R
Raoul Duke
And here I thought that the biggest problem with Mars was surviving the radiation in space on the way there....so says the scientists on the BBC TV show I watched. It was on TV, therefore it must be true.
'Mars One' finalist breaks silence, claims organization is a total scam
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
G
Guest
When the author brought his/her concerns to the organization, what was their response?
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
Just a guess, but from what's been published thus far, his call probably went straight to voice mail.
D
davislane1
"Please hold."
G
Guest
Except that he did make the cut; he was one of the 100 finalists.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
@Hambone71
Don't any of the noobs know how to work a quote?
Here you encapsulated your response within Mr. Laine's message. Pay attention to where the cursor is when you start typing. Er, "please".
Don't any of the noobs know how to work a quote?
Here you encapsulated your response within Mr. Laine's message. Pay attention to where the cursor is when you start typing. Er, "please".
D
davislane1
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
There should be a quotation above ^^^^.
Up until now, I had believed piling on was beneath you. Well, you opened my eyes.
How about you type the next half page or so of instructions when the noobs start running their yaps about how, "the software is defective.
Up until now, I had believed piling on was beneath you. Well, you opened my eyes.
How about you type the next half page or so of instructions when the noobs start running their yaps about how, "the software is defective.
D
davislane1
It is (thus I haven't). That one was directed at you, in jest, not the new guy, hence the deliberate quotation error.
Moderator note: I deleted the part of your post that quoted and responded to a deleted post.
Note to the mod: Well that doesn't make me happy. That took forever to type out on this iPad.
Second note to mod: You guys seem to be a slight bit less permissive recently. What gives?
Last edited by a moderator:
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
If I hadn't already known that, this would be quite a revelation to me. You break mine, I break yours back. It's kind of old testament, but fun nonetheless.
Whose fault is the iPad?
No, I read the deleted post and it was past borderline. In fact, I responded to the same post, and that was deleted also. C'est la guerre.
Those things aside, the noobs are being really annoying with the issue of getting control of the quoting protocol.
I find it frustratingly symptomatic of our society as a whole, wherein no one is responsible for the own actions or inabilities. To which I say, "you're going to try and scapegoat the software, really?. Give me a break"!
And it is indeed a PITA to try and write a topical tutorial, for every different way they can figure out how to get the quoting function wrong.
Last edited:
I tend to look askance at posts from brand new members that contain personal comments right out of the box. Typically when a post is deleted for cause, any subsequent post that responded to that post or quoted it will usually get deleted also. On that note, davislane1, I almost deleted your entire post but decided to edit it instead, something I don't usually do. I'm not saying you should be grateful but rather it could have been worse.
captaincranky, I've also noticed the lack of quote control. Posts that contain especially messed up quotes have been known to disappear. Just sayin'.
captaincranky, I've also noticed the lack of quote control. Posts that contain especially messed up quotes have been known to disappear. Just sayin'.
G
guest
Haha loose faith in NASA, lots of us have already done that. They will not only cover up, they only tell what they want you to know. Ran by NAZIs..Cant trust any of them, they are santanic and filled with lies.
D
davislane1
To be sure. But they've let far worse go uncalled in the past (with the exception of that one thread we got locked last year).
I'd just like the refs to look the other way when I can turn it to my advantage. Is that not too much to ask?
That certainly explains your stinginess handing out participation trophies.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
The "rookie " member entered the thread with an ad hominem attack. As far as I'm concerned, that's just joining to have a screen name to troll with. It's understandable though. There's an issue someone is heavily emotionally invested in, someone doesn't like a member's stance on that particular issue, and thus that membership is an emotionally influenced, spur of the moment event.
From their point of view, yes. Our comments are on the news front page. So, they're hoping for objective, and varied, opinions, on the news stories being presented, not page and a half, "survival of the intellectual fittest flame wars". In practice, they'll let us argue til doomsday, as long as it remains topical.
I enjoy winning those aforementioned flame wars immensely, as it appears, do you. But, I don't imagine that aspect of our characters, is the most appealing to others, or even ourselves, when we are in more introspective moods.
Really? how so?
OK, I spent a long night here, even started an ill conceived compliant thread in "Site Feedback", about this software's behaviour in the quoting process. I found out later the same night, through persistent effort, the problem was indeed of my doing. Enter an embarrassed withdrawal and apology for starting the thread in the first place, offered up by yours truly. So, having been chastened by that faux pas, I find myself trying to help noobs when they're faced with the same issue.
Now you've brought it to my attention, that I should be focusing my attention either giving away trophy points, or possibly better spend my time posting elsewhere, in an attempt to garner more of my own....
I'll take that under advisement.(y)Moving on:
My first impulse is to reply here, I like the principles of the Nazi party, and respect NASA. In fact, I much prefer their accomplishments to sitting here listening to some itinerant, inarticulate, trolling "guest", sporting a god complex.
I dunno, should I hang a like on that? Or would you like to do it for me?
FWIW, I reached the emotional, intellectual, and over self investment, in this forum which you're fast approaching, years ago. And while I think that can be a wonderful paradigm, if you're looking for adrenal stimulation, accompanied by a lingering bad mood, I elected to change my tack, and just drop by the laughs. Which BTW, I try to generate for the entertainment of all.
Last edited:
D
davislane1
I shall illustrate.
In your first response, you open as so:
Instead of telling the commenter that she made a good effort for a first timer, or stating that system is "tricky" and that the mistake was "understandable", you pointed out that the problem was, in fact, her own incompetence. You did provide instructions on the correct use of the quotation system, but not before publicly making light of the fact that she was the cause of her own error.
Participation trophy denied.
Then, of course, there was your response to the second newcomer:
In this example, rather than forgiving the newcomer for a common and relatively trivial (if unpleasant) mistake, you suggest that he, as a noob, is ignorant. You further make it a point to highlight his sloppy approach to formatting. Stated succinctly, you criticize the newcomer instead of encouraging him.
Participation trophy denied.
This brings us back to your comment about society:
You clearly don't believe people should be rewarded merely for trying (participation). This belief obviously leads you to hand out praise or encouragement only when you encounter a satisfactory result. In essence, you criticize poor performance and praise good performance without due consideration to the fairness or complexity of the system as it is perceived by unique and diverse views of its participants.*
As a product of the generation that ushered in the Era of Participation, I can arrogantly and most self-righteously inform you that this is not only stingy, but unquestionably mean and hurtful as well.
You'll note how critical this concept is to the validity of an earlier thread contribution:
If you are going to take anything under advisement, Cranky, it should be to let go of your out-of-date belief that merit is derived from the fruits of one's executions. It isn't what someone's effort produces or whether that product satisfies a set of defined parameters that matters. You should encourage people for having ideas and attempting to articulate them. Criticism, especially pubic criticism, is regressive.
*I need some Listerine after that mouthful.
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
And a tip of the gargle cap to you as well".
Shouldn't you be out doing a stock swindle or something? I suppose neither one of ever run out of vocabulary with with to attempt philosophical domination. Albeit to different ends. Really, do something for the site, instead of using it as a "personal petulance platform".
BTW, you only focused on the latest quote methodology incompetents. The first one was way more annoying and trolling, in fact.
So, like I said before, (which apparently bounced off your ego and arrogance), you write the next page to help them, and leave me the f*** out of it.
And in case you're considering offering me a prospective for stock in a flying car, it would be best if you stuffed it up your....., (I mean that's thinking way outside of the basic swindle box, isn't it? Oh, what the hell, "have a nice day".
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
Thanks for the like Dave...! In all sincerity...(y)
(y)
The first mission to blow up before it got to the launch pad
captaincranky
Posts: 19,665 +8,800
More than likely.
G
Guest
Lol @ "lose faith in trustworthy agencies like NASA"
Roche is an ***** mission fail all the time humans want to go to mars as it is in our nature, yes granted we don't have the right level of technology to maintain life their but we can still try.
Roche is also trying to mislead a lot of people Mars Ones budget maybe a hell of a lot cheaper than NASA missions to mars but you he did not mentioned NASA out sources every thing to build their rockets, rovers and every thing else they may need, whereas Mars One has already said what suppers their going to use and are in talks to get the best price for both parties.
if anyone reads please look up the information for your self and find out your self
Roche is also trying to mislead a lot of people Mars Ones budget maybe a hell of a lot cheaper than NASA missions to mars but you he did not mentioned NASA out sources every thing to build their rockets, rovers and every thing else they may need, whereas Mars One has already said what suppers their going to use and are in talks to get the best price for both parties.
if anyone reads please look up the information for your self and find out your self
G
Guest
G
Guest
So where can I find the Joseph Roche as a real 100 participant? cause he isnt on the actual mars1 100 participants still in the running? I know as I sat there and read all the names on the official site.... didnt take me long to realise this Joseph Roche wasnt on the 100 and hes probably a liar that got rejected in the 660 participants.
G
Guest
I don't think this is even a one way ticket. I think that within their lifetime, provided they can survive on Mars, scientists will find a way to bring them back.
Look what we've accomplished in just 50 years. I can't imagine it'll take another 50 years to learn how to bring someone back from Mars.
Look what we've accomplished in just 50 years. I can't imagine it'll take another 50 years to learn how to bring someone back from Mars.
Similar threads
- Locked
