From one of the 9/11 threads, I followed this link, to find:
Content from external source
You'll notice one very common theme among the "debunkers", they do not source anything, never use their real names, and expect everyone to believe them. This is perhaps why places like "Metabunk" are a virtual ghost town. It also doesn't help that the owner stifles discussion by banning anyone who challenges their resident idiots. Clearly an amateur.
I'm generally exceptionally open-minded and eager re. checking out new sites...I had a look at p4t - it seems to consist of 3 people talking to themselves.
Insofar as Rob's no longer bothered with conversing here, why bother mentioning them any more?
Basically, this chap doesn't seem to understand that robots, in this context, are automated visits from outside sources. Usually googlebots, but also other 'bots from other search engines. If you have a site where content changes on a daily basis, like news sites and forums, then the 'bots will be visiting very regularly indeed in order to index the new content.Could someone please explain this more fully? Thanks.
Let's pretend that this post isn't trolling for a moment ...I've been looking around on here and an aweful lot of people who have differing views than Mick get banned. There's a ban in nearly every thread come to think of it. A lot of the "resident" fellows seem to post similar content to those who are banned, also violating the guidelines...but don't get banned. So it seems the guidelines are more of an opportunity for selective censorship. I suppose I might get banned for opining this...so I'm taking a screenshot of it to post on that "pilotsfor911truth" blog if I get memory-holed for holding this view
I'm going OT now a bit... I think one thing some newbies/CTs have problems comprehending is that bringing up 'broad theory' to them IS on topic. they don't seem to grasp easily the "SPECIFIC" part of 'specific claims of evidence'. Although most do 'get it' eventually, some it seems just never will.Let's pretend that this post isn't trolling for a moment ...
Metabunk is not a platform for a bunch of people to sit around agreeing with each other, what would be the point? There are many users who have been here for a long time who have yet to agree with Mick on anything, but as long as they keep it dignified and don't continually break the 1st Commandment (Stay On Topic) they'll be here until they choose not to be.
Standard operations for 911 truth fantasy pushers to project. Why is pilots for truth forum full of fake names? Why does the person claiming real names mean something not enforcing the real names at his web site filled with fantasy?From one of the 9/11 threads, I followed this link, to find:
Now beside the fact that I'm a big fan of sourcing things, and I do use my real name, and only ban people for repeatedly violating the posting guidelines, I was a little bemused by the "virtual ghost town" comment. So I clicked on the link:
My main intent with this post is to simply correct the erroneous description of metabunk.org as a "virtual ghost town", as it's quite clear that description is based upon false data from a no-name site that uses figures that are the opposite of reality. It also seems clear that if there's a ghost town here, it's pilotsfor911truth, with just 15K visitors a month. But it does raise the question of why Rob Balsamo (@SpaceCowboy) would prefer to use the most obscure web site ranker there is. Is this an honest mistake, or an example of cherry picking? I invite Rob to clarify.
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Metabunk 2.0||Site Feedback & News||33|
|A||How to use the refraction approximation in the metabunk curve calculator||Flat Earth||0|
|Tales From the Rabbit Hole - A Mick West / Metabunk Podcast||Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast||19|
|I'm displaying ads for ETRH on Metabunk||Site Feedback & News||8|
|Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size||Flat Earth||13|