Jason, he could communicate with any one of you any way he likes.

Then I choose to communicate with them in the context of a well-mannered but otherwise unrestricted public debate. If you agree that this is and ought to be a group effort on both sides of the question, then I simply require the collaboration to be overt and transparent.

Our rules clearly restrict what can be said that is irrelevant to the point at hand. I am suspicious of any rule that restricts what relevant items can be discussed, and in what way. That can only serve to hurt the discovery of truth.

The debate I envision is the ONLY fair way to go about it.

Unfair to what? To your interests or to the truth? We have been practicing fairness here successfully for many years without the need to muzzle any who have pertinent contributions on either side.

I'll be frank: your concerns about fairness are being addressed reasonably and in good faith by all comers, but you seem fixated on the notion that the only reason I would object to a one-on-one debate is my own personal fear of defeat. You stated that preconception in your first post, and you have reiterated it subsequently. In the interest of complete openness, I'll venture my opinion that your overture skirts dangerously close to the classic false-dilemma ploy.

If I accept your offer, then you might get to pretend your ideas were meaningfully tested by having subjected them to "the expert," and any prevalence that follows from my inevitable individual shortcomings gets touted as a legitimate justification of the idea regardless of its posture against truth that some other contributor may have been able to argue. In other words, you get a straw-man vindication of your claims. As I've argued at length, I don't agree with that approach.

And if I refuse on whatever grounds, you can insinuate that I am a coward afraid to face your devastating facts and withering reason.

Your bluff -- if indeed it is a bluff -- is slowly being called. The false-dilemma ploy requires a false pretense. In this case the false pretense appears to be concerns over fairness and even numbers. Although you have received a number of assurances, examples, and arguments pertinent to even-handedness, you continue to beg the question that your set of imposed rules is the only way to ensure fairness and that I must be a coward if I don't consent to them. Your putatively reasonable pretense is giving way to the suspicion that you're trying to stack the deck.

Because the foregoing is a matter of interpretation and judgment, I am obviously willing to entertain the possibility it may be wrong. If I have mistaken your motives, now is the time to clarify them and explain your previous statements that led me to that opinion.

We have counterproposed that you begin your presentation anyway under our current rules. If those rules are thus proven to safeguard your interests, then it will be shown that your fears were unjustified and you will be on as equal a ground as you proposed to create with your special rules. If, on the other hand, it turns into the free-for-all you feared, then you will have obtained the empirical proof of your original suspicion.

In other words, you don't have anything to lose by taking us up.

Is there an ulterior motive in that proposal? Yes, there is. It is to compel you to subject your ideas to a real-world standard of proof, which requires survival against all well-formed criticism, not merely a cherry-picked subset of it. The ulterior motive is, frankly, to put your ideas' feet to the fire. Fairly, of course, but rigorously.

You have one representative to represent your views, and I have one, myself.

I do not represent anyone's views but my own. We all collectively embody a knowledge of the pertinent facts, therefore where facts are intended to predominate, the full range of them must be accepted.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Perhaps we can simply ask the members to simply keep the noise level down? No snippy attempts at humour, non sequiturs, nitpicking spelling errors etc - it's fun, but it gets very unruly, like a committee meeting without a chairman. Perhaps a parallel thread for discussion and other fluff? All this is not only to accommodate IDW, but also to make the debate a more interesting read.

A tip to avoid answering the same question many times: Use the "advanced" reply form, and hit "preview post" before posting - below your new post, you can see any new replies to the thread that might already address the issue.

And lastly, another welcome to IDW. I must say, if you're the same person that was active on GLP a few years back, I'm pleasantly surprised by the change in tone. I hope you'll follow through with starting a debate here - I always learn something new when forced to reexamine my views.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Actually, I don't have a problem with that...I do have a problem being told not to post my opinion.

Sounds like you are describing a public discussion board.

See, that's the thing...why should we "accommodate" IDW?

As Jay posted earlier, this board has practiced fairness successfully for many years. Now a Moon hoax proponent arrives on the board and says "the way you do things here is not fair to me", and we're suddenly suppose to change how this board is run??

I don't think so...

Any chance someone will actually claim here a conspiracy theory, and attempt to defend it, in this topic in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, or are y'all (including me) just gonna talk about talking about one, who would do it, how it would be done -- as would fit better in About BAUT?

Step up, please.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

All very well said R.A.F.

One other observation. When the discussion starts off seriously and politely, I think this treads pretty much stay focused on the straight and narrow. They only tend to get noisy (puns, humor, etc.) when the HBer fails to answer questions, get snappy or insulting, or just goes away. They then to wander around until they die. If IDW wants to keep us focused, then keep the debate focused.

I think there is a mistake made that this forum is a democracy. It is not; free-speach rules don't apply. It is owned by Misters BA and Fraser and we are all here under their benevolent dictatorship, governed by their moderators. If you don't like their rules, don't write to your congressman or MP, take it elsewhere.

On the flip side, it is one of the most civil, fair forums I have been around. I enjoy it a lot.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

Then again, how often do hoax proponents show up willing to discuss individual points calmly and rationally until resolution is reached? You have to at least admit it's a tantalizing prospect to study a rare bird like this.

It may turn out to be a smokescreen, but I don't think it's asking too much for the regulars to just ease up off the accelerator a bit. At least for starters.

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

If this board had been set up for "one on one debates," I think Phil would have called it a "combat arena" or "boxing ring" instead of a "forum."

My impression? A few dozen times over the years. They usually get converted.

But I could be wrong.

I'm not convinced that is IDW's purpose. We'll know by his demeanor when he returns.

I reserve the right to say "I told you so" when/if things go bad.

The first rule of BAUT is you don't talk about BAUT.

__________________
"Time travel gives me a headache." - Capt. Kathryn Janeway

I have two main 'issues' that I feel were never properly addressed anywhere. We'll do your trial run on a seperate thread that I will post shortly.

Since I do not have nor have I ever had detailed blueprints of the Apollo spacecraft, concentrating on details that are dependant on the proper interpretation of said drawings is impossible in my opinion. It would be an excercise in futility on my part, as past experience has shown. There are basic laws of physics that can be used, however, that apply to all technology. There is also a 140gb HD full of real, solid evidence in the public domain.

You create your own reality, sir. The only thing is, you want to drag me into yours! Be civil and you will be treated well. If you expect criticism like this to go unresponded to, ban me right now!

I appologize, I quoted the wrong individual. I tryed to delete it but it's still there.

My response above was to this individual. I do believe we create our own realities, partly by who we share them with!

Be cool. I know we all know what that means.

So you think a 'battle royal' is a better idea?
LMAO!
I've been in such debates before, and no one is watching my back here. I know how it will go, with all due respect.

Really?

Who was the last one, and did he stick to his promise?

__________________
Apollo unbelievers go here for immediate salvation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

"I had a hand in Tom Morrow's kiester."
-JayUtah

"The only physical proof nasa has that they landed men on the moon is 840 lbs. of rocks"
-straydog02

I am on the fence on the Apollo saga, always have been since I argued against it's truth. I feel in order to prove it one way or another to myself that it was possible, the hardest possible quesitions must be asked, and answered.
If questions remain unanswered, Apollo remains in doubt in my mind. It is as simple as that and no amount of discussion will alter that opinion.

And we have seen a very large number of HBers come and go through here. You claim you'll behave differently. Fine. I (as well as most of us) am willing to accept that claim on faith until you have shown otherwise, despite the nearly invariable misbehavior of those you came before you. (Many times in the past we've accepted on faith, until shown otherwise, that they would behave themselves.)

I ask only you accord us that same courtesy. This isn't GLP. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, our rules explicitly prohibit the sort of behavior you seem to fear.

Can we please get on with it?

__________________
[Dr. Horrible]___________________________[Penny]
Listen close to everybody's heart________And you believe there's good in everybody's heart
And hear that breaking sound_____________Keep it safe and sound
Hopes and dreams are shattering apart____With hope you can do your part
And crashing to the ground_______________To turn a life around

I could be wrong and I appologize in advance if I am, butt appears to me you are attempting to instigate a fight before we ever get started by sterotyping me as a nutcase. I think if you want to be treated well, you should suggest by example, as I have. Administrators should remove this post and the one that is quoted on it . They are irrelevant to the discussion.