Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

Thank you, David, and thank you, moderators. The standard for slander or libel against public figures, by the way, requires actual malice, which means that the person committing the offense MUST KNOW that what they are alleging is false, yet they make the allegation in spite of that. Since I am attempting to sort things out with regard to the Hubble and the Moon, I am obviously not in the position to KNOW that what I am alleging is false; hence, I introduced the antecedent, "If that's true, . . .". Had Mr. Dawson known what he was talking about, this might have been a productive exchange. But his resources were limited and he grasped after straws.

I realize that Peter Dawson has now been banned, so I am only going to point out the following in order to correct any lingering doubt about his continued misrepresentation of the stated facts:

After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

Jim Fetzer clearly stated in his post No. 179 that: "it is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true..."

Firstly it was an "understanding" not a statement of fact. You cannot sue someone for their "understanding" whether that "understanding" is accurate or not.

Secondly, no matter how many dictionaries you consult, you can no more libel (or, indeed, slander) a telescope than a telegraph pole - or a hatstand, or a handkerchief. Because it is a thing not a person. Ergo, the Hubble Space telescope is a thing, not a person.

To say otherwise is to willfully misrepresent Jim Fetzer's post.

End of story.

[Keith Millea]

I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

[David Guyatt]

Keith, forgive me for speaking frankly, but I don't think Matthew is malicious. On the EF, at least in my somewhat less than acute memory, his posts were always factual or reasoned and understandable. I often didn't agree with his perspective, but I don't recall him ever engaging in ad homs or similar. And on more than one occasion he pulled me up on factual errors, and I had to apologize for these mistakes.

This, I think, is a good thing. An intelligent discussion requires opposing views intelligently debated. The day we all agree, is the day we give up the ghost of any possibility of advancing civilization.

I can only speak from my personal point of view, but the problem with the discussion in this thread to date was the intrusion of a sly agenda. That and the use of a device of using one poster to conceal other controlling minds behind it, something that is expressly forbidden in the DPF Rules of Engagement numbered 9, 10 & 11.

But hey, the same thing will be tried again and again and again. It's the way our world is configured.

Take care.

David

[Matthew Lewis]

I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

I've read the thread but not that closely. Why is that hard to understand?

[Matthew Lewis]

The penetration/disinformation strategy that is working quite nicely here at the DPF has now expanded to include the classic good cop (Lewis)/bad cop (Dawson) tactic.

How many times do you have to witness this before you recognize it as enemy action?

Have we learned nothing?

It is accusations and atitudes like this that have kept me from posting much here. This is the same reason I have cut back posting at EF as well. Do you treat everybody you disagree with like this?

[Keith Millea]

Keith, forgive me for speaking frankly, but I don't think Matthew is malicious. On the EF, at least in my somewhat less than acute memory, his posts were always factual or reasoned and understandable. I often didn't agree with his perspective, but I don't recall him ever engaging in ad homs or similar. And on more than one occasion he pulled me up on factual errors, and I had to apologize for these mistakes.

This, I think, is a good thing. An intelligent discussion requires opposing views intelligently debated. The day we all agree, is the day we give up the ghost of any possibility of advancing civilization.

I can only speak from my personal point of view, but the problem with the discussion in this thread to date was the intrusion of a sly agenda. That and the use of a device of using one poster to conceal other controlling minds behind it, something that is expressly forbidden in the DPF Rules of Engagement numbered 9, 10 & 11.

But hey, the same thing will be tried again and again and again. It's the way our world is configured.

Take care.

David

David,
I hear what you say,and I have to agree that Matthew is always pretty curtious in his posts.I had no need to disparage him.Thanks for the wise words.........

[Matthew Lewis]

Keith, forgive me for speaking frankly, but I don't think Matthew is malicious. On the EF, at least in my somewhat less than acute memory, his posts were always factual or reasoned and understandable. I often didn't agree with his perspective, but I don't recall him ever engaging in ad homs or similar. And on more than one occasion he pulled me up on factual errors, and I had to apologize for these mistakes.

This, I think, is a good thing. An intelligent discussion requires opposing views intelligently debated. The day we all agree, is the day we give up the ghost of any possibility of advancing civilization.

I can only speak from my personal point of view, but the problem with the discussion in this thread to date was the intrusion of a sly agenda. That and the use of a device of using one poster to conceal other controlling minds behind it, something that is expressly forbidden in the DPF Rules of Engagement numbered 9, 10 & 11.

But hey, the same thing will be tried again and again and again. It's the way our world is configured.

Take care.

David

David,
I hear what you say,and I have to agree that Matthew is always pretty curtious in his posts.I had no need to disparage him.Thanks for the wise words.........

Thank you both. I appreciate the kind words.

[Keith Millea]

I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

I've read the thread but not that closely. Why is that hard to understand?

Matthew,
I'm of the opinion that you have been paying close attention to this thread.To say you have no opinion about it is hard to swallow,but you are entitled to one.I don't really ever see you attack people personally,so I would have done myself better by not saying anything at all.So please excuse me for my rudeness.

Keith

[Matthew Lewis]

I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

I've read the thread but not that closely. Why is that hard to understand?

Matthew,
I'm of the opinion that you have been paying close attention to this thread.To say you have no opinion about it is hard to swallow,but you are entitled to one.I don't really ever see you attack people personally,so I would have done myself better by not saying anything at all.So please excuse me for my rudeness.

Keith

You're excused. No harm done.
I do have an opinion on the entire thread of course but on the specific point I was asked about, I don't know much about, haven't looked into it, and wasn't really following it. As for the entire thread, I really don't want to get involved. The few posts I've made already have elicited more than enough hostility for my tastes.

[Myra Bronstein]

The penetration/disinformation strategy that is working quite nicely here at the DPF has now expanded to include the classic good cop (Lewis)/bad cop (Dawson) tactic.

How many times do you have to witness this before you recognize it as enemy action?

Have we learned nothing?

It is accusations and atitudes like this that have kept me from posting much here. This is the same reason I have cut back posting at EF as well. Do you treat everybody you disagree with like this?

Matthew,

Please feel free to report objectionable posts to DPF moderators. You can do with via the "Report Post" link at the top right of the post by the post number. It's an explanation mark in a red triangle.

In fact I hope everyone will utilize the "Report Post" feature when appropriate. The moderators can't notice every post immediately.

We are committed to maintaining a respectful environment at DPF.