On March 17th, 2008 "orion28" wrote on the darkmission blog:
">Speculation on the symmetry/non symmetry of the face on mars ... would be considered an inaccurate prediction, not a lie."
This reply was suppressed by Mike Bara:
Look. In 1992 Hoagland said, WHILE THE SO-CALLED FACE WAS ON THE SCREEN, "..it has symmetry both in the center ridge line and left-and-right..."
In 2001 Bara wrote "we never expected [that it was symmetrical]". How is that an inaccurate prediction? If you don't like the word "lie", how about Churchill's famous expression -- a terminological inexactitude?
On the same day, "rogerv" wrote:
"These cranks are immediately recognizable for the tools they are, as they always fixate on various angles of character attacks and/or fixation on derivative minutia."
The following reply was suppressed:
I think the character attacks are coming in the other direction, aren't they? ..."moron"..."blithering idiot"... Hmm?????
Look, when the very first sentence of a book turns out to be based on a complete misreading by its authors, and when merely flipping through it reveals several more howlers, and when its overall thesis is highly improbable anyway, it needs to be outed in any way possible.