To get this debate started, let me begin by clarifying my position. First, I must qualify my statement that "I am a believer in 2012". I actually subscribe to the biblical verse that states that no one knows the time and date of the "end of days". So I am NOT arguing that the music is suddenly going to stop on 12/21/2012. In fact, subscribing to that biblical quote means that that is the one day it can't be because so many people think they know that date.

Okay.

Rather, my position is that human civilization is inexorably headed toward an imminent, cataclysmic change that will result in widespread death and destruction.

Well, of course. Even if the human race doesn't destroy itself in a nuclear storm or pollute Earth to the brink of being uninhabitable, the Sun will eventually either swallow our planet or push it into an orbit that cannot sustain life (in a few billion years, mind you). There's nothing particularly novel about such an acknowledgment. Humanity won't last forever. Whoop-dee-doo.

I won't go so far as to say that it's absolutely unavoidable, but just that there is a high probability of it.

And you've calculated this probability … how, exactly?

I don't know exactly what form it will take, and I don't know how soon it will happen.

So, basically, you don't have anything.

But I believe it will be sooner than later.

You've asserted a probability without a calculation, and you've nebulously claimed that you don't know what will happen or when, but you "believe it will be sooner [rather] than later." There isn't much to go on here.

I think the probability increases dramatically around 12/21/2012 if for no other reason than because of the psychosocial dynamics that will have been ratcheted up to fever pitch by that time.

Why? Even if pockets of the human race go insane with 2012 fever, how does this translate to "widespread death and destruction?"

But again, I would not consider that a certainty by any means.

So you've said.

But if that date passes uneventfully, it doesn't mean that the crisis was averted. It only means it hasn't happened yet.

Convenient. As I've said before: as long as people keep pulling doomsdays out of their backsides, someone will eventually be right.

Given that is my belief, the question is whether I should just keep my thoughts to myself so as not to alarm those who don't share my belief (or who are unaware). Or should I try to at least warn them about it since I believe their lives depend on it.

Even if what you profess to believe is true, the description of those beliefs you have offered thus far is anything but compelling. You might have a chance of terrorizing people who are already predisposed toward falling for 2012 nonsense, but at this time I won't grant you any more than that.

To me, the answer is clear.

Say what you will about your answer, but very little is clear about what you've claimed. It is (I suspect, deliberately) nonspecific and speculative, and that's being generous.

You're right, Dane. You're absolutely right. Something significant will happen on that date. An 'awakening of sort', if you would. Do you know what it is? I do.

People will realize how foolish they've been, and become aware of their own lies. They will awaken to the truth, dig themselves out of the pit of lies they've dug themselves into (involving 2012), and move on with their lives.

Some people will avoid falling back into the same thing.

Most will not.

Now then, for your actual 'debate', let me make something clear. I don't consider a prediction a true prediction if it has a specific date. Now wait, you may say, how does that make any sense?

Because some people who are so convinced something will happen, will make sure something happens. Could something major happen in 2012 that is man-made in design? Yes. Would I count this as fulfilling the '2012 Prophecy'? No.

The thing that you have said that is making me feel that this debate is a bit… off-topic is your admittance toward the impossibility of a Biblical Apocalypse (I will not debate this with you period. I am an atheist, so my views of such a thing ever happening are now obvious), as well as you stating that something could happen around 2012 due to psychological effects, and that 'even beyond' 2012 isn't 'safe'.

Okay, I need to point something out with that logic. It's not valid for debate. When you come seeking to debate on a website about '2012', you need to stick to the topic of '2012'. You're suggesting something will happen, period, at some point or another. Well, this is a given fact for every day the Earth has been floating around. This is a stupid thing to be 'afraid' of, and a stupid thing to 'preach' to innocent people who are happily living their lives.

As it stands, you are sounding much like certain individuals who have 'lost faith in humanity', which boggles me. In the grand scheme of things, it's been rather calm in terms of open hostilities with other nations of the world. No one >wants< a war. And seeing that the world survived the Cold War, which makes all events beyond it look like middle school playground fights? I think we'll be okay for a good time still.

Anyway, I will wrap this up now with a few points I'd like to make.

1) Your stance on '2012' is flawed, because you don't have a stance on it. You are simply saying 'something major will eventually happen!', while stating additionally that it could happen 'around' 2012 due to psychological pressure.

I will now say something that may offend you, and I apologize. The only way something like that will happen… is due to people like you. Due to people to the left of this post. The fear-mongering and 'preaching' that something >WILL< happen. Not 'can', but >WILL<. You may not be as 'evil' as them, but you commit the same 'evil'. This possibility is upon your shoulders. If you fear it, then remove yourself as part of the 'problem'.

If you want to 'debate' the whole '2012' thing, you need to state clearly what you BELIEVE will happening. Giving us a response like yours, with nothing set at all to work with, makes it impossible to debate. You have a general fear of not-2012 related things, which is… not the point.

2) I do not believe you are a believer of '2012'. I do, however, believe you are just a worried parent who is concerned about the potential 'state of the world'. You are able to tie your concerns around a certain date, which is a dangerous thing. However, as I mentioned before in my post, a fear of everything is irrational. Life is scary, but it is worth living. Be an example to your children.

3) Finally, I do believe you should not say anything to anyone. If something 'cataclysmic' were to happen, would you really be able to save anyone? And what if something didn't happen? You potentially destroyed multiple lives of people who spent every single dime 'preparing', or 'gave up on life' for 'nothing'. This isn't like a Global Warming scenario where NOT acting is stupid. This IS a stupid thing to act on with out a shred of evidence to back it up.

Where information there, with absolute 'proof' (nothing is 100%, but you know what I mean), suggests something will happen in 2012? We've hit all the major things on the left-hand side of the website. What is there besides some insane zealots FORCING something to happen along the lines of riots or even a small-scale war?

If the above scenario happened? As I said before, it would not be due to 2012. It would be due to the 'believers' and the insane spearheaders of the "2012 Doomsday" driving people to this breaking point. Much like the tragic LHC Suicide. It was not due to the LHC, but it was due to the fools who claimed an impossible worst-case scenario.

Realize what I am trying to say. I hope this is a good enough 'debate' for you, but granted in a strict sense this isn't a debate.

Thanks.

Stand by for a bit longer, and I'll get back to you. Would you prefer a formal debate or an informal one?

However, I've observed on this site that people who believe in the possibility of the "2012 phenomenon" are generally derided as either cynical liars out to cash in on others' misery or gullible idiots. Well, I am a believer in "2012". I don't stand to make any money by making this claim. And I'll stake my intellect against anyone else on this website. (Not saying I'm a super genius—just that I can hold my own).

Why would I want to do that? For the same reason others here have for arguing the other side—I believe that lives depend on it. But for me it's not a matter of random people here or there overreacting to their fears and taking their own lives. For me it's about the wholesale annihilation of countless innocent people, my own daughters and extended family among them. So I'm hoping that one of the leaders on this site (Astrogeek?) will respect my motivations and agree to engage with me in a productive, rational debate.

I actually hold open the possibility that I may be convinced to change my position if my facts and logic don't stack up. I think it would be very cool if someone would enter the debate with the same degree of openness. It may be that neither of use will change the other's mind. But wouldn't it be refreshing to have two intelligent people having a constructive debate without resorting to name calling, hyperbole and specious arguments? And wouldn't that help illuminate the topic for people much better, so they can make up their own mind having heard a fair representation of both sides?

To get this debate started, let me begin by clarifying my position. First, I must qualify my statement that "I am a believer in 2012". I actually subscribe to the biblical verse that states that no one knows the time and date of the "end of days". So I am NOT arguing that the music is suddenly going to stop on 12/21/2012. In fact, subscribing to that biblical quote means that that is the one day it can't be because so many people think they know that date. Rather, my position is that human civilization is inexorably headed toward an imminent, cataclysmic change that will result in widespread death and destruction. I won't go so far as to say that it's absolutely unavoidable, but just that there is a high probability of it. I don't know exactly what form it will take, and I don't know how soon it will happen. But I believe it will be sooner than later. I think the probability increases dramatically around 12/21/2012 if for no other reason than because of the psychosocial dynamics that will have been ratcheted up to fever pitch by that time. But again, I would not consider that a certainty by any means. But if that date passes uneventfully, it doesn't mean that the crisis was averted. It only means it hasn't happened yet.

Given that is my belief, the question is whether I should just keep my thoughts to myself so as not to alarm those who don't share my belief (or who are unaware). Or should I try to at least warn them about it since I believe their lives depend on it. To me, the answer is clear.

So I hope that someone here will take up my challenge and we can have a worthy debate that will help educate folks about this most important topic.

Standy by…

Dane

It would sure be a big step in the right direction if they actually did stop airing the 2012 nonsense, though.

I can believe that the writer of the TV show had written this script, but was denied by ABC and/or Disney, but I honestly can't believe that a "government entity" forced them to jerk it from the schedule, that part just sounds like more conspiracy theorist bullshit.

P.S.

There are no other articles to give merit to this claim, none that I could find anyway.

Are there any coming soon Astro and what will they cover?

Many thanks in advance!!

:-D

Officially ABC and Disney canceled the episode stating that they do not endorse nor give and credence to the potential cataclysmic events associated with the belief in 2012, and they will not air anything that may show them to endorse any fear based materials. If that was truly the case, then why did they produce the show in the first place?

Unofficially and according to a ABC affiliate representative, the show was reviewed by a 'government entity' that ordered the episode to be removed form all publications in the interest of national security. The statement went on to say, “the subject family’s beliefs ran very deep. They were making real plans for survival and were to disclose many of the theories pertaining to 2012. The show was deemed to be a national interest threat and could cause a potential global panic”. The statement went on to say that, “all-future television shows pertaining to 2012 are now subject to approval. The airing of existing and future shows and documentaries, must include an expert scientific disclaimer of impossibility and must be classified as fiction or fantasy”.

OK, it's a crank website where truth is normally as rare as hen's teeth, but if this is correct, it's a very welcome sign. Has anybody heard about this or is there any way of finding out whether this is true? I believe the show was in fact broadcast because it is available as a streamed video. Presumably the 'government entity' must have overlooked this. OK, so that part of the story was a lie (surprise surprise) but is the whole story an invention about those nasty government people exercising censorship?

I am convinced that most of the people who watch and believe the stuff on the History Channel don't understand that it's TELEVISION and see all these people who for the most part aren't scientists or even in the scientific realm and take their word that the Mayans or Nostradomis The Bible or whoever predicted something in Dec 2012 when there's no evidence of any of those people or things saying anything like that.

Most certainly, the shows pertaining to 2012, Nostradamus, the Maya, the Bible, etc. are very convincing to people who really don't know any better because they don't know who is, and who isn't really part of the scientific community and when NatGeo and History air these shows as documentaries (they aren't), people instantly go into a panic because to them, these people who are claiming to be scientists are spewing drivel that, to them, at least, sounds real and convincing and because they do claim to be scientists, that is a figure that most people actually look up to simply because they're supposed to know what they're talking about.

Other programs, however, supporting the idea of science fiction type monsters in lakes and oceans, some people actually believe this stuff, too. I find that to be odd.

it is the internet, like a court, anything you say or, do can and will be used against you

Just… throwing that out. We're the friendly, chummy bunch after all.

But yes, he wants attention, we're fattening him up on it, no arguments from me there.

Apparently, Ivan Gorelik doesn't fall in under the latter category so why not simply stop feeding this lunacy any further?

Everyone with even the most basic knowledge of physics knows that he is wrong, and why he is wrong. But Ivan is obviously smarter than every single scientist in the whole wide world and is light years beyond the Standard model of physics.

I mean, come on, should we really allow ourselfs to step down to his level of sanity? I think not. We, and all the readers of this page and its forums are better than him. Just ignore him, there is absolutelly no point in having any kind of discussion with him.

You continue to make the error of confusing repetition of your claims with defending them.

That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear quasi-holes”.

Yes, your entire "argument" (and I use that term loosely) is based around you making up ideas and words that have no demonstrable connection to anything in reality.

Dear DeathDealer, try my program http://darkenergy.narod.ru/Explosion.exe and look how many days does the Explosion last. Investigate, please, this interval dependence from the quantity of created microscopic droplets; from the velocity of particles in the hot plasma babbles around the droplets; from the density of dark matter inside droplets. If you will make it, you will understand, that it is quite early to say that contemporary collisions at LHC are safe. If you do not trust my program, make the analogues program yourself, please.

Dear UndeadxNurse, do not lie, please. In my page “Crude Errors in Risk Assessment of Colliders”, http://darkenergy.narod.ru/tezeng.html you can find the text which contradicts to your assertion. I’ll copy part of it here:

Dear physicists, you again and again repeat the biggest error of Stephen Hawking.
In the CERN's article “The safety of the LHC”
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html you can find a dozen of comparisons with cosmic rays.

Hawking: "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. … Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."

This error will cost us the life of our Civilization.

The biggest error is in the comparison of A and B.
A. Collisions of protons at LHC;
B. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric protons.

Similarity: Energies in A and B are sufficient in order to make microscopic magnetic holes.

Difference: Velocities of created holes relatively surrounding matter are drastically great.
A. Magnetic holes, made on LHC, can have very small velocities.
B. According to conservation law of 4-momentum, cosmic holes have relativistic velocities.

Result:
A. LHC’s holes capture slowly moving particles and grow. The bigger hole becomes – the bigger its rate of growth.
B. Atmosphere particles move relatively holes with relativistic velocities and, correspondingly, they have TeV kinetic energy, relatively holes. As a result, magnetic holes evaporate immediately. Such collisions lead to creation of showers of secondary particles. Physicists observe such showers.

Analogy:
Let’s compare the behavior of “nuclear quasi-hole” with the behavior of magnetic hole. Let’s investigate two cases:

A. Bombarding particles are neutrons, having the kinetic energies, equal to several in eV.
B. Bombarding neutrons have kinetic energies, equal to several TeV.

Approximate result:
A. Collapse:
p+n -> d;
d+n -> t -> He3+e;
He3+n -> He4;
He4+n -> He5;
He5+n -> He6 -> Li6+e;
Li6+n -> Li7;
Li7+n -> Li8 -> Be8+e;
Be8+n -> Be9;
Be9+n -> Be10;
…
U235+n -> X+Y+2n
X+n ->…; Y+n ->…
two branches;
…
four branches;
…
eight branches;
…

B. Evaporation. TeV-energy neutrons will ruin the nucleus in the backward order in crude approximation.

Nuclear collapse is impossible because the repulsive electrostatic forces of protons. That is way, I named nucleus by “nuclear quasi-holes”.
Magnetic collapse has no limit. Magnetic hole will grow till there is the food, - the matter of planet or star.

Physicists, did you see the difference?

Look here: [[http://darkenergy.narod.ru/sn1987.jpg]]

That is an image of remnants of exploded star.
You can see there three beautiful semi axial rings.
Axial symmetry says us that there was the magnetic collapse, but not the gravity collapse.
Magnetic hole has axial symmetry because it is a compact magnetic dipole.
Black hole must have spherical symmetry, if it is not rotate.

The Earth after the magnetic collapse will transform into a small region of exited superconducting vacuum. This region’s diameter is about 10 meters. The thickness is about 2.5 meters. The strength of magnetic field in this region is about 10^16 teslas. Because of the strong magnetic interaction, this small magnetic hole will move on spiral trajectory to the Sun. As a result, the Sun will explode and astronomy amateurs from neighbor stellar systems will observe novae or supernovae phenomenon. Alien stephen hawkings will say: “The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. … Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens”

I'd want to do a lot more to the doomsayers then just grab them and shake them but that's just me.

Oh, I agree, but if I were to do to them, what I'm really thinking about doing to them, I would be sent to another planet and labeled as a danger to the Human race.

I don't understand you, Ivan. I really don't. Your base your work off work that has no merit. Your work has no merit because you're convinced the scientific community would shoot you down. Do you wonder why you think this? Because deep blow your fear-mongering insanity, your sub-conscious reminds you of how insane your theories are.

You admit that all of your work and your basis of your work is theoretical, a theory. A theory that has not been reviewed by any level of physics-trained individuals (Let's ignore PhyForums own individuals who have already done your work for you and presented why it doesn't make sense) should NOT be launched around in an attempt to drive individuals to attack CERN. Which is exactly what you want.

You are angry at CERN. You hate CERN. You have been brainwashed by another individual who refused to submit his work because he had to be right. The only way to be right is not allow anyone to prove you wrong. You are trying to inspire chaos. You are trying to provoke more actions like the CERN hacking.

You are a madman. You are not a crusader attempting to educate the masses. You are an insane fool. If you are truly convinced that our 'sacred mission' is to explode by a man-made particle colliding device, then you're really one sick bastard.

Your lack of training shows.

Your lack of reasoning shows.

Your lack of understanding physics shows. (Ouch, coming from someone with no training. Sure glad I'm doin' a 3-year trained physics babe! BOW CHIKA!)

Your lack of intelligence shows. (You still failed to answer my question as to why neutrinos suddenly become so dangerous. You continue to skirt around this, because you can't explain it.)

But the most obvious point of all this is? Your little "percentile" chart. After the LHC is shut down for good in, ironically, 2012? You will say some time later that we got 'lucky', but it was a good thing the 'CERN criminals' were stopped before it was too late.

You purposely set yourself up for a no-lose situation. Except, you know, your public image and personal intelligence being smacked around left and right.

But I apologize. You clearly cannot be wrong about your theories because you refuse to have them submitted and put to the process.

Honestly? I think you're jealous. I think you're jealous that you were not a part of any of the particle collision projects, and now attack them in your spiteful rage.

Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. Perhaps your mind has been poisoned so far that you refuse to believe any alternatives other than your own 'facts'. Or lack there of.

This is not a scientist. This is a zealot. You are a zealot.

And a madman!

And a fool!

And insane!

Tell me, Ivan. How does it feel to have caused more deaths than the LHC has? And don't blame CERN for it. Really. That was just childish. Individuals like you are what cause the suicides, not the research CERN makes.

Tell me. How do you feel? How do you feel that you are a direct contribution to suicides?

Or are you that much of a heartless zealot that you still can't be wrong, when you've clearly been proven wrong months ago?

I really don't want to say this, but let me go ahead and say this. Go find a small pistol. Go put a bullet into it. Say a silent prayer. Put the barrel to your head. Close your eyes. Pull the trigger.

Perform your sacred mission a bit earlier than the rest of us supposedly are. Please.

Thank you. You bastard.

The cause that he had not wrote this is clear; - he did not want to be closed into psychiatric hospital.

Clear, eh? You don't think it's possible that, say, such ideas are simply WRONG?

Puny energy of 3.5 TeV p-p collision is sufficient in order to create a droplet, consisting of about 7000 x-bosons, which are smallest constituent elements of magnetic hole.

Puny energy of 3.5 TeV is sufficient to create a smoorjenflob, consisting of about 7,000 x-bosons, which are the smallest constituent elements of a toopermarboblasterjack. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Puny energy! Look!

1. More than 30 years ago academician Migdal wrote about “pion condensation”, and as a result about different state of nuclear matter. In a conclusion he had wrote that neutron stars can have different masses. I would name the smallest droplet of Migdal’s condensate, consisting from 1000 neutrons, as a “neutron condensate”. Migdal wrote also about the possibility to receive these different states of nuclear state at some of future colliders. Migdal did not wrote that the further condensation of ordinary matter onto microscopic neutron star will transform the Solar system into the usual neutron star and that will kill us all. The cause that he had not wrote this is clear; - he did not want to be closed into psychiatric hospital.

By the way, dear Astrogeek, the puny energy of one p-p collision at LHC is sufficient in order to create two jets, consisting of 3500 neutrons and 3500 antineutrons. Chiral magnetic effect of this high-energy collision can make an alignment between particles and antiparticles in jets/droplets; and align their spins. Pauli exclusion principle can be excluded by different spatial places of neutrons and, as a result, by different energy states of neutrons in neutron droplet.

2. Puny energy of 3.5 TeV p-p collision is sufficient in order to create a droplet, consisting of about 7000 x-bosons, which are smallest constituent elements of magnetic hole. These elements are microscopic magnets NS. Magnetic hole is dipole, has some properties of magnetic monopole (catalyses of proton decay in a super-strong magnetic field) and some properties of ferromagnetic vacuum of Savidy.

3. Puny energy of 3.5 TeV p-p collision is sufficient in order to create two jets, consisting of about 3500 lambda-hyperons and 3500 anti-lambda-hyperons. Read about chiral magnetic effect in the point 1.

4. Puny energy of 3.5 TeV p-p collision is sufficient in order to create two jets, consisting of about 1500 lambda-hyperons and 1500 anty-lambda-hyperons, 1500 neutrons and 1500 antineutrons. In this case we can receive electrically neutral substance consisting from neutrons (udd), and lambda-hyperons (uds). It is possible that such nuclear matter can by more stable as proton(uud)/neutron(udd) state. Read about chiral magnetic effect in the point 1.

5. …

6. …
…
Puny energy of 3.5 TeV p-p collision is sufficient in order to create hundreds of different types of condensates, which can by described theoretically.
…

If one of such type of subnuclear condensate is more stable that our ordinary nuclei (condensates, made of protons and neutrons) than the ordinary matter will be transformed into more stable dangerous condensate. This transition will by accompanied by explosion. Astronomers can see about 15 such explosions in our Galaxy every year. We are the next!

So, don’t fear to die and perform your sacred mission. Fasten your safety belts; - be ready to biosphere’s suicidal reproduction!

Can you read Rose's post about her daughter and not act?

That post still troubles me, I really can't seem to shake the thought of those events.
I want to grab one of these doomsayers and backhand them over, and over, and over.

I can see nothing special in the year 2012.

So you are admitting you are way off topic? Then by all means, please post your ideas elsewhere. This site is dedicated to refuting the entire "2012 doomsday scenario". The LHC fears are a part of that, but really, I've seen a massive decline in LHC related questions since the successful tests.

There is a big probability (several dozens of percents) that the dangerous condensate is impossible and, consequently, the Earth will not been exploded.

Actually, you are low with your estimate of 'several dozens of percents'. The probability that your 'dangerous condensate is impossible' much higher. It is difficult to evaluate, because as others have pointed out, you have not submitted your ideas to peer review. But more to the point, the probability that such a 'dangerous condensate' could be produced by the puny energies available to us here on earth is 100% impossible.

Please, keep asking the questions. But more importantly, keep looking for the answers. What should be getting more apparent to you is that Geryl and the others are not just wrong, but they are amazingly, completely, and utterly wrong to the point that what they say is silly, stupid, and obviously just made up.

I know of professional scientists who have spent their careers studying a topic, for example, the Maya, who are just blown away by the 'rock-star' like attention that people such as Jenkins get, just for making stuff up.

Alene Y

For myself, if you click on my forum signature Full Frontal Nerdity you will be taken to my 'about' page which has a link to my blog, where you can find more information.

But, that being said, since this information is already out there in one form or another, here goes:

My name is Bill Hudson. I 'own' this site, from the standpoint that I started it, I pay the fees, and I own the domain. But really, this site is a group effort. I have done a lot of the typing and formatting, but most of the information is freely available elsewhere, or came from other contributors in the form of conversations and emails. I actively encourage people to sign up for a free wikidot membership, join the site, and start editing pages.

How I got into this? I am an amateur astronomer. I am not a professional scientist. In my 'day job' I work in Information Systems (in other words, I'm a professional computer geek, hence the nickname 'astrogeek'). I enjoy sharing my love of the night sky with people during public programs at Fremont Peak Observatory. I also enjoy taking that love into school classrooms where I give astronomy presentations. I have been doing that for a few years.

In early 2008 I gave several presentations, and I noticed a recurring question, which was basically "Is the world going to end in 2012?". I am ashamed to admit that I blew it off at that point, and didn't give much thought to it. In early 2009 I gave another presentation, and at the end of this presentation I was overwhelmed with "2012" questions. In fact, two young girls confronted me after the Q&A and were asking specific questions about things that they had seen on the internet. When I asked them where, they replied that they had seen answers on Yahoo! Answers, as well as videos on YouTube.

So, I started hanging out in Yahoo! Answers, and was again overwhelmed with the sheer volume of "2012" questions. I was also overwhelmed by the number of honorable and honest people trying diligently to answer these questions. I was angered by some of the 'bad' answers, including one in particular that sticks in my mind, which was essentially "Kiss your a** goodbye", and of course the inevitable "God's judgement is upon us" and "It's the beginning of the events in the book of Revelation" type of answer (which I find particularly offensive as a Christian)¹.

Well, one thing led to another, and I found myself communicating with people of a similar mindset, and I began writing my first article on 2012 on my blog. It got bigger, and bigger, and I found people referring to it, which was great by me. However, what happened was that I was targeted by a particularly nasty poster over on Y!A who began filing spurious complaints against everybody who gave a scientific or skeptical answer to a "2012" question. Eventually he managed to have my account on Y!A terminated, because I had referred to my blog (despite written rules on Y!A which say it is perfectly acceptable to do so).

At that point I realized that what was needed in order to continue referring to a central repository of information was a site that was divided topically, that did not 'belong' to a single person, so that when someone asks a question about Nibiru, they could be referred to http://2012hoax.org/nibiru, and they could do so with less fear of retaliation from Y!A trolls (I say less fear, because the Y!A trolls are still accusing everybody who cites this site of being a single person).

The group of people I was communicating with agreed, and I started this Wiki, and invited them all to contribute. This site was born in April of 2009.

Since then we have managed to attract the attention of various scientists, who have been extremely generous with their time and expertise. Some of them have become members, and everybody has been very helpful in vetting the information, doing fact checks, research, and making sure that the site has high-quality information.

Obviously, we have also attracted some other kinds of attention as well. That doesn't bother me so much. It also doesn't bother me to have my name attached to this site, because as nasty as the 2012ers can be², they are nothing compared to the Scientologists (who I had a run-in with online in 1994).

In that original group of people were Alene Y, bikenbeer2000, Emma T and ticktock. But really, every person who visits this site and posts a question is part of it. I am grateful to each and every person who has contributed to the site in any way, whether it be through participation in the forums, to writing content, or simply posting a note pointing out an error.

So, I'll toss out my challenge (not specifically to you, but to all the readers): Can you read Rose's post about her daughter and not act?

I can't.

I seem to recall thinking it would be better if every member had their own profile page.

PS: Cancer likes to kill for the sake of suspicion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_diNGZSr8N0&feature=related

If the site admin says that you're a contributor, then that's what you are, but if they don't say such things then you're pretty much left titleless and that's perfectly fine with me.

Really, the only problem that I do see or, have with this idea is that it is the internet, like a court, anything you say or, do can and will be used against you and that's why any contributor maintains the right to refuse to share certain information or, to share certain information.
Overall, it would be the contributors decision to participate in this idea, as no one is forcing them to do so, but if they decide to participate, I would advise them to do so with caution.

For example, it doesn't matter how often I told one particular YouTuber I was unemployed, he was convinced I worked for 'the Government' because of the videos I posted. What was even more entertaining was his evidence: he had found a post, attributed to 3WMElliott on a 'Pro Hacking website'. I actually had to Google myself to see what he was on about, and sure enough, there was a post on a site called Prohackers.

What was the content? It was a video scraped from YouTube, comments and all, a video about Datamoshing, a video editing technique that I had a question on. And that was all. That was enough to brand me a government agent who hacks computers, completely ignoring the fact that Datamoshing concerns deleting individual frames in movie files so they create unexpected visual effects.

Now, back on topic, I do agree and see the point about making some things known, either to make us seem more approachable or whatever, but what list will we end up with? Who is defined as a contributor? There are users who are more active on the forums as oppose to the pages, who certainly put in their work in responding, but are they contributors? Does that make sense to anyone?

That absolutely not to say that only posting in the forums does not qualify you for something, not at all, there are some topics I just don't post on because I know there are others who will, and will do a better job than me at it. There are users who wont touch the pages for the same reason, feeling that others are better suited.

So like I say, I'm not against such an idea, but because I'm not sure exactly what qualifies as a contributor, I'm not entirely sold on it either. Having said that, if you want to know about me, I'll probably say a few things.

It's funny, but terrifying how people believe some of the stuff that they air on TV, I've seen people believing some very, very strange stuff, but at least the programs from History and NatGeo are somewhat convincing, the shows that I've seen people believing consists of monsters in waters and closets.

Well in the case of the doomsayers If they believe it it has to be true. Also to quote Garfield and Friends IF YOU SEE IT ON TELEVISION IT MUST BE TRUE.

::headdesk::

You would have to say that, after I just watched three movies, Mimic, Godzilla and Alien.

It sucks, though, that someone was running a campaign against you guys so early into your development,
I honestly can't fathom why someone would want to smear the names of people who are trying to help, but we're talking about people from Yahoo, of course.

I think that Chippy is referring to general information (e.g. where you learned what you know, how you got involved in your current field, if you have a family, etc.), but there's really no way to say, for sure, until this Chippy person responds with an elaboration of what they're meaning by "more background".

Assuming, of course, that this "background" is general information and not completely personal, then there really shouldn't be much of a problem, but it's the internet.

Like Alene said, it helps to know that we're helping and that we're appreciated for the effort and just like I tell the others, if you need to ask more questions or, if you just need to talk, feel free to come back and ask or, hit one of us up.

I just hope that there won't be anymore cases like Rose, her post still has me a bit bothered.