I'm sorry but this just takes the cake. I've got to protest this one.

Yeah, no kidding, because discussing space politics is specifically not a violation of the rules:

But I wouldn't blame a newbie reading the very same thread for coming up with the opposite conclusion!

Well, there are other differences besides the fact that my post has to do with space politics, and the other does not:

1. my post is pro-American and on topic, whereas the other post consists of off topic, gratutous America-bashing;
2. I wrote my post, and someone else wrote the other post.

Antoniseb was an active participant in that thread, and my post was sandwiched in between the above, so he must have read that. Yet, surely it's the case that non-space related, off topic America-bashing is a violoation of the no politics rule. Therefore, that cannot be the reason I was singled out.

Well, the mere rules have never stopped a moderator from doing whatever he or she really wants to do. E.g., that CT thread where I initially got banned for smugness, but since smugness per se is not against the rules the mods were tripping over each other generating about 20 different post hoc justifications. Actually, I'll admit there was a grain of truth to one or two of those justifications, but those justifications were not the real reasons. The real reason was what ToSeek said it was: smugness. So true to form "Forming opinions as we speak" Antoniseb came up with a different, post hoc justification:

First of all, what does multiple mean? 2 or 3? And what is its relevance? Since when was bautforum.com a democracy?

Actually, never mind. But for the record, I was not "looking for a fight". Antoniseb, instead of trying to read my mind, you could have just asked me. You could have said "Hey Warren, are you looking for a fight?"

And I would have said I was merely responding to people above who in one breath were complaining about high military budgets on the one hand, and the slow pace of lunar exploration on the other. Thus I pointed out a simple solution to the conundrum: get the military into the act. But of course the only strategic goal worthy of the military would be the traditional military task of establishing use and occupation in order to defend a claim of national sovereignty.

I would have said the idea that the world would be better off as a result was not mine originally: USAF General Homer Bouchey said the same thing in the 1950's.

And I would have asked anyone interested to indulge in a little counterfactual speculation and consider an alternate history wherein the USA did not sign the OST, but instead followed through on its original plan to claim the Moon (Yes, that was the original justification cf. Space Review Pt I and Pt II). What would the world be like?

1. There would have been a continuous human presence on the Moon since the 1970's;
2. lunar geology, and by extension the early history of Earth and the entire Solar System would have been revolutionized;
3. we would know where valuable mineral deposits could be found;
4. there would be entire journals dedicated to nothing but lunar geology;
5. there would be an infrastructure in place now capable of routine flights to the Moon at least as often as they now go the ISS;
   super-rich space tourists would be walking on the Moon;
   the Moon would be American territory in perpetuity.

Now, I can understand why many people would consider the above scenario to be a worse situation than the present situation of no one at all on the Moon for 50 years or more. But surely it's not the case that the opposite opinion is so morally and repugnantly beyond the pale that it cannot be discussed at all! It's not as if I seriously proposed solving the world's overpopulation problem through nuclear genocide.

That would rightly engender legitimate righteous indignation. The problem is that some people can't tell the difference between legitimate righteous indignation and the normal annoyance that happens whenever educated people reach an honest, if disagreable, impasse.

Take for example this post:
I'm a geologist by training (among other things), so when I read posts like that, it makes me feel upset. What is lunar geology (and by extension the early history of the Earth and the Solar System)? Chopped liver? If robotic probes are so wonderful, why haven't we sent any rovers to the Moon? Could it be that there is absolutely nothing that a rover could accomplish no matter how many thousands of days it lasts that a handful of test pilots didn't accomplish 40 years ago in a few days? It makes me feel tempted to yell: WHO ARE YOU TO DICTATE RESEARCH PRIORITIES WHEN YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! It makes me feel indignant. It seems as if Antoniseb is looking for a fight.

But then the rational part of my brain says "Simmer down, Warren. Antoniseb is entitled to his opinion. It's not as if he is advocating solving the world's overpopulation problem through nuclear genocide. It's probably best not to respond. That horse has been beat to death a thousand times before anyway. You're just going to have to agree to disagree. Just move on."

The thing is, that the Moon ought to be considered terra nullius rather than res communis has been discussed multiple times in this forum before. Here is an excerpt from my very first post at bautforum.com:

There, the very same idea I just got banned for. And guess who the first person to welcome me to bautforum.com was. Yep:
So what has changed?

1. The rules haven't changed;
2. the idea hasn't changed;
3. I haven't changed.

So I guess I must be on some sort of double secret probation. Secret because I haven't been notified that I'm on the dump list, and it's double secret in that I'm being held to rules that aren't written down anywhere. Basically, I'm being singled out, that's not fair, and it's really hurt my feelings!