simonshack » October 11th, 2016, 10:54 pm wrote:
daddie_o wrote:"I did get an answer from Miles about Simon's question, but I am now certain that the answer is B (and am also certain that is what Miles would answer)."
Sooo... you DID get an answer from Miles? Really? Aaand? Why won't you share MM's answer with us, daddie? Are your e-mails with MM shrouded in secrecy?
Simon, since you are waiting to ban me until I answer your question about Miles’s response, I will satisfy your burning curiosity so you can get it out of the way. But first I want to make some remarks.
First to VonCrowne: your assertion that I edited a comment on the http://pieceofmindful.com
blog is a bald-faced lie. I do contribute there, but it is Mark's blog, and I don’t have any administrative or editorial privileges and so cannot edit my comments. As for your comments about the research that Mark and Straight have done there, I welcome anybody reading this to go check it out. The work stands on its own and is sure to astound you, even if only 1/10th of the discoveries they’ve made are true.
To Vera Obscurata (VO): your “arguments” are just laughable and not even worth another .
It would not surprise me in the least if you deleted this post. It would fit with your general censorship at CF. There is no need to ban me, as you can rest assured this will be my last post here. The veil has been lifted, and I can see this forum for what it really is: a nest of misdirection cleverly disguised as a forum for “truth-seekers” who are far ahead of the conspiracy curve and willing to ask any question and pursue any truth to the end. You have exposed much truth here, to be sure, but your heavy-handed censorship and stifling of reasoned dissent has made it clear that certain topics are off limits. You are not prepared to ask all questions or pursue all truths.
Anybody reading this who isn’t a member of Simon’s goon squad should really ask themselves why certain topics are off limits and why Simon was so quick to lockdown the thread on Pi and to ban VexMan and, soon, myself (which I accept as a badge of honor). You should ask yourself whether this squelching of speech and reasoned debate might have a sort of chilling effect on the range of discourse “permitted” at CluesForum. It was none other than that font of misdirection known as Noam Chomsky who spelled out the formula of modern thought control: limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum. CluesForum follows the same recipe, but it’s hard to see until you bang up against those limits. Just search the forum for the word “banned” and you’ll begin to get a sense.
Simon, your stated reasons for closing down the thread on Pi are lame beyond belief. It’s amazing you think anybody would buy them. Let’s go through them, shall we?
First of all, the notion that you closed it down to “defuse any escalation of the most uncalled-for name&troll-calling antics that have been going on here.” Let’s put aside for now whether the ‘antics’ were uncalled for. Putting the thread on lockdown to de-escalate was a massive and unecessary overreaction. If you gave a rat’s ass about free and open debate you would have found a better way to remedy the problem. For example, you could have given us a warning telling us to tone it down ‘or else.’ That would have been a reasonable response. But instead you slapped a gag order on the thread and put it on lockdown like it was Boston after the hoaxathon. You know, tickets from Rome to Israel are not that expensive. You could have just hopped on a plane and come put some duct tape over my mouth yourself. Getting to Slovenia is even cheaper. I’m sure VexMan would be thrilled to see you.
Closing the thread was also hypocritical. You and your cronies don’t hesitate to mock and heap scorn upon people you disagree with. You can dish it out, but you suddenly rush in and start banning people when your orthodoxy is being attacked. You guys have itchy trigger fingers when it comes to calling out ‘typical troll behavior’ except when it’s your side acting like trolls.
Also hypocritical is the notion that you put the thread on lockdown to give ‘earnest readers and contributors a well-deserved mindfuck break.’ Seriously? I didn’t know anybody was being tied down and their eyelids propped open, forced to read the thread. If people don’t want the mindfuck, as you call it, they don’t have to read the thread. Or maybe we should thank you for protecting the delicate sensitivities of Cluesforum readers! What would we do without you, dear leader?
You have complained in the past that “Our 9/11 research has been ostracized, banned and censored from most 9/11 “truther” forums and websites.” Yet here you go doing the same to others. Apparently questioning whether rockets work in a vacuum or whether new personalities are CGI creations does not count as a mindfuck, though for most people both ideas are unfathomable. Apparently only some mindfucks are officially sanctioned by dear leader, Simon Shack. You have decided what counts as truth and what doesn’t. And hey, it’s your site you can do what you want. But don’t pretend to be an open-minded truth-seeker, because you are anything but.
As for “uncalled for” name&troll-calling tactics, consider the following: imagine having a conversation with somebody who insisted that 9/11 was a false flag but there really were planes and people really died. And you say ‘watch my video and read our research, you’ll see it was all faked.’ He responds ‘that’s crazy, what a preposterous idea.’ And you say, ‘no, really, watch the video, look at all the evidence we’ve compiled.’ And he resists. Refuses to watch September Clues or read any of your copious research but still keeps arguing with you, telling you that you must be mistaken. What would you conclude? That he’s a troll.
If he then agreed to watch a few minutes of something and you showed him that part in September Clues where you see split footage of the second plane coming in at totally different angles. Yet he insisted that it was the same angle, even though anybody can see with their own eyes that’s not true. What would you conclude? That he’s a troll.
And if he then agreed it appeared different but insisted that the difference was due to parallax or had to do with using different camera models. Imagine you patiently explained to him why those explanations don’t hold water, but he insisted it was those explanations or some combination of ‘whatever’ that explained it. What would you conclude? That he’s a troll.
Well that’s exactly what MongoApe did in our ‘debate’ about Pi issue. I concluded, naturally and quite justifiably, that he’s a troll. And it is clear that VO is cut from the same cloth but with a very slight
IQ advantage over Mongo.
In fact, I find it quite interesting that both Mongo and VO registered for the forum within a week of each other, and both of them said they specifically registered to comment on the Pi thread. From my experience on other sites, nothing brings the trolls out of the woodwork like a post that speaks positively about Miles’s physics work. Why the deliberate but obvious attempt to discredit that work? It makes you wonder if maybe they’re trying to hide something really important.
Given that your excuses for shutting down the forum are lame in the extreme, I can only conclude that you did so out of desperation, since it was clear that nobody could offer a single substantive critique of Miles’s body of work on Pi. Just lots of trollish antics and strawman arguments. And now you’re trying to fling every possible accusation at him and at us, hoping something will stick. The disinformation tactics on display here are a sight to behold. They’re also, I’m afraid to tell you, completely transparent.
You present yourself as a friendly, open minded, free-thinker with a towering intellect. But you have revealed yourself to be just the opposite: a sad little man with a vile personality; a close-minded authoritarian with a pea-sized brain. I admit that for a while your masterpiece, September Clues, had me fooled. But now I can see it was clearly a one-off, assuming it was even your work. You surround yourself with pompous sycophants and bully anyone who dissents with your established orthodoxy because you are too wrapped up in your own ego to consider that you might, just might, be wrong about something. When challenged you are quick to hurl insults, but God forbid somebody should even hint that maybe, just maybe, it is you who is—to use one of your favorite epithets—fecking stoopid. And when you’re out of ammunition, you lock down the discussion and ban those who challenge your orthodoxy. Pathetic.
Assuming you allow this post to stay up, which I sincerely doubt, I suppose you will reply. I want you to know that I’m not going to read it. I’m done with this place. You might as well piss in the wind.
Finally, to answer your question about what Miles answered me in his e-mail: I will tell you that he did not answer the question. As for what else he wrote, well, unlike you, I don’t share private e-mails in a public forum, so you’re just going to have to write him and ask him yourself what the answer is. Who knows, he might even deign to answer. But don’t be surprised if he ignores you; he saw through you long before I did.