Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatfreddy88
Listen dumbo.:bang:bang:bang
Bart Sibrel says the film was a secret tape. Bart says it was faked cos it uses a transparancy. Bart is lying. The film is doctored and deliberately misses out the bit that show it as being so. It has been chopped and edited and does not resemble the original 3 Lunar coast transmissions and setup footage.
You dismiss phantomwolf and the tape showing this as a fraud, and continue alleging it was faked and in LEO.:bang:bang That is impossible.
LEO crafts are visible from Earth and radio signals move and disappear with orbit. The footage of the Earth matches the weather patterns prevailing at the exact time.
You make out that your question is the ahaaaa moment and ignore the stuff that shows it was an arse moment:lmao:lmao
Incorrect translation. If it is useless, show me why. Should be simple for such a master debater.:lmao:lmao
Start with this one, show everybody you can even count would be a start:lmao:lmao
In the video .....
The relative motion of the dust being kicked up relates to Lunar Gravity.
To make the relative motion the same as Earth gravity, it has to be speeded up 2.45 times.
This is the equation
d = at^2/2 (^ = "to the power of" in notation)
distance = acceleration to gravity x time squared divided by 2
You take the distance travelled against time on the Moon and work out that relative motion is 2.45 times.
In 1 second on Earth, an object falls 4.9 metres.
a=9.8 t=1 That is 9.8 x (1 x 1) / 2 = 4.9 metres
In 2.45 seconds on the Moon an object falls 4.9 metres.
a=1.62 t=2.45 That 1.62 x (2.45 x 2.45) / 2 = 4.9 metres
Using algebra we can work out gravity.....
a = 2d/t^2
So let's put cosmored's figure in. Time on Earth according to you is 67% of 2.45 and that becomes 1.63 seconds.
Distance of 4.9m time is now 1.63 seconds.
That is 9.8 / 1.63x1.63.
This gives a gravitational acceleration of 3.69m per s^2
Gravity on Earth is 9.8m per s^2
Cosmored gravity on Earth is not even half of what it should be.
At David Percy figure of 50% Time is 1.22 seconds, that gives a gravitational acceleration of 6.6m per s^2
There is no answer to this. It is like a nail in the hoax coffin.
Dust falling on the Moon with lunar gravity, when sped up to give Earth freefall speeds, makes the astronauts move way too fast for normal.
And a mouse says.........?
Stupid mouse says nothing.
03-03-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouse
FruadFreddy88
My love affair with cosmoron - Busted!
:lmao
The stench of stewed mousefart is overpowering. You accuse people of ignoring your evidunce, whilst ignoring the debunks.
Once again, the same video, ignores the same points I showed you proving it to be bollocks. You sad troll.
03-03-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
There are so many links on this thread that I could find the one you're referring to. Please post it again and please address the above issue.
Bullshit.
You pissed this thread back up with some schtoopid crap from JREF about dust. You posted a Jawwah vid that says it must be sand.
That is because Jawwah showed some geeks kicking sand at the same speed horizontally as guys on the Moon. Like the disinfo agent you are, you said they were different, but they are the same(dust falls slower vertically on the Moon - but travels horizontally the same speed).
Then genius Jawwah says the prints use wet sand:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao and says we never see prints being made, with dust being kicked in the same video.
Apollo 15, your 'flagship' spam video shows this very thing. But don't bother replying, we already know the disinfo answer:bang:bang:bang
You are just too thick to understand. Dunning Kruger syndrome.
btw, you moron, the guy you quote from the geology forum said this...
"But also, it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand. You can wash it and wash it and there will likely still be some dust left, hidden in small pits on the sand surface that stuck to the sand when wet but when dry may fly away. Also, the water you use to wash with likely has dust particles in it as well (unless you use distilled water or something), which will be on the sand grain once the water evaporates off, not to mention any dissolved elements that solidify once the water is gone. This is why you get water spots when you clean your car and why your car actually gets dirty when it rains.
And for the record, I think the moon hoax is a stupid idea. If we didn't land there in the 60's, we could have easily gone back by now. But why haven't we gone back? Because we don't need to, we've already been there, and the moon isn't complex enough to waste more money on because the first mission told us as much as we wanted to know. "
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
03-03-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
This is so true - I am just a spamming buffoon. That's why there's so much repetition by me and you in this thread; the general strategy of disinfo agents(like me) and trolls(like you) on the internet seems to be to spam the same shit over and over and ignore all replies.
All of those hoax videos that are on the internet were made by imbeciles who know the moon missions happened. One of the most obvious examples is this - a video about me....
The trouble with you, is that you are too mentally ill to know how mentally ill you are. Shame really:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
03-03-2012
Cosmored
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
That is because Jawwah showed some geeks kicking sand at the same speed horizontally as guys on the Moon. Like the disinfo agent you are, you said they were different, but they are the same(dust falls slower vertically on the Moon - but travels horizontally the same speed).
Anyone can see that the horizontal speed of the earth sand is faster. As I said before, you won't sway anyone who actually watches the video with your BS and rhetoric; you may sway a few that don't take the time to watch it though.
03-03-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
You're using the classic disinfo tactic of telling the truth:lmao
It seems that Mythbusters deliberately didn't show the moving flag on the moon coming to a stop when the astronaut stopped moving the pole and misled viewers into thinking that it came to a stop slowly when it had in fact come to a quick stop the way it would in atmosphere.
A note came up saying the post would have to be approved by a moderator before it could appear. Had it appeared right away, it would have been post #7571.
The moderator didn't approve the post and it didn't appear. I asked FatFreddy whether Jay, or the geologists were right about the issue shown in the link and FatFreddy tap danced around the issue instead of addressing it as he know he'll look like a horse's a-s if he defends Jay Windley's position on the issue.
I registered at the JREF forum with the username "FatFreddy88". The poster here who uses that username is a shill who knows the moon missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers; he chose the name I was using at JREF in order to cause confusion.
03-04-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatfreddy88
Bullshit.
You pissed this thread back up with some schtoopid crap from JREF about dust. You posted a Jawwah vid that says it must be sand.
That is because Jawwah showed some geeks kicking sand at the same speed horizontally as guys on the Moon. Like the disinfo agent you are, you said they were different, but they are the same(dust falls slower vertically on the Moon - but travels horizontally the same speed).
Then genius Jawwah says the prints use wet sand:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao and says we never see prints being made, with dust being kicked in the same video.
Apollo 15, your 'flagship' spam video shows this very thing. But don't bother replying, we already know the disinfo answer:bang:bang:bang
You are just too thick to understand. Dunning Kruger syndrome.
btw, you moron, the guy you quote from the geology forum said this...
"But also, it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand. You can wash it and wash it and there will likely still be some dust left, hidden in small pits on the sand surface that stuck to the sand when wet but when dry may fly away. Also, the water you use to wash with likely has dust particles in it as well (unless you use distilled water or something), which will be on the sand grain once the water evaporates off, not to mention any dissolved elements that solidify once the water is gone. This is why you get water spots when you clean your car and why your car actually gets dirty when it rains.
And for the record, I think the moon hoax is a stupid idea. If we didn't land there in the 60's, we could have easily gone back by now. But why haven't we gone back? Because we don't need to, we've already been there, and the moon isn't complex enough to waste more money on because the first mission told us as much as we wanted to know. "
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
The geologist does not concur with your whole premise, from the very site you quoted. Wanker.
And you are still avoiding that Apollo 15 video showing prints being made and obvious dust being kicked - you really are just a clueless troll.
"If it turns out that dust is kicked and prints are made it doesn't make me mountain of evidunce go away, like me jackets, me flags and me bubblz":bang:bang:bang:bang
03-04-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
I just tried to post this at the JREF forum.
A note came up saying that they thought I was a mental patient, and asked whether a doctor had let me out on day release from the loony bin.
Let's see what happens when they see me flags obsession. Jay Windley refused to answer when I asked him about another issue - because he knows I am a complete nutfuck who ignores his response anyway.
Here's another question I asked Jay Windley. "Why am I so stupid?".
I asked FatFreddy whether Jay's opinion, or the geologists who think we landed on the Moon were right about the issue shown in the link and FatFreddy took the piss out of me. I started to cwy.
I registered at the JREF forum with the username "FatFreddy88" because I am a sockpuppeting nutter with a mental obsession. The poster here who uses that username is a very informed person who knows the moon missions were one of man's greatest achievements as well as the fact that hoax-believers are the thickos in society
Sand like that will be clean and dust-free in the scenario you pose. But I don't think it's something the guy-in-the-street would know offhand.
Jay Windley said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. This issue is not about dust that stays on the sand after it's been washed.
There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive.
-----------------------------------------
It has been clearly explained to you many times why it's impossible to handle particulates without generating dust. You simply say that it somehow didn't happen in this case, but do not say why.
Quote:
Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud.
----------------------------------------
The majority of the dust is created as it is removed from the washing apparatus, conveyed to the photography site, and laid down -- not right as the rover wheels pass over it. The rover wheels would aerosolize the dust that was created in those prior steps.
The quotes you provided didn't address what Jay Windley said. If you look at the above thread from the Clavius forum, you'll see that all the other pro-Apollo posters agreed with Jay Windley.
Now stop tap dancing and say whether you think Jay Windley was right when he said he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That's the issue. The issue is not about the dust that's left on the sand after being washed.
03-04-2012
mouse
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouse
03-04-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
You're trying to sway people who don't take the time to read the whole thing.
No. I couldn't give a rat's ass about anybody reading this thread. If somebody is swayed by anything you write, they deserve to wallow in the same crushing ignorance that you do.
Quote:
Before the geologists knew the questions were about Apollo, they'd said this.
I don't care. I really fucking don't. Your whole argument is a big pathetic strawman, built on a hypothetical situation, where subjective opinion is given. The geologists to a man say Apollo went to the Moon. End of argument.:bang:bang:bang
Quote:
Jay Windley said ................
So fucking what! Who cares what he said! You mental case. You haven't established his opinion on the subject is less valid than some random geologists. Do you know his qualifications?:bang:bang:bang
Quote:
Now stop tap dancing and say whether you think Jay Windley was right when he said he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
Quote:
That's the issue.
But it isn't the issue you obsessive cretin. The issue is whether you have the brain power to see how fucking stupid you are. Man landed on the Moon.
Quote:
The quotes you provided didn't address what Jay Windley said.
They contradicted the other geologist's opinion - dumbfuck.
Quote:
The issue is not about the dust that's left on the sand after being washed.
:sleep:sleep:sleep:sleep:sleep
Apollo 15 flag. Dust kicked up, falls straight to the surface and shows no suspension. During this sequence, visible prints are made.
Apollo 17 flag. During this clip, dust is kicked numerous times and very quickly horizontally, but the astronauts move slower on the Moon. When the clip is speeded up to your 150% it looks fucking ridiculous.
You obfuscating tap dancing, obsessive spamming arse:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
03-05-2012
Cosmored
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Apollo 15 flag. Dust kicked up, falls straight to the surface and shows no suspension. During this sequence, visible prints are made.
Of course visible footprints are made but we can't see them closely enough to see enough detail to know how fine particles are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
Show us some footage that shows prints being made and then shows the detail.
Jay Windley and his fellow shills at the Clavius forum made a big mistake when they said that it was impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. This issue is just too basic to obfuscate. That made them look like total horses' a---s and you look like a total horse's a-s when you tap dance around the issue.
Quote:
The geologists to a man say Apollo went to the Moon. End of argument.
The people who run science sites and post on their forums are under pressure to say the right things. They'd given their opinions which differed from Jay Windley's before they knew the issue was about Apollo. Anyway, they disagreed with Jay Windley and his credibility is shot. This is such a basic issue that it totally exposes him as a shill who doesn't even believe his own argumets.
Jay Windley and the rest of those pro-Apollo posters on the Clavius forum insisted that the fact that there were no dust clouds when the astronauts kicked the soil and when the rover spun its wheels proved they were in a vacuum. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...ay&thread=1094
They said the moon soil couldn't have been sand because it was impossible transport and place dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay said he knew that from experience.
Here's the question for FatFreddy and RandomGuy again-
Do you think Jay Windley and those other pro-Apollo posters were right, or wrong? Just give a clear unambiguous answer.
03-05-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
Of course visible footprints are made but we can't see them closely enough to see enough detail to know how fine particles are.
What we can see is prints being made and fine dust being kicked and sprayed about without it atomising you big horses ass.:lmao:lmao:lmao
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
Jay Windley and his fellow experts at the Clavius forum made an informed observation on a hypothetical question. Because I am such a total kunt I keep going on about it as though it means something.
I had no answer to the Apollo 17 dust flying about at 150% speed so I ignored it, this is because I am a complete nutcase.
ftfy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
This issue is just too basic for fucking words. I like talking about me debating halls and me big words. My strawman made them look like people expressing a subjective opinion on a hypothetical question
Even the geologists from your own link don't agree with each other - you stupid moron. :bang:bang:bang
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
The people who run science sites and post on their forums are under pressure to say the right things.
No they are not you paranoid twat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
They'd given their opinions which differed from Jay Windley's before they knew the issue was about Apollo.
"They"??? No dumbfuck, they disagreed amongst each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
Here's the question for FatFreddy and RandomGuy again-
Do you think Jay Windley and those other pro-Apollo posters were right, or wrong? Just give a clear unambiguous answer.
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
I see FatFreddy tap danced around the question again and Random Guy ignored it. These shills don't care how silly they look; this is just a job for them and they get paid no matter what. http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums...pic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------
6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and non-acceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
-----------------------------------------------
No matter how silly shills look during a debate, they press on with the attitude that they're winning just like the Black Knight in this video clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
When the issue blows over, they continue as if nothing had happened and try to bury the part of the thread where they looked silly and at least reduce the number of people who see it.
It's impossible to debate with Jay Windley on neutral ground; an objective moderator would tell him to answer the question but the JREF moderator just stays silent. He wouldn't dare debate on neutral ground as he'd have to deal with real issues and he'd just end up looking like a horse's a-s.
If I'm pressed for time I'm going to skip over questions by people who are just playing games.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Troll. You will not ignore questions or you will be banned.
On disinfo sites there is a double standard. The shills can do pretty much what they want and the truthers are walking a fine line.
Hey FatFreddy and RandomGuy-
What's your opinion of the double standard here? Why doesn't the moderator at JREF tell Jay Windley to answer the question?
03-06-2012
Fatfreddy88
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
I think you are a stupid dickhead troll who ignores every single question aimed at you. Does that answer your question?:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao
Tapdancing and obfuscating, they would throw you out of the debate hall for being an arse.:lmao:lmao:lmao
Apollo 15 flag. Dust kicked up, falls straight to the surface and shows no suspension. During this sequence, visible prints are made.
Apollo 17 flag. During this clip, dust is kicked numerous times and very quickly horizontally, but the astronauts move slower on the Moon. When the clip is speeded up to your 150% it looks fucking ridiculous.
Your own cite has geologists disagreeing with each other.
03-06-2012
Blake
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Yeah, still convinced that the cosmored and the Fatfreddy88 in this thread are the same poster.
People have funny ways of entertaining themselves
03-06-2012
RandomGuy
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
Here's the question for FatFreddy and RandomGuy again-
Do you think Jay Windley and those other pro-Apollo posters were right, or wrong? Just give a clear unambiguous answer.
I.
Do.
Not.
Care.
I am not going to spend my time getting familiar enough with it to answer.
As I have said, either you understand the stuff you post is bullshit and are doing this for kicks, if a bit twisted, or you genuinely believe all of this, and are brain damaged in some fundamental way. Either case dictates that you will not be convinced no matter what I say, therefore engaging you in debate is pointless. Mouse is probably the former, or, quite possibly, somewhere in between.
03-06-2012
RandomGuy
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Let's sum up Cosmored's performance in this "debate"
The following posts are where I ask for any direct evidence of various claims made by Cosmored, and no such evidence was supplied or where I directly pointed out the logical flaws (all ad hominem) in Cosmored's arguments:
Here is one where I break down one of Cosmored's claims to find the underlying assumptions that essentially require modern physics to be wrong for ol' Cosmo to be right. This got a big round of ignore too: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=626
Here is where Cosmored applies different standards of evidence to people he agrees with than to anybody else (another reason he got banned from the other websites by the way) http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=634
I will not watch any further videos posted by Cosmored since he will not do the same for me. That is simply fair. If Cosmored wishes to post quick executive summaries of his videos, I will be happy to address them.
Lastly:
What we have here is a rather standard pattern of "argument" by Cosmored.
1) Dismiss sources using the logical "ad hominem" logical fallacy.
2) Make claims, but fail to provide direct proof of those assertions when repeatedly asked.
Both of which would get you laughed out of any debating hall.
Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy, who asked
Do you have any first hand testimony of any of the actual conspirators?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
Of course I don't. How could I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy, who asked for the first time
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
Face it. You shills look very silly when you duck the jacket ] issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy, who asked for the second time
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there *is* no hoax?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
You seem to be confusing the issue of the way the jacket ...
Don't just say it's zero-G without giving any explanation. They wouldn't just laugh you out of the debating hall for that response of yours. They'd throw you out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy, who asked for the THIRD time
...and yet, you keep ignoring my question.
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
The anomalies in the video and still pictures show it was a hoax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
My question is simple, and is either a yes, or a no, not "look at my videos".
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouse
[Some copied and pasted stuff about faked pictures that continues for serveral posts]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouse
[provably false video showing people who believe moon landings were faked actively make things up]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
This [dust] issue is just too basic to obfuscate.
Too basic to obfuscate... like the fact you haven't presented any first hand accounts of someone involved in this massive hoax effort?
Is it possible there is no testimony from hoax conspirators because there is *no hoax*?
03-06-2012
RandomGuy
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
The people who run science sites and post on their forums are under pressure to say the right things.
If you cannot prove this, then you have simply committed yet another ad hominem.
03-06-2012
Cosmored
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Please provide proof of this "pressure".
I've asked for opinions on photography forums and physics forums about Apollo and 9/11 anomalies and the moderators were usually not very cooperative. Here's an example. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...post&p=3380138
Similar things have happened on some other forums but I'll have to look for them later.
Quote:
Here's the question for FatFreddy and RandomGuy again-
Do you think Jay Windley and those other pro-Apollo posters were right, or wrong? Just give a clear unambiguous answer.
------------------------------------------------------------
I.
Do.
Not.
Care.
I am not going to spend my time getting familiar enough with it to answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoron
Here's the question for FatFreddy and RandomGuy again-
Do you think Jay Windley and those other pro-Apollo posters were right, or wrong? Just give a clear unambiguous answer.
What can I say except that they'd laugh you out of the debating hall for this lameness. This pretty much exposes you both as shills. Objective truth-seekers do not play silly games like this.
Quote:
Apollo 15 flag. Dust kicked up, falls straight to the surface and shows no suspension.
All the viewers know that you two are a couple of shills who don't even believe your own arguments. All you can do now is try to bury this part of the debate deep in the thread to reduce the number of people who see your lame responses. You're all washed up. I'd bet that your success rate is pretty close to zero.
03-06-2012
RandomGuy
Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmored
I've asked for opinions on photography forums and physics forums about Apollo and 9/11 anomalies and the moderators were usually not very cooperative. Here's an example. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...c=179829&st=75
Similar things have happened on some other forums but I'll have to look for them later.
What can I say except that they'd laugh you out of the debating hall for this lameness. This pretty much exposes you both as shills. Objective truth-seekers do not play silly games like this.
All the viewers know that you two are a couple of shills who don't even believe your own arguments. All you can do now is try to bury this part of the debate deep in the thread to reduce the number of people who see your lame responses. You're all washed up. I'd bet that your success rate is pretty close to zero.
I don't see any proof of offical "pressure" to hew to some narrative, just you being a whiney bitch.
Sorry, whining about moderators does not constitute proof of official "pressure".
Listen dumbo.:bang:bang:bang