Well, it seems that we have generated an entirely new article by Lisa G.

"The Babel Magazine" - April 7, 2002:

http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/iss...rea51moon.html

Headline:

"JFK, Area 51, & the Moon" - More NASA Lies? (and the thugs who love me) "

Quote:

"Ready for more lunar conspiracy? It seems my last article on the Apollo 11 moon hoax was slow to garner any attention from the goons-that-be, but once the dis-info freaks picked up on it, they have been chomping at the bit (and my butt, for that matter) like rabid dogs. Well, I guess we'll see them continue to foam at the mouth about this one. With that encouraging image in mind, I lovingly dedicate this article to my new lunar-stalker fan club who serenade me daily like dying cattle on the windswept prairie. You thugs know who you are. Chew on this for a while. "

And we are ALSO mentioned as:

"my lunar-freak fan club"

"these cud-chewing cows"

"pack of wolf-dogs"

"the peanut gallery"

"Mentally unbalanced thugs"

"my lunar freak-fans"

"My yapping lunar-goon-mutts"

And so on and so forth ... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

URL:

http://www.victorthorn.com/babel/iss...rea51moon.html

"William The Conqueror"


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: William the Conqueror on 2002-04-22 18:49 ]</font>

Well, I for one personally feel that being insulted by a person like Lisa G. is a great sign that we're doing something right! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

The (ad hominem is the real last refuge of scoundrels) Curtmudgeon

It only proves she loves us dearly.

Hey, I never did anything to garner her wrath!

Well, okay, so my computer crashed just before I could hit the [Submit] button and the thread had been removed when I got back up, but still, I feel her invective is obviously aimed you other moon-doggies.

(Gosh, the Asimov quote never seemed so relevant!)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Well, it's at this point that I personally realized that nothing, absolutely NOTHING the BA or anybody else can say to her is going to convince her otherwise:
So, there you have it, guys--she's a Born Again Conspiracy Theorist, as paranoid as all getout.

Give it up, guys, the Forces Of Reason don't have a snowball's chance in Hades with this one.

"Pick battles you can win."

Dang, that's an Asmimov quote? I thought I made it up.

First Ms. Guliani cozies up to Bart Sibrel and claims with supreme bravado that man has never walked on the moon, no way, no how. Now she's steeped herself in David Percy's elixir of paranoia and so now her opinion has changed: "I KNOW that men went to the moon," she writes. "What I do NOT believe is that American men went to the moon AS PRESENTED to the public in the summer of 1969 with respect to the Apollo 11 lunar mission." At this rate, when she gets to Hoagland's material she'll be claiming that the missions were as portrayed, but they found the alien castles.

Ms. Guliani derision seems matched only by her weak-mindedness. How quickly she dumps Sibrel when a more attractive delusion comes along.

She sums up: "Their [meaning 'our'] 'arguments' become less and less about moon missions, reeking more and more of viciousness and malevolence." Well, Ms. Guliani, we tried the evidence first, but you specifically declined to talk about it. You wouldn't come here to discuss it, although you didn't mind coming here to call us names. You wouldn't let us discuss the evidence at Babel's forum.

We have answers for what you say are "damning" questions. We'll be happy to give them to you. And we'll even offer you a word of advice: It's not a good idea to try to preach against ad hominism while calling your opponents, "lapping lunar-goon-mutts."

From the qrticle: "With one exception, the entire pack of wolf-dogs railroaded direct personal attacks against me." Make that two exceptions.

Also: "My curiosity is peaked though, because if I am SO WRONG in what I'm saying, then why are THEY giving me SO MUCH ATTENTION? Why not simply ignore me?"

Maybe because we disagree.

<a name="20020423.4:14"> page 20020423.4:14 aka HUb' prop B4 5:
On 2002-04-23 05:44, GrapesOfWrath wrote: To:




Maybe because we disagree.


4:16 A.M. well i'll reEdit this some other day

This woman is a piece of work! She seems to have no interest in any kind of rational discussion, so I suggest we leave her to her paranoid rants and not rise to the bait. If it's not possible to have anything more than a one-sided discussion with her, she can characterize us any way she chooses and there's no recourse. She's clearly afraid to even indicate in her story who the enemy is that she repeatedly insults. BABB isn't mentioned - or even alluded to in a way that might lead anyone here. I guess she wouldn't want any of her readers to do their own investigation. Great investigative journalism, Ms. Guliani. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-04-23 12:11 ]</font>

"Heads", she wins. "Tails", we lose. If we ignore her, she has shut us up. If we respond (no mater how politely), she gets to unleash another vitriolic diatribe. Sweet racket she's got, huh?

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I guess we should feel insulted now but considering it's another new article from Lisa G, I don't think I can. That part about the clues in the James Bond movie are hilarious. In her next article she'll probably prove Paul McCartney actually died in 1966 and was replaced with a look-alike Beatle so they could keep making records.

I sent Babel an email basically asking that Lisa tell her readers where to find the "lunar goons" (or whatever her term was for us BABB folks). My pitch was she should credit her readers with enough intelligence to do their own research. I doubt she'll answer me, but if she does, and if she agrees to mention BABB, we may get some new cannon fodder around here.
I just wish she'd join - bad fingers, why did you type that???!!!!!!!!!!

I am curious as to how many attempted to visit her site and post responses to her initial article? How many will attempt to respond to this newest one? Why is ignoring her going to be seen as shutting anyone up? Will anyone here be hurt by her feelings of superiority?

I am curious as to how many attempted to visit her site and post responses to her initial article?

As I mentioned, the thread had been removed before I could post a response. As I recall, there was one person defending her and two rebutting. Sounds kinda thin-skinned, so maybe there were more. I don't know how many e-mails she got.

How many will attempt to respond to this newest one?

Not me... waste of time. (See below.)

Why is ignoring her going to be seen as shutting anyone up?

Responding to her simply gives her another target for her invective. No responses, no targets. She may decide to write an article about "those cowards at the BABB", but... consider the source. This is a woman who is so insecure in herself that she cannot allow any, any public criticism of her opinions and must respond to it with childish name-calling. (Ad hominem is far more mature than what she is doing.)

Will anyone here be hurt by her feelings of superiority?

Not me. She spouts public feelings of superiority, but that usually just masks private feelings of inferiority. Look at the drooling cadre of admirers she has surrounding her; they keep reinforcing that she can do no wrong. And when someone tells her she is wrong, she deletes them, bans them, and attacks them.

I should care what she thinks about me? Sorry, I have better ways to spend my time... like rinsing out my shorts.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I find I have her last response to me pulled up. It was the response by which I determined that she was not interested in debating the facts as it would interfere with her understanding. She is a journalist but somehow claims complete understanding of scientific processes. I am really tempted to send her a reply.

__________________
Valiant Dancer