Sportsmanship in Debates

[tholden]

Michael Mirken and Dave Smith might want to check this one out:

http://www.ideayouthforum.org/download/ ... debate.doc

The is no definition of sportsmanship in debates which includes the notion of locking threads the first time your side ever starts to lose one.

[CTJG 1986]

"the first time your side ever starts to lose one."

Huh? Where exactly was this?

If you are referring to your extremely off-topic ramblings on supposed evidence of Martian civilizations in the Catastrophic evolution vs "punctuated equilibrium" thread then it would seem you are the only one who thinks you were "winning" anything.


Though the idea of having debates on sites like these is usually about furthering collective knowledge, not "winning" or "losing".

All of your "evidence" is extremely speculative and most likely explained as image artifacts but because you have never seen artifacts exactly like those ones you say it can not be image artifacts and must then therefore be Martian cities.

Your logic is non-existent, yet you then attack others for supposedly doing the same thing you are doing -

any evidence of Mars civilization has to be a hoax because no Mars civilization evidence (which isn't a hoax) has ever been found.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6082&p=66417#p66417

I am one of the most open minded people around here but you have presented nothing even close to "evidence" for what you claim and do it in threads where it has no relevance and ignore the questions posed to you on it and just repost the same crap again and again.

And you call that 'winning' a debate or discussion?

I could very easily believe in the possibility of ancient Martian civilizations, but how those image anomalies you have repeatedly posted can be interpreted as a city of any kind that has survived in very orderly fashion for thousands or more years on a planet that has vast evidence of planet-wide cataclysmic events is beyond me?

Do you have a theory for that?

Did the alleged civilization create a big artificial bubble around the city that has protected it for thousands of years from not only cataclysmic events but the generally harsh atmospheric conditions on Mars?

When you actually present a theory of some kind that is actually plausible then you can have discussions and debates, as it is now most of your posts would only constitute off-topic 'trolling'.

Cheers,
Jonny

[tholden]

I am one of the most open minded people around here ...

That isn't obvious.....

[tholden]

Once again, you could do your own google search on medusa fossae or check this:

http://929bn.dk/

At some point those guys started building in protected areas as the image shows so that saying that nothing would have survived intact is simply wrong.

Further, this is the exact opposite of a "hoax". A hoax means creating evidence which isn't there; what's going on with ESA and NASA Mars images is people trying to hide stuff which IS there. The only way this could be a hoax is if people at both NASA and ESA were to be creating their own images and THEN blurring them so as to make it appear as if they were guilty of misconduct, and I don't see the motive for that.

[tholden]

Here's the deal. That thread in planetary science was titled 'catastrophic evolution vs. punk eek" and I mentioned the fact that GIVEN the last 15 years or so worth of these Mars images and the obvious implication that parts of our system were inhabited both by humans and other creatures in past ages, then Occam's principle demands that saltation from these other bodies be preferred to any version of evolution or animal life arising from dust which just sort of gets lucky on this planet. Splash saltation is certainly the best explanation there could be for the Cambrian explosion.

One or two other people have suggested that a splash saltation in our ancient system could in fact have occurred via one of the Birkeland currents which EU posits between planets, i.e. through a sort of a straw.

Moreover, I have been following these images closely for the past dozen years and have gone through the exercise of downloading raw ESA and NASA images and making the adjustments to brightness, contrast, an hues which change them from images of desert regions to images of cities and urban infrastructure.

Moreover again, I have done enough work with image encoding software to comprehend that no software artifacts could produce anything like those infrastructure images on Skipper's site or the European site I've linked show.

Thus the case I was trying to make on the other thread is perfectly straight up and legitimate. Locking the thread was not straight up or legitimate; over-moderated forums sooner or later fall apart and die, for obvious reasons.

[davesmith_au]

Thus the case I was trying to make on the other thread is perfectly straight up and legitimate. Locking the thread was not straight up or legitimate; over-moderated forums sooner or later fall apart and die, for obvious reasons.

Quite simply Ted, that thread was on the "Planetary Science" board, not the "Wild Unbridled Speculation" board. You are already given more room to move on our forum than you would on most, don't blow it by clogging up the more scientific boards with repetitive Speculative Nonsense Over The Top (SNOTT).

Dave.

[tholden]

Thus the case I was trying to make on the other thread is perfectly straight up and legitimate. Locking the thread was not straight up or legitimate; over-moderated forums sooner or later fall apart and die, for obvious reasons.

Quite simply Ted, that thread was on the "Planetary Science" board, not the "Wild Unbridled Speculation" board. You are already given more room to move on our forum than you would on most, don't blow it by clogging up the more scientific boards with repetitive Speculative Nonsense Over The Top (SNOTT).

Dave.

I might have been wrong, i.e. the reasons why over-moderated forums die might not have been completely obvious to all parties... I'll spell it out for you, the brains and talent all leave, and the over-moderated forum just sort of dries up and dies. Worst case as an example so far has been the FreeRepulic political forum.

[Lloyd]

* There may be a little too much moderation here at TB, but it doesn't seem significant to me. I'm concerned that there doesn't seem to be as many viewers as there used to be, but I don't think it's because of too much moderation, but maybe because people have gotten tired of forums and or because most forums, including this one, aren't organized in a way that people can understand the main arguments. And those who post good info probably get tired of their info moving out of sight into oblivion to later pages, off the front page. I guess that's a problem of the times, as it's now possible for everyone to share their views online and with more and more authors, there must be fewer and fewer readers of each author.
* By the way, Ted, would you like to have a discussion on a Google Document. A few of us have done that on the Electric Sun theory and it works pretty good, if there are knowledgeable people involved in the discussion. Do you know who else is knowledgeable on your subject? I'm a little knowledgeable, as I used to read Hoagland's site quite a bit. There were quite a few interesting images there that looked potentially artificial, though it doesn't seem wise to get too confident in mere images, since they often turn out to be illusions.
* Hoagland was confident that there were glass structures all over the Moon that were miles high, but were mostly hard to detect, because they were transparent and were in ruins. He thought the glass found on the moon was from such structures and didn't consider electrical causes of such glass, like Ralph Juergens did. But I remember an image of one area of the Moon where there were numerous double craters, possibly in a geometric pattern, like straight lines or something. On Mars there were objects near the so-called Twin Peaks where there were a number of objects that looked artificial, like parts of machinery etc that had deteriorated for the most part.
* As I mentioned on another thread, what are called trees on Mars don't seem to be trees at all, but arachnids and some tall electrical structures, similar to iron filings under magnetic fields.
* Some of the "city" structures are interesting, but I don't think any image can be considered conclusive, until it's viewed close up and in detail with lots of different kinds of measuring.