*rolls her eyes*
Nov. 22nd, 2003 12:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Someone on the neocolours board... urg. She saw a program once wherin people claimed that the moon landing was a hoax. So now she believes it. And then she has the nerve to say
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, but we here in New Zealand are taught to examine things from all angles, and to seek the truth behind the media... and there is so much in the American Media, and so much said by the government that I don't beleive a word of... "
Which is a fair enough statement, I suppose, except...
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE'S DOING!!! Swallowing what they told her on TV without doing more research into the subject herself. Talk about hypocritical! Not to mention immature. Okay, so why did it take NASA so long to refute the claims? Um... because normally one does not go around trying to prove that 1+1=2! And because, really, NASA should not have attempted to refute the claims. That just gave credence to the whole thing, arguing it on equal terms. Let private scientists refute the hoax for them.
Edit. The more I think about it, the more insulting her statement is:
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, because I'm about to insult you all thoroughly but we here in New Zealand are
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, but we here in New Zealand are taught to examine things from all angles, and to seek the truth behind the media... and there is so much in the American Media, and so much said by the government that I don't beleive a word of... "
Which is a fair enough statement, I suppose, except...
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE'S DOING!!! Swallowing what they told her on TV without doing more research into the subject herself. Talk about hypocritical! Not to mention immature. Okay, so why did it take NASA so long to refute the claims? Um... because normally one does not go around trying to prove that 1+1=2! And because, really, NASA should not have attempted to refute the claims. That just gave credence to the whole thing, arguing it on equal terms. Let private scientists refute the hoax for them.
Edit. The more I think about it, the more insulting her statement is:
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, because I'm about to insult you all thoroughly but we here in New Zealand are
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<much [...] you,>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
Someone on the neocolours board... urg. She saw a program once wherin people claimed that the moon landing was a hoax. So now she believes it. And then she has the nerve to say <lj-cut text="this">
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, but we here in New Zealand are taught to examine things from all angles, and to seek the truth behind the media... and there is so much in the American Media, and so much said by the government that I don't beleive a word of... "
Which is a fair enough statement, I suppose, except...
<i>THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE'S DOING!!!</i> Swallowing what they told her on TV without doing more research into the subject herself. Talk about hypocritical! Not to mention immature. Okay, so why did it take NASA so long to refute the claims? Um... because normally one does not go around trying to prove that 1+1=2! And because, really, NASA should not have attempted to refute the claims. That just gave credence to the whole thing, arguing it on equal terms. Let private scientists refute the hoax for them.
Edit. The more I think about it, the more insulting her statement is:
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, <i>because I'm about to insult you all thoroughly</i> but we here in New Zealand are <much smarter than you, nyah!</i> taught to examine things from all angles <i>unlike you poor ignorant fools</i>, and to seek the truth behind the media <i>because the media lies. I guess you wouldn't know that, though, you've been brainwashed. Gee, sucks to be you, don't it?</i>... and there is so much in the American Media <i>okay, agreed, but the story was from american media, fox news, in fact</i>, and so much said by the government <i>damn straight, though I don't think they're so smart that they can pull a hoax like this off... and anyway, is the government in NZ any better? No, really, I don't know, is it?</i> that I don't beleive a word of... <i>which does not mean they are always lying, sweetie... </i> "
Seriously, is this all meant to imply that Americans are nothing but gullible sheep, who swallow whatever big government tells us without so much as questioning it? That if the government told us that black is white, we'd accept it uncritically?
And here's something else. Part of the whole theory of the "moon hoax" is that the government killed three astronauts because they were going to go public.
1. Okay. Let's pretend that it's only the astronauts who are part of this conspiracy. Let's ignore the photographers, the cameramen, the military officials, much of NASA, whoever was paying the bills, the set designers, the people who know the conspiracy NOW in order to kill off those who might tell.... And those astronauts waited HOW LONG to tell?
2. *laughs* I know if *I* were part of such a conspiracy, I'd not let anyone know I was about to go public. I'd wait until I was on camera, perhaps during a blizzard, before releasing the news. Unless you think every person involved in this conspiracy has a personal tail to make sure they aren't about to go public.... and those tails are part of the conspiracy too... so they have tails.... My head hurts.
3. Okay, so the government is killing people who might possibly talk... why aren't they killing off the conspiracy theorists? In suitably non-dramatic ways, of course? Hm?
<center>__________</center>
<b>UPDATE!</b>
Somebody cornered her on one of the points, and her response?
"Fine, but you still haven't answered the other things I posted at when this whole thing started:
*hits all of you over the head, and submerges your beaten heads until you drown*"
Notice she never acknowledged my complaint about the statement above. And note also that she had previously called some of us immature.
<b>SECOND UPDATE!</b>
I replied to her earlier comment, saying "violence is seldom the answer, you know" and she came back with:
"*hits you over the head again, and kindly suggests you give this topic a miss*
Violence will be the answer until you idiots recognise this conversation is going nowhere and give up trying to convince me of something I refuse to be convinced about."
Yes. Of course. You refuse to be convinced. That's a good example of "looking at issues from all angles".</lj-cut>
<a href="http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm">Related and funny link</a>
<b>Final update</b>
Fight's over. We've all apologised. Hugs all around.
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, but we here in New Zealand are taught to examine things from all angles, and to seek the truth behind the media... and there is so much in the American Media, and so much said by the government that I don't beleive a word of... "
Which is a fair enough statement, I suppose, except...
<i>THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE'S DOING!!!</i> Swallowing what they told her on TV without doing more research into the subject herself. Talk about hypocritical! Not to mention immature. Okay, so why did it take NASA so long to refute the claims? Um... because normally one does not go around trying to prove that 1+1=2! And because, really, NASA should not have attempted to refute the claims. That just gave credence to the whole thing, arguing it on equal terms. Let private scientists refute the hoax for them.
Edit. The more I think about it, the more insulting her statement is:
"Again, no offense to any American Neocolours folk, <i>because I'm about to insult you all thoroughly</i> but we here in New Zealand are <much smarter than you, nyah!</i> taught to examine things from all angles <i>unlike you poor ignorant fools</i>, and to seek the truth behind the media <i>because the media lies. I guess you wouldn't know that, though, you've been brainwashed. Gee, sucks to be you, don't it?</i>... and there is so much in the American Media <i>okay, agreed, but the story was from american media, fox news, in fact</i>, and so much said by the government <i>damn straight, though I don't think they're so smart that they can pull a hoax like this off... and anyway, is the government in NZ any better? No, really, I don't know, is it?</i> that I don't beleive a word of... <i>which does not mean they are always lying, sweetie... </i> "
Seriously, is this all meant to imply that Americans are nothing but gullible sheep, who swallow whatever big government tells us without so much as questioning it? That if the government told us that black is white, we'd accept it uncritically?
And here's something else. Part of the whole theory of the "moon hoax" is that the government killed three astronauts because they were going to go public.
1. Okay. Let's pretend that it's only the astronauts who are part of this conspiracy. Let's ignore the photographers, the cameramen, the military officials, much of NASA, whoever was paying the bills, the set designers, the people who know the conspiracy NOW in order to kill off those who might tell.... And those astronauts waited HOW LONG to tell?
2. *laughs* I know if *I* were part of such a conspiracy, I'd not let anyone know I was about to go public. I'd wait until I was on camera, perhaps during a blizzard, before releasing the news. Unless you think every person involved in this conspiracy has a personal tail to make sure they aren't about to go public.... and those tails are part of the conspiracy too... so they have tails.... My head hurts.
3. Okay, so the government is killing people who might possibly talk... why aren't they killing off the conspiracy theorists? In suitably non-dramatic ways, of course? Hm?
<center>__________</center>
<b>UPDATE!</b>
Somebody cornered her on one of the points, and her response?
"Fine, but you still haven't answered the other things I posted at when this whole thing started:
*hits all of you over the head, and submerges your beaten heads until you drown*"
Notice she never acknowledged my complaint about the statement above. And note also that she had previously called some of us immature.
<b>SECOND UPDATE!</b>
I replied to her earlier comment, saying "violence is seldom the answer, you know" and she came back with:
"*hits you over the head again, and kindly suggests you give this topic a miss*
Violence will be the answer until you idiots recognise this conversation is going nowhere and give up trying to convince me of something I refuse to be convinced about."
Yes. Of course. You refuse to be convinced. That's a good example of "looking at issues from all angles".</lj-cut>
<a href="http://www.reptiles.org/~madrev/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm">Related and funny link</a>
<b>Final update</b>
Fight's over. We've all apologised. Hugs all around.
