little to chew on.

Alex isn't the spawn on satin. He may have been the spawn of hemp though.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Stout Cortez on February 06, 2013, 01:45:23 PM
Takes me back to an English class in which we read and had to write about Milton's Paradise Lost. Our professor sternly warned us he would fail "any paper about Satin and the Fallen Angles." Though, he mused, that might make a good band name.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on February 06, 2013, 02:08:23 PM
Actually, I had a classmate in college whose name was Satin.  I don't think her parents realized they'd given her a stripper name.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on February 06, 2013, 02:26:05 PM
Actually, I had a classmate in college whose name was Satin.  I don't think her parents realized they'd given her a stripper name.
So her children really would be the Spawn of Satin.  Could be worse. 
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: AtomicDog on March 05, 2013, 07:47:50 PM
alexsanchez has been permanently banned for trolling. He even admits to it here:

Calling me a troll hurts my feelings.

Feelings?...no, you get some sick pleasure by "jerking our chains".

I don't think You even believe the things you say...you just "get off" on watching us react.

How sick is that?
This is the first comment that is right on the money. 

I really don't understand the point of trolling. Why would anyone intentionally make themselves look stupid just to provoke people into answering questions? Is it supposed to be embarrassing for us some how? I really only see it as embarrassing to the troll.

Guess who has discovered the David Icke forum?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Grashtel on March 05, 2013, 08:54:47 PM
Guess who has discovered the David Icke forum?
Everyone's favorite doctor with an unlimited supply of sockpuppets?  Well from what I have seen of that forum he should feel at home there and maybe it will stop his periodic attemts to get onto CQ and other places.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 15, 2013, 08:10:26 AM
Heiwa / Believer has been banned for sock puppetry, trolling, insulting people (ie. comparing them to Nazis), and refusing to provide evidence for his claims.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on April 15, 2013, 08:12:41 AM
It was fun while it lasted.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Not Myself on April 15, 2013, 08:30:25 AM
I really don't understand the point of trolling.

I don't either, but every person I've ever met exhibits some kind of behaviour whose point I don't quite understand.  I should probably include myself within that category.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 20, 2013, 12:01:23 AM
anywho has been permanently banned for posting graphic images of people who suffered serious injuries in the Boston marathon bombing.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2013, 12:36:34 AM
Boy, am I glad I missed that.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Count Zero on April 20, 2013, 01:48:35 AM
Margamatix?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Peter B on April 20, 2013, 06:41:54 AM
anywho has been permanently banned for posting graphic images of people who suffered serious injuries in the Boston marathon bombing.
How stylish...

Glad I'm not a mod.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Andromeda on April 20, 2013, 07:31:03 AM
Boy, am I glad I missed that.

Me too.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: AtomicDog on April 20, 2013, 08:31:58 AM
Boy, am I glad I missed that.

Me too.

I didn't.

Ugh.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on April 20, 2013, 09:31:09 AM
Margamatix?

It seemed that way to me.  If not him, it must have been his cousin.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on September 23, 2013, 10:43:59 PM
Heiwa has been banned (again). This time it's permanent.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 16, 2015, 10:39:54 AM
Romulus has been banned for repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum and for making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Echnaton on February 16, 2015, 12:18:13 PM
It was only a matter of time.  A waist of an opportunity on his part. 
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: BazBear on February 16, 2015, 03:58:59 PM
It was only a matter of time.  A waist of an opportunity on his part.
It was a classic suicide by mod/admin. And due to LO's admirable patience, it was a death of a thousand cuts.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Luke Pemberton on February 16, 2015, 04:07:48 PM
And due to LO's admirable patience, it was a death of a thousand cuts.

It has to be said, LO is very generous with his moderation/banning. This one was deserved. I think again we all behaved reasonably well and everyone was a credit to the forum. I think in the end we all helped push him by highlighting his -isms and -phobias. He couldn't resist, and this was clear with the little glimpse that LO gave of his final messages.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Peter B on February 18, 2015, 07:19:36 AM
Romulus has been banned for repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum and for making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments.

Darn it. I guess I won't find out his brilliant explanation for the Apollo rocks...
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: frenat on February 18, 2015, 11:40:26 AM
Romulus has been banned for repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum and for making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments.
Based on how all of his brilliant insights are just plagiarized from other hoax authors, I'm betting if he ever got around to it that it would have something to do with a "radiation oven".
Darn it. I guess I won't find out his brilliant explanation for the Apollo rocks...
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Abaddon on February 18, 2015, 03:29:47 PM
Romulus has been banned for repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum and for making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments.
Based on how all of his brilliant insights are just plagiarized from other hoax authors, I'm betting if he ever got around to it that it would have something to do with a "radiation oven".
Darn it. I guess I won't find out his brilliant explanation for the Apollo rocks...
A quick trip to GLP will set you right.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Peter B on February 19, 2015, 05:30:23 AM
Romulus has been banned for repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum and for making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments.
Based on how all of his brilliant insights are just plagiarized from other hoax authors, I'm betting if he ever got around to it that it would have something to do with a "radiation oven".
Darn it. I guess I won't find out his brilliant explanation for the Apollo rocks...
A quick trip to GLP will set you right.

Oh? He has an explanation for the Apollo rocks?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Abaddon on February 19, 2015, 09:04:34 AM
Romulus has been banned for repeatedly insulting the other members of the forum and for making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments.
Based on how all of his brilliant insights are just plagiarized from other hoax authors, I'm betting if he ever got around to it that it would have something to do with a "radiation oven".
Darn it. I guess I won't find out his brilliant explanation for the Apollo rocks...
A quick trip to GLP will set you right.

Oh? He has an explanation for the Apollo rocks?
Von Braun's Antartic meteorites, but he is currently stuck in his "searing radiation hell" rut so he hasn't gone there lately.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on October 01, 2015, 01:28:32 PM
I have placed Tindarormkimcha under moderation until I have time to get caught up on his thread. I will then decide whether to keep him under moderation or to ban him for trolling.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Abaddon on October 01, 2015, 06:22:19 PM
I have placed Tindarormkimcha under moderation until I have time to get caught up on his thread. I will then decide whether to keep him under moderation or to ban him for trolling.
Please don't. He is terribly amusing.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2015, 06:27:47 PM
I have placed Tindarormkimcha under moderation until I have time to get caught up on his thread. I will then decide whether to keep him under moderation or to ban him for trolling.
Please don't. He is terribly amusing.
I don't know.  I could program a bot to scream everything is fake and accuse everyone of ad hominems.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Abaddon on October 01, 2015, 06:33:31 PM
I have placed Tindarormkimcha under moderation until I have time to get caught up on his thread. I will then decide whether to keep him under moderation or to ban him for trolling.
Please don't. He is terribly amusing.
I don't know.  I could program a bot to scream everything is fake and accuse everyone of ad hominems.
Yabbut chew toy.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bknight on October 01, 2015, 06:40:51 PM
I have placed Tindarormkimcha under moderation until I have time to get caught up on his thread. I will then decide whether to keep him under moderation or to ban him for trolling.
Please don't. He is terribly amusing.
I don't know.  I could program a bot to scream everything is fake and accuse everyone of ad hominems.
Yabbut chew toy.
You read my mind, I was going to post that he was a bot!!!
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: frenat on October 01, 2015, 08:16:13 PM
I have placed Tindarormkimcha under moderation until I have time to get caught up on his thread. I will then decide whether to keep him under moderation or to ban him for trolling.
Please don't. He is terribly amusing.
I don't know.  I could program a bot to scream everything is fake and accuse everyone of ad hominems.
Yabbut chew toy.
You read my mind, I was going to post that he was a bot!!!
No that would be DavidC/Rocky/Cosmored.  On the various forums he is still active if you accuse him of being a bot he'll ignore you and disappear for a while.  It is quite comical.  He will NEVER deny the accusation or even respond to it.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bknight on October 01, 2015, 08:23:49 PM

No that would be DavidC/Rocky/Cosmored.  On the various forums he is still active if you accuse him of being a bot he'll ignore you and disappear for a while.  It is quite comical.  He will NEVER deny the accusation or even respond to it.
Ancient history to me.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bknight on November 15, 2015, 02:50:11 PM
I've been reviewing http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487 and he does exhibit the characteristics you described, continually harping on Mike Collins jacket movement in zero G vs. in gravity.  He seems to be rather dense.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on February 06, 2016, 12:48:03 PM
tradosaurus has been permanently banned for trolling and not answering questions from other members. The final straw was when he posted a conspiracy theory about the Challenger accident in a thread setup as a memorial for the astronauts.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bknight on February 06, 2016, 12:55:56 PM
tradosaurus has been permanently banned for trolling and not answering questions from other members. The final straw was when he posted a conspiracy theory about the Challenger accident in a thread setup as a memorial for the astronauts.
Thanks, the post was in very poor taste, but in keeping with his observed behavior
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: DD Brock on February 06, 2016, 01:58:41 PM
tradosaurus has been permanently banned for trolling and not answering questions from other members. The final straw was when he posted a conspiracy theory about the Challenger accident in a thread setup as a memorial for the astronauts.

Thank you, LO. Most of his posts were mildly amusing trolling, but that one was over the line IMO. Feel free to delete my response to him in that thread.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bknight on February 11, 2016, 09:01:46 AM
I've been reviewing http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487 and he does exhibit the characteristics you described, continually harping on Mike Collins jacket movement in zero G vs. in gravity.  He seems to be rather dense.
He is still active around a 13 May 15 posting more BS YT video links.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 23, 2016, 08:47:41 PM
I have banned Scott, it is pretty clear he is just a sock puppet of DavidC/Rocky who was first banned all the way back in 2007.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: Glom on June 23, 2016, 09:04:26 PM
Just out of curiousity, how many HB's are still not banned?
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 23, 2016, 09:17:05 PM
It's hard to say since we can't know for sure how many HBs there are. Are there a hundred of them, or is it just one guy with a hundred different false identities? The fact that they create so many sock puppet accounts tells us a lot about their level of honesty.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: AtomicDog on June 23, 2016, 09:25:30 PM
It's hard to say since we can't know for sure how many HBs there are. Are there a hundred of them, or is it just one guy with a hundred different false identities? The fact that they create so many sock puppet accounts tells us a lot about their level of honesty.

Interesting that Scott registered on March 6, 2012, but he never posted until today.

Males me wonder how many other socks he has lying around here dormant.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: smartcooky on June 23, 2016, 10:03:28 PM
It's hard to say since we can't know for sure how many HBs there are. Are there a hundred of them, or is it just one guy with a hundred different false identities? The fact that they create so many sock puppet accounts tells us a lot about their level of honesty.

I think there are a comparatively small number of HBs around the internet generally, but some of them a very prolific, givng the impression that they are rife.

If you look at the number of HBs that turn up on ISF, its very small, and they usually get piled upon rather quickly.

I'm also convinced that there are far more HB usernames than their are users, and yes, I agree that Scott was very likely a sockpuppet of cosmored et al. The posting style was obvious.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: bknight on June 23, 2016, 10:34:01 PM
I have banned Scott, it is pretty clear he is just a sock puppet of DavidC/Rocky who was first banned all the way back in 2007.
Didn't even last a day, but he should have known as he has been banned way before I joined.
Title: Re: Banned members
Post by: BazBear on June 23, 2016, 11:50:14 PM
I have banned Scott, it is pretty clear he is just a sock puppet of DavidC/Rocky who was first banned all the way back in 2007.
The Hoaxer of a Thousand Names returns! But, as usual, not for long. ;D