AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Judge releases redacted lunar lander lawsuit12/31/2023 The main article as it is now has this function: People curious about the hoax accusations may look up the article, and within 30 seconds conclude that the hoax rumor is ridiculous. Then ScienceApologist clearly would not have any formal reason to do censorship. Noodle Boy could of course refrase his contributions as suggested sections for the main article. I see that they now are well hidden for the public. Noodle boy has made some fine contribution in this discussion page. Noodle boy 03:19, (UTC) Nothing has been deleted, Noodleboy. It has to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion. You cannot selectively delete my post under this rule. ScienceApologist 03:06, (UTC) I will revert it again until you delete everything on that page that does not relate to the main page. General discussion and debate is not the purpose of the talkpage. Noodle boy 03:04, (UTC) I repeat, if you are interested in seeing prose included in the article, propose prose here on the talkpage and we'll all be glad to talk about if and whether we will include it. You deleted hoax allegation links before so your track record is not very good. What you are doing is censorship, plain and simple. Once we can come to a concensus about the allegations we can move the allegation to the main page. ScienceApologist 03:02, (UTC) They are for discussion of the subject included in the main page. The points are rightly moved to your user talkpage. Talkpages are not "used for general discussion" ever. Please take this to a debate site such as the Universe Today forum. Noodle boy 02:58, (UTC) Honest intellectual debate is not what the talkpages are for. Also the reason why I don't edit the main page is because I know it is a hopeless endeavour, at least on the discussion page I thought I could express my views on this issue. I am not here to cause trouble but to have an honest intellectual debate about the validity of the moon landings. This particular discussion has nothing to do with the article itself.- ScienceApologist 03:03, (UTC)) Yes, although we disagree I respect you for actually debating points and not resorting to censorship as ScienceApologist has done. (for more discussion on the Challenger coincidence, please see User talk:Noodle boy. However, I'm still waiting for your expansion on the coincidence of the shuttle Challenger blowing up at 1:13 after launch. Noodle boy 02:56, (UTC) For the record, I have never taken any of your comments personally, despite any apparent evidence to the contrary. There is no justification for this type of censorship besides hiding honest discourse. If you want to move my discussions, then I will delete any discussion that does not pertain to main page. This page is used for general discussion about the moon landings.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |