How to promote scepticism on paranormal boards without getting banned

[geni]

Ok may not without getting banned since in the end there is a fair chance you will be whatever but it takes a lot longer

1. Be polite Very polite you may think the person is a completely deluded idiot but you don’t need to let them know that. A lot of boards will try and ban you for being rude, being very polite makes that impossible without making a mess of the rules.

2. Don’t overwhelm to board. Find out what the highest post rate for an existing member is and stay below that. Sure you find that this allows people to ignore you but the ones who ignore you tend to be the least interesting

3. Pick your battles with care. Personal accounts are not good battles to fight. They are almost impossible to debate without making the person who’s account it is feel under attack. If you want to bring up all the problems of personal accounts start separate thread (and latter on so the link between the two threads isn’t clear).

4. Make sure you know your stuff. A sceptic who doesn’t know much about the topic is always going to have problems.

5. Don’t use your JREF nic

6. Try and become part of the community. When people have computer problems see if you can make suggestions. When people ask off topic questions see if you can answer them

7. If you really feel the need to have your JREF buddies with you be even more careful not to overwhelm the board.

8. If the whole thing breaks down into nothing more than personal attacks leave and let the situation calm down for a while. Staying will only get you banned anyway.

Other tips to add to this list welcome.

[Ed]

Originally posted by geni
Ok may not without getting banned since in the end there is a fair chance you will be whatever but it takes a lot longer

1. Be polite Very polite you may think the person is a completely deluded idiot but you don’t need to let them know that. A lot of boards will try and ban you for being rude, being very polite makes that impossible without making a mess of the rules.

2. Don’t overwhelm to board. Find out what the highest post rate for an existing member is and stay below that. Sure you find that this allows people to ignore you but the ones who ignore you tend to be the least interesting

3. Pick your battles with care. Personal accounts are not good battles to fight. They are almost impossible to debate without making the person who’s account it is feel under attack. If you want to bring up all the problems of personal accounts start separate thread (and latter on so the link between the two threads isn’t clear).

4. Make sure you know your stuff. A sceptic who doesn’t know much about the topic is always going to have problems.

5. Don’t use your JREF nic

6. Try and become part of the community. When people have computer problems see if you can make suggestions. When people ask off topic questions see if you can answer them

7. If you really feel the need to have your JREF buddies with you be even more careful not to overwhelm the board.

8. If the whole thing breaks down into nothing more than personal attacks leave and let the situation calm down for a while. Staying will only get you banned anyway.

Other tips to add to this list welcome.

If these fine ideas fail you fall back to plan "B". These tips might help:

1) Pull the pin before lobbing the grenade.

2) Pay heed to the admonition "This side toward enemy" when planting a Claymore.

3) Trust no one named "Yassir" or "Arafat" or "Osma".

4) Remember: Always allow for wind speed and direction!

5) You can always call in air support.

6) Know where your buddy is at all times.

I hope this helps if things spin out of control.

[Operaider]

or you could always go to the board and pretend to believe them.

Go there and talk about your experiences ESP

Your alien abduction

The picture you took of bigfoot

The predictions given to you from God

post pictures of spirit manifestations

eventually some of the members might think
"what the hell is wrong with this guy, and why do we agree on so many things"

at that point talk about how you were banned from the Jref because of a conspiracy to hid the the truth. Explain to them that your mental powers the sole reason why onions make people cry.

People will rethink their beliefs real quick

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
Ok may not without getting banned since in the end there is a fair chance you will be whatever but it takes a lot longer

Or, you could simply avoid joining those kinds of "woo woo" forums in the first place and save everyone time and energy.

While many of you will insist on taking offense, and being defensive, I admit I can't help myself and in a very likely fruitless attempt to foster understanding, I'll put in my two cents:

1. Be polite Very polite you may think the person is a completely deluded idiot but you don’t need to let them know that. A lot of boards will try and ban you for being rude, being very polite makes that impossible without making a mess of the rules.

Sounds fine. But two things about this and all your points: coming across a post like this on a skeptic forum is like coming across the guerilla tactical plans for an assualt on the enemy village, in this case, the woos on paranormal forums.

The second point is that, -- and please do note, all of this is MY personal opinion, based on MY personal and direct experience. No "links or 'proof' need be supplied to "support" my assertions. And if you are not a "pathological skeptic" or "skeptoid" then no need to get up in arms and be so huffy. If the shoe fits, fine. If it doesn't, no problem. Sorry, digressed. Anyway, the second point is that, I've been duped by many a supposed well meaning skeptic who starts off politely, for the real agenda reveals itself soon enough, and all pretense of politeness falls away. Most of us "woos" (and who is name calling by the way?) get extremely defensive around the "polite" skeptic. At least with dripping nasty sarcasm you know what to expect, and where everyone stands.

2. Don’t overwhelm to board. Find out what the highest post rate for an existing member is and stay below that. Sure you find that this allows people to ignore you but the ones who ignore you tend to be the least interesting

Are they "less interesting" because they are darn tired and won't engage in pointless rounds with you? This sounds like trolling to me. . .

3. Pick your battles with care. Personal accounts are not good battles to fight. They are almost impossible to debate without making the person who’s account it is feel under attack. If you want to bring up all the problems of personal accounts start separate thread (and latter on so the link between the two threads isn’t clear).

I'm unsure about what you mean by "personal accounts." Do you mean the anecdotal evidence of someone, or something else?

4. Make sure you know your stuff. A sceptic who doesn’t know much about the topic is always going to have problems.

I have to admit, this is a very valid point and I agree.

5. Don’t use your JREF nic

Why? What are you hiding? This smacks of more "trolling" tactics. Is it so that the "woos" can't come after you?

6. Try and become part of the community. When people have computer problems see if you can make suggestions. When people ask off topic questions see if you can answer them

This is starting to sound more and more like a cult leader addressing her members. . .blend in, be nice, be helpful, get the enemy to trust you, etc.

What you don't realize, and I'll share with you, is that many Forteans or woos or whatever cute label you want to use today is, have had experience with this type of skeptic, JREFers, etc. and are very familiar with all of these tactics. They can smell them a mile away. So when a seemingly polite sketpic enters a woo forum, is ever so helpful, even regarding off topic posts, . . .red flags go up. There may be a newbie or two who don't know any better, but most of us recognize the signs.

7. If you really feel the need to have your JREF buddies with you be even more careful not to overwhelm the board.

Good advice. Avoid "tag team debunkery." Try not to just echo what your JREF buddy just said, only more so, often with SAYING THINGS IN CAPS LIKE THIS EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME THING THE OTHER JREFER JUST SAID, as if that will make any difference.

Also, if your JREF buddy joins as well, avoid speaking to each other on the board about one of the "woos" as if they're not there and can't "hear" you.

8. If the whole thing breaks down into nothing more than personal attacks leave and let the situation calm down for a while. Staying will only get you banned anyway.

Yes, but why is this considered mature and reasonable (and I agree that it is) but when a "woo" does this -- leaves because it's all become a huge time wasting energy drain -- the "woo" does it because, according to these types of skeptics, they're "afraid," "don't have an argument," etc.

[Other tips to add to this list welcome.
Interesting. . .

[Operaider]

I thought you said you weren't going to come to this forum.

I believe you compared my invite to a spider inviting flies into his web

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
I thought you said you weren't going to come to this forum.

I believe you compared my invite to a spider inviting flies into his web

I see you responded to the points addressed in this post, and have not dragged in any personal issues. :D

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
I see you responded to the points addressed in this post, and have not dragged in any personal issues. :D It's not a personal issue, I'm just wondering why you changed your mind

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
It's not a personal issue, I'm just wondering why you changed your mind

I responded to geni's post. If you have something to say about that post I'd be happy to hear it.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
Or, you could simply avoid joining those kinds of "woo woo" forums in the first place and save everyone time and energy.

While many of you will insist on taking offense, and being defensive, I admit I can't help myself and in a very likely fruitless attempt to foster understanding, I'll put in my two cents:kinda like how you avoided this forum?Sounds fine. But two things about this and all your points: coming across a post like this on a skeptic forum is like coming across the guerilla tactical plans for an assualt on the enemy village, in this case, the woos on paranormal forums.

The second point is that, -- and please do note, all of this is MY personal opinion, based on MY personal and direct experience. No "links or 'proof' need be supplied to "support" my assertions. And if you are not a "pathological skeptic" or "skeptoid" then no need to get up in arms and be so huffy. If the shoe fits, fine. If it doesn't, no problem. Sorry, digressed. Anyway, the second point is that, I've been duped by many a supposed well meaning skeptic who starts off politely, for the real agenda reveals itself soon enough, and all pretense of politeness falls away. Most of us "woos" (and who is name calling by the way?) get extremely defensive around the "polite" skeptic. At least with dripping nasty sarcasm you know what to expect, and where everyone stands. Who is name calling? You are! Need I point out your use of "pathological skeptic" and "skeptoid".

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
kinda like how you avoided this forum? Who is name calling? You are! Need I point out your use of "pathological skeptic" and "skeptoid".

It seems you are intent on dragging in personal issues and avoiding addressing points related to this post, unless it can be used to further your urge to "fight."

As I made clear, if the use of the term "pathological skeptic" does not apply, then no need to get in a dither over it.

As far as your comment "kinda like how you avoided this forum?" in context, I can only interpret that to mean you intend to cause trouble, ie to "fight."

I do believe I said "in an effort to understand" although I qualified it with the comment it will most likely be "fruitless." I see that your responses so far are proving this to be so.

Now, if you have something constructive to say about points raised in geni's post, great. If you are simply going to be intent on creating a nasty go 'round, I will not engage.

[Operaider]

These are on topic,
the point of the thread is to discuss skeptics from this forum going into a believer forums and how they should act. You are believer from another forum coming into the Jref. Your posts are and the attitude in them is definitely on topic.

If you go into another forum and claim that others use name calling, while at the same time using your own brand of name calling. That is clearly on the subject of how not to act while visiting another forum.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
Or, you could simply avoid joining those kinds of "woo woo" forums in the first place and save everyone time and energy.

I don't think I used the term "woo woo".


While many of you will insist on taking offense, and being defensive, I admit I can't help myself and in a very likely fruitless attempt to foster understanding, I'll put in my two cents:

Sounds fine. But two things about this and all your points: coming across a post like this on a skeptic forum is like coming across the guerilla tactical plans for an assualt on the enemy village, in this case, the woos on paranormal forums.


Not really. If I wanted to destory paranormal and other beliver forums my tactics would be very different.


The second point is that, -- and please do note, all of this is MY personal opinion, based on MY personal and direct experience. No "links or 'proof' need be supplied to "support" my assertions. And if you are not a "pathological skeptic" or "skeptoid" then no need to get up in arms and be so huffy. If the shoe fits, fine. If it doesn't, no problem. Sorry, digressed. Anyway, the second point is that, I've been duped by many a supposed well meaning skeptic who starts off politely, for the real agenda reveals itself soon enough, and all pretense of politeness falls away. Most of us "woos" (and who is name calling by the way?) get extremely defensive around the "polite" skeptic. At least with dripping nasty sarcasm you know what to expect, and where everyone stands.


Alturnativly from what I've seen the sceptic goes in politely and takes round after round of flames and flame bait. Eventurly some of it gets thorugh and the sceptic replies in kind.


Are they "less interesting" because they are darn tired and won't engage in pointless rounds with you? This sounds like trolling to me. . .


No they are less interesting because:
a)There is a slightly greater chance of the Pope converting to islam than there is that they will change their mind
b)Their debate skill tend to be less good


I'm unsure about what you mean by "personal accounts." Do you mean the anecdotal evidence of someone, or something else?


I mean personal account. Somesaying they saw a ghost in their bed room is a persoanl account.


Why? What are you hiding? This smacks of more "trolling" tactics. Is it so that the "woos" can't come after you?


Forum wars are unhelpful.


This is starting to sound more and more like a cult leader addressing her members. . .blend in, be nice, be helpful, get the enemy to trust you, etc.


When someone else views you as the enemy it may be nesscary to view them as the same.


What you don't realize, and I'll share with you, is that many Forteans or woos or whatever cute label you want to use today is, have had experience with this type of skeptic, JREFers, etc. and are very familiar with all of these tactics. They can smell them a mile away. So when a seemingly polite sketpic enters a woo forum, is ever so helpful, even regarding off topic posts, . . .red flags go up. There may be a newbie or two who don't know any better, but most of us recognize the signs.


You can belive that. My experience suggests otherwise


Good advice. Avoid "tag team debunkery." Try not to just echo what your JREF buddy just said, only more so, often with SAYING THINGS IN CAPS LIKE THIS EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME THING THE OTHER JREFER JUST SAID, as if that will make any difference.

Also, if your JREF buddy joins as well, avoid speaking to each other on the board about one of the "woos" as if they're not there and can't "hear" you.


Neither of these are tactics that I use


Yes, but why is this considered mature and reasonable (and I agree that it is) but when a "woo" does this -- leaves because it's all become a huge time wasting energy drain -- the "woo" does it because, according to these types of skeptics, they're "afraid," "don't have an argument," etc.


Nothing to do with time drain or anthing else. All to do with the level of flameing


Interesting. . . [/B]

Let me give you a tip. There is a very effective way of preventing sceptics from debating on your boards. Ban them in the forum rules. A simple one line "No sceptics will tolerated on this forum" is all it takes. No messing around with civility or anything like that just make a clear and direct rule and the whole "problem" goes away.

[Interesting Ian]

How to promote scepticism on paranormal boards without getting banned??

There's another problem. How does one attack "skepticism" on paranormal boards without getting banned?? :mad:

I've been warned on that healthypages board, and had at least one of my posts deleted :rolleyes:

I must say that I vastly prefer this board despite all the idiotic views expressed.

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
I don't think I used the term "woo woo".
I didn't say you did. I was using the term sarcastically since so many here DO use it, and use it with glee.

I mean personal account. Somesaying they saw a ghost in their bed room is a persoanl account.

So you mean anecdotal evidence?

Most of use only have anecdotal, or "personal accounts." What else is there to do then?


Let me give you a tip. There is a very effective way of preventing sceptics from debating on your boards. Ban them in the forum rules. A simple one line "No sceptics will tolerated on this forum" is all it takes. No messing around with civility or anything like that just make a clear and direct rule and the whole "problem" goes away.

Well, er, yes.

I moderate several forums, and have moderated several in the past. It is because of my past experience that I finally came to that very tactic. I do indeed ban all debunkers and pathological skeptics upfront exactly as you suggested. And this is what happens:

Skeptics or debunkers manage to get in anyway, using many of the tactics you've outlined. They're found out after a time, but still, it's a hassle.

Skeptics, PS, debunkers, etc. whine at me in other forums on how come I have this on my forums, it's not fair, it's not right, it's against "free speech" :rolleyes: etc.

Believe me, I most assuredly have that on all of my forums, except one, where, as Paul or Mylar Head as I like to call him, will tell you.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
Well, er, yes.

I moderate several forums, and have moderated several in the past. It is because of my past experience that I finally came to that very tactic. I do indeed ban all debunkers and pathological skeptics upfront exactly as you suggested. And this is what happens:

Skeptics or debunkers manage to get in anyway, using many of the tactics you've outlined. They're found out after a time, but still, it's a hassle.

Skeptics, PS, debunkers, etc. whine at me in other forums on how come I have this on my forums, it's not fair, it's not right, it's against "free speech" :rolleyes: etc.

Believe me, I most assuredly have that on all of my forums, except one, where, as Paul or Mylar Head as I like to call him, will tell you. What past experiences caused you to conclude that skeptics needed to be banned from posting?

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
I didn't say you did. I was using the term sarcastically since so many here DO use it, and use it with glee.


So what? You want me to list the insults I've seen going the other way



So you mean anecdotal evidence?

Most of use only have anecdotal, or "personal accounts." What else is there to do then?


Nope. It's only a personal account if that person claims it happened to them or someone they are very close to.



Well, er, yes.

I moderate several forums, and have moderated several in the past. It is because of my past experience that I finally came to that very tactic. I do indeed ban all debunkers and pathological skeptics upfront exactly as you suggested. And this is what happens:

Skeptics or debunkers manage to get in anyway, using many of the tactics you've outlined. They're found out after a time, but still, it's a hassle.

Skeptics, PS, debunkers, etc. whine at me in other forums on how come I have this on my forums, it's not fair, it's not right, it's against "free speech" :rolleyes: etc.

Believe me, I most assuredly have that on all of my forums, except one, where, as Paul or Mylar Head as I like to call him, will tell you.


Well that nicely finishes off any claims of open mindedness.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by turtle
Or, you could simply avoid joining those kinds of "woo woo" forums in the first place and save everyone time and energy.

While many of you will insist on taking offense, and being defensive, I admit I can't help myself and in a very likely fruitless attempt to foster understanding, I'll put in my two cents:
Yes, avoiding paranormal boards is probably the best way to ensure that they wont have any civility problems with new thoughts seaping in. But lets say someone feels like they are really interested in talking to others, what would you suggest is the best way to go about it so that others wont feel upset (without resorting to voluntary segregation, of course)?

[Azrael 5]

Some tips for the forums Ive been on:GhostsUK: dont mention the Soham murder case with reference to Dennis Mackenzie(it gets you banned!)
The SupernaturalWorld Don't write a list of questions for members to answer with reference to the mechanics of mediumship/spirit contact.Using expalnations of biology,psychology etc.Or point out the flaws in a published psychic reading a member has had.Or invite a "psychic/medium" member to take the Randi challenge!
Mia Dolan forum(now closed) Dont keep reminding her she has not taken the Randi challenge(despite stating she had applied)
Finally Healthy Pages Forum-Dont say anything remotely critical of anything!Ever!;)

[thatguywhojuggles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How to promote scepticism on paranormal boards without getting banned??

There's another problem. How does one attack "skepticism" on paranormal boards without getting banned?? :mad:

I've been warned on that healthypages board, and had at least one of my posts deleted :rolleyes:

I must say that I vastly prefer this board despite all the idiotic views expressed.

We do enjoy more freedom in posting here than in many of the pro paranormal boards.

[geni]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Some tips for the forums Ive been on:GhostsUK: dont mention the Soham murder case with reference to Dennis Mackenzie(it gets you banned!)

Their forum softwear still sucks though


The SupernaturalWorld Don't write a list of questions for members to answer with reference to the mechanics of mediumship/spirit contact.Using expalnations of biology,psychology etc.Or point out the flaws in a published psychic reading a member has had.Or invite a "psychic/medium" member to take the Randi challenge!


SupernaturalWorld doesn't seem to have banned starburn yet though (of course you need an acount there to know this. I do have an account no I'm not going to tell you what it is).

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
What past experiences caused you to conclude that skeptics needed to be banned from posting?

Usually it's phrased as "no debunkers or pathological skeptics" allowed. If you're not a debunker or a ps, then no problem. Nothing in there about skeptics, as is.

The past experiences you ask about have been referred to in my previous post to geni.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
[B]Usually it's phrased as "no debunkers or pathological skeptics" allowed. If you're not a debunker or a ps, then no problem. Nothing in there about skeptics, as is.

I've seen clearer rules I mean how do you decide if a sceptic is pathological?

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
[QUOTE] So what? You want me to list the insults I've seen going the other way

Wow, such a tone. Why?
And no, I don't want you to list insults, of either way. Did I ask?

Nope. It's only a personal account if that person claims it happened to them or someone they are very close to.

I'm still confused. Isn't that the same as anecdotal? If it isn't, or if that's not what you mean, then explain please.

Anyway, as I said, that's all most of us usually have: anecdotal, or personal, accounts. That's what many of those forums are about; sharing those experiences.


Well that nicely finishes off any claims of open mindedness.
??
I thought you yourself suggested such a tactic.
I also am confused by the circular argument here; as I posted to your suggestions for your fellow skeptics when entering paranormal forums, my experiences, and the experience of other "woos" beg to differ.
Now why would I want to continue to hit myself over the head with a hammer?IOW, after, as I said, years of this kind of hassling with some -- and please do note, "SOME" -- skeptics, or rather, the more debunker/pathological stripe of skeptic -- I finally said enough. So I did what a rational person would do. Simply state upfront that none are allowed.

You must have missed the part where I posted that if a skeptic doesn't behave in those ways, they are welcome.

You also must have missed the part where I said I do have one forum that allows for skeptics of ALL stripes.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Yes, avoiding paranormal boards is probably the best way to ensure that they wont have any civility problems with new thoughts seaping in. But lets say someone feels like they are really interested in talking to others, what would you suggest is the best way to go about it so that others wont feel upset (without resorting to voluntary segregation, of course)?

My point is, if the skeptic in question is TRULY a skeptic then there is no problem, and time will tell.


If the person comes in under the guise of skeptic, but has already made up his or her mind that there is NO chance in hell for ANY kind of UFO/ghost/psi/bigfoot name your favorite woo topic here, and is simply bent on repeating themselves ad nasuem with veiled references to the sanity of forum members, then there you go.

Your comment "with new thoughts seeping in" is a bit insulting. Don't know if you meant to be snide or not. Although having followed your posts for many months, I wouldn't be surprised. There are lot of wakcos indeed out there (I mean, Reptilain Lovers? Please) but the majority are not, and are quite aware of these so called "new thoughts."

You're also forgetting that many of these forums are not meant to be some sort of Grand Determinator of All That Is Paranormal. They're just little cozy coffee type hang outs for people who've seen UFOs or live in haunted houses or whatever.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
Wow, such a tone. Why?
And no, I don't want you to list insults, of either way. Did I ask?


You seem to be trying to say that the use of the term ment that sceptics were moraly inferior to belivers.


I'm still confused. Isn't that the same as anecdotal? If it isn't, or if that's not what you mean, then explain please.


Anecdotal is slightly wider an would include reports of other people seeing stuff


Anyway, as I said, that's all most of us usually have: anecdotal, or personal, accounts. That's what many of those forums are about; sharing those experiences.


Hmm that doesn't fit with all the "scary ghost pics" threads


??
I thought you yourself suggested such a tactic.


Yup. It is a truly beutiful way to expose how false the belivers claims to be open minded are.


I also am confused by the circular argument here; as I posted to your suggestions for your fellow skeptics when entering paranormal forums, my experiences, and the experience of other "woos" beg to differ.
Now why would I want to continue to hit myself over the head with a hammer?IOW, after, as I said, years of this kind of hassling with some -- and please do note, "SOME" -- skeptics, or rather, the more debunker/pathological stripe of skeptic -- I finally said enough. So I did what a rational person would do. Simply state upfront that none are allowed.

Well we still seem to have II sarah I and gold as members. Why don't we feel the need to ban them?


You must have missed the part where I posted that if a skeptic doesn't behave in those ways, they are welcome.


Do you want to put this to the test?


You also must have missed the part where I said I do have one forum that allows for skeptics of ALL stripes. [/B]

adress?

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
I've seen clearer rules I mean how do you decide if a sceptic is pathological?

I fear we might be headed into a round of repeat/circular "discussion" but as I've said already, from the previous posted behaviors.

Repeating oneself seems to be a favorite. And shouting LIKE THIS in CAPS a lot.
Commenting, with supreme confidence, that is "no such thing as_________" whatever your personal hobby horse is.

What is your purpose in going into a paranormal forum? I am serious. Why?

Is it to debunk? Example: "There just isn't any such thing as Sasquatch and that's that!!!! You're all nutjob wacko woos." Well. Talk about "open minded."

Is it to needle people, harrass them, attack them? (oh dear, excuse me, wouldn't want to play the "victim card" here.)

What is the motivation behind going into so called believer forums?

When a skeptic starts to:

Repeat themselves
SHOUTS a lot
Demands that you answer their question
Demands proof or evidence
Alludes to you being not quite mentally balanced, or, lying, or, having some deep rooted emotional need to feel special
Goes on and on and ON...and ON
Ignores requests from the mods to stop already, then:
Whines about their right to free speech and:
accuses everyone on the forum of being "afraid" of "the truth"

Then it's pretty obvious.
At least for the mods and members, and since it's their forum, that's the way it is, right, wrong, fair or not.

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
You seem to be trying to say that the use of the term ment that sceptics were moraly inferior to belivers.

?????
No.

I said that many skeptics here use the term "woo" or "woo woo."




Hmm that doesn't fit with all the "scary ghost pics" threads

As I said, "some" or "many" of these forums, not "all."



Yup. It is a truly beutiful way to expose how false the belivers claims to be open minded are.

You have to read my next post. The one where I said, now why would I continue to hit myself in the head with a hammer?Meaning, why would I continue to be insulted and abused and followed and cyber stalked and threatened with rape and have my forums hacked into and a whole long list of nasty things done by some -- sigh, again do note, SOME -- skeptics.

After years of this crap, I recently got to the point of posting the "no debunkers etc." rule on my forums. Again, save one. A fact you seem to ignore.

As you are my other points. Finding it more productive apparently to focus on the ones that seem to prove your point. Whatever that is.



Well we still seem to have II sarah I and gold as members. Why don't we feel the need to ban them?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I will say however, or ask, rather, "what part of SOME do you not get?" And, "what part of if the shoe fits, wear it, if it doesn't, don't?"

See? We're already starting to repeat ourselves.


Do you want to put this to the test?
what is it with you guys and your constant Vast Contest thing? Everything's a contest, a challenge, a war, a fight. Relax. Sheesh. Don't choose me off.



adress?

Ask Mylar Head, er, Paul. I'm going to make you work for it, LOL. I also wouldn't want to be accused of spamming!

[turtle]

Originally posted by turtle

Demands proof or evidence


Hmm, I see that this is just leaving the door wide open. What I meant was, that A DEMAND is made. As if anyone owes anyone else anything. Oh I know, skeptic says oh yes you do you made the claim ...sigh.

I'm talking about the arrogant DEMAND of someone who breezes on in like they're a gift to the world. Well, the "demand" is met, as much as can be; since usually, as I've said now a few times, there really isn't any proof, just personal stories.

But that doesn't stop our intrepid debunker/sketpic what all. The DEMANDS increase, the tone of rudeness increases with it, and it is in THAT context of asking for proof, that I am referring to.

[JPK]

Good evening turtle,

I do not understand the hostility. If it isn't hostility, it does come across that way. In another forum, you were very open about things that you have experienced. I can't imagine how you can interprit my questions as some kind of attack on you. What you have posted there is a great help to me to understanding how someone who has these experiences thinks. I am not now or have never said you did not experience those events. I am tring to learn what it is all about.

If you want to believe I'm some "skeptiod" that is just tring to "debunk"you, fine. I have no belief that I can change someone elses beliefs. And have little desire to. I just want to know why someone makes the choices that they do when it comes to rememberiing things.

You still have an unaswered question on the other forum. Perhaps you have a reason for not answering it. I do not know.
Just tell me.
JPK

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by turtle
If the person comes in under the guise of skeptic, but has already made up his or her mind that there is NO chance in hell for ANY kind of UFO/ghost/psi/bigfoot name your favorite woo topic here, and is simply bent on repeating themselves ad nasuem with veiled references to the sanity of forum members, then there you go.
Alright, cool, I'll take this as meaning "dont fill your posts with empty dribble, or else you'll come off as obnoxious and silly".

Your comment "with new thoughts seeping in" is a bit insulting. Don't know if you meant to be snide or not. Although having followed your posts for many months, I wouldn't be surprised. There are lot of wakcos indeed out there (I mean, Reptilain Lovers? Please) but the majority are not, and are quite aware of these so called "new thoughts."
No, no snideness implied, and no animosity.

You're also forgetting that many of these forums are not meant to be some sort of Grand Determinator of All That Is Paranormal. They're just little cozy coffee type hang outs for people who've seen UFOs or live in haunted houses or whatever.
I know that already, and I think this a valuable piece of advice: Most boards are kindly banter-type environment, not academic institutions, so its probably better to keep a kindly friendly attitude rather than cold-hard-facts-every-moment-of-everyday attitude.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Ed
If these fine ideas fail you fall back to plan "B". These tips might help:

1) Pull the pin before lobbing the grenade.

2) Pay heed to the admonition "This side toward enemy" when planting a Claymore.

3) Trust no one named "Yassir" or "Arafat" or "Osma".

4) Remember: Always allow for wind speed and direction!

5) You can always call in air support.

6) Know where your buddy is at all times.

I hope this helps if things spin out of control.

And if the gun barrels overheat, you can take a wiz on them.

[Ratman_tf]

Going to a believer board, no matter how benign the intentions, and attempting to engage them in rational discussion is like breaking into someone's house and taking a dump on their coffee table.

Just sayin' how they view it.

That's why I rarely go sceptical on boards other than JREF. It's fruitless and just pisses people off.

[c4ts]

It's more like breaking into their house while they're watching TV and trying to make them learn something instead.

[dharlow]

One can best promote skepticism by first, being well informed on the topic at hand, and second, by passing on that knowledge, usually through referring those at a pro-paranormal board to read up on some serious skeptical insights in certain books. Those that refuse to read these books (and this goes for skeptics who refuse to look at serious pro-paranormal works) are a lost cause; they are arguing by way of dogma and are not worth arguing with, for they will not change. Most posters, however, will probably heed advice, if only slowly. One can, with civility I think, point posters toward some worthwhile texts. Of course, which texts one is to point out depends on how well one knows the subject at hand (be it cold reading, anecdotal evidence, pseudo physical mediumship, etc...) There are some persuasive rebuttals to many of them.

[turtle]

Originally posted by JPK
Good evening turtle,

I do not understand the hostility. If it isn't hostility, it does come across that way.

As many skeptics here and elsewhere point out, I am not responsible for the perceptions of others or their interpretations. As WT and AT, for example, have said many times: "don't play the victim."

No, it really isn't "hostility." It's stating the facts. If you're not comfortable with the word "fact" then, it's stating my experiences/observations in quite a blunt and outfront way. Tit for tat. I match the tone I hear in here.

In another forum, you were very open about things that you have experienced. I can't imagine how you can interprit my questions as some kind of attack on you. What you have posted there is a great help to me to understanding how someone who has these experiences thinks. I am not now or have never said you did not experience those events. I am tring to learn what it is all about.

First off, this thread was started by geni and about tactics used by skeptics who go into believer forums.

Secondly, I have not mentioned you by name, or, even had you in mind at all when I was refering to a certain type of skeptic.

Thirdly, what is it with some of you, that you can't understand, no matter how many times I say it, that I am NOT referring to all skeptics, that if you find the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on?

You are right JPK, so far, you've been quite fine.

If you want to believe I'm some "skeptiod" that is just tring to "debunk"you, fine. I have no belief that I can change someone elses beliefs. And have little desire to. I just want to know why someone makes the choices that they do when it comes to rememberiing things. /[B]

Again, all I can say is, I have not mentioned you, I have not even considered you when posting about this, and why you are being so defensive is curious.

[B]You still have an unaswered question on the other forum. Perhaps you have a reason for not answering it. I do not know.
Just tell me.
JPK

Ah, the old "tell me" game. Didn't I just post something about the demands for questions being answered? I'm perverse enough and stubborn enough to not answer a question simply because it's been expected of me to do so and repeatedly requested that I answer. Immature? Possibly. So is asking someone over and over again the same damn question.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How to promote scepticism on paranormal boards without getting banned??

There's another problem. How does one attack "skepticism" on paranormal boards without getting banned?? :mad:

I've been warned on that healthypages board, and had at least one of my posts deleted :rolleyes:

I must say that I vastly prefer this board despite all the idiotic views expressed.

Indeed, the HP moderators ban people simply for being JREFers, and not for their behavior, as they claim is the cause for these mass-bannings.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Operaider
These are on topic,
the point of the thread is to discuss skeptics from this forum going into a believer forums and how they should act. You are believer from another forum coming into the Jref. Your posts are and the attitude in them is definitely on topic.

Absolutely.

1) When turtle uses terms like "skeptoid" and "pathological skeptic," it isn't name-calling: if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
2) When somebody uses the term "woo," then to turtle it is name-calling. Or something offensive, anyway.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored. Yo, turtle, nobody died and made you Pope.

I do agree with one thing turtle said, though it be orthogonal to this thread. Why? What's the point? Real paranormal researchers value skepticism and like to hear from skeptics. Every skeptic conference I've gone to has had a s significant number of speakers that were UFOlogists or paranormalists or whatever.

If someone has made a board where people can get banned indefinitiely because of their beliefs or their user name or whatever, then that's their choice.

Of course, it's fair to comment on them for their choices, as well.

I can see wanting to educate schoolchildren and students about skepticism, but when a community of adults has made a deliberate decision to alienate themselves from serious paranormal research, well, it's freedom of association. P.T. Barnum said, "never try to smarten up a chump."

[plindboe]

In response to the opening post, I don't think a skeptic should need to hide his opinions or beliefs, but must simply remember to be diplomatic. There are many good open-minded believer boards out there that welcomes the viewpoints of skeptics, and are not at all paranoid and condemning as we see the HP board is. I suggest people to look for believer forums that have a board called "skeptics" or "non-believers" or similar. You will be able to find believers with just as irrational beliefs there, but they will be willing to engage in debates, and listen to what you have to say.

[Operaider]

Originally poster by Talisman - I would also add that if anyone is uncleaar as to what constiututes a valid reason for being banned or having posts edited, then please re read the rules that you agreed to abide by when joining this board. It is all made quite clear in there. I would also remind people of the last paragraph which says that we reserve the right to terminate membership at any time without giving a reason. As Tiger, and others have said, this is not the place.This was posted on the HP board by a moderator after a question I asked. Is it just me or does it sound like they will ban you for breaking the rules, or if they just feel like banning you.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by turtle
Hmm, I see that this is just leaving the door wide open. What I meant was, that A DEMAND is made. As if anyone owes anyone else anything. Oh I know, skeptic says oh yes you do you made the claim ...sigh.

Whenever I have been in this position I have simply pointed out that the poster is not under obligation to give evidence, but that their claim cannot be taken seriously without it. They often choose to view this as a demand and take their ball home anyway. Believers see what they want to see, and read what they want to read.

[CFLarsen]

turtle,

So, let's forget about personal issues, and how we address each other. I see that both parties are guilty of what could be seen as name calling.

Fine. Whatever.

What is left? Evidence.

And we have to look at the evidence, because we have to solve these issues. We have to find out whether there is reality behind these claims. I certainly hope you agree. And if you do, then I also hope you can appreciate the strong drive for evidence that you also find with skeptics.

If you do not, then what is there? We each go our merry way, and simply talk among ourselves, and leave it at that?

Sorry, but no. It isn't merely opinion vs. opinion. People are being scammed, they are being hurt. They lose their money, they lose their ability to tell if they are being fooled, they lose their health, and sometimes they even lose their lives.

There are very high stakes in this. First, there is the possible discovery of something that will fundamentally change our outlook on this world: How it works, and why it works. Provided that the claims are true.

Second, there is the certainty that people do get hurt. If we allow false claims and beliefs to rule our lives, we will get dumber and dumber. And we will get exploited by shameless crooks. Like it is now in the paranormal world. Surely, you agree that the field is ridden with charlatans? Isn't it important to find out who is not a charlatan?

I really hope you agree that we need to look at the evidence. I also hope that you agree to draw the necessary conclusions, and not keep hiding behind beliefs that are shown to be false.

Now, I don't know where you came from, or what you believe in. So I am not judging you. But I would like to hear your stance on evidence of paranormal phenomena.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle

When a skeptic starts to:

Repeat themselves

Well if the belivers say the same thing of course the sceptic is going to repeat themselves


SHOUTS a lot
Demands that you answer their question
Demands proof or evidence

And who makes that subjective judgement


Alludes to you being not quite mentally balanced, or, lying, or, having some deep rooted emotional need to feel special

"Alludes" now that is also subjective


Goes on and on and ON...and ON


Subjective and alows you to automaticaly ban sceptics after a fixed time.


Ignores requests from the mods to stop already, then:
Whines about their right to free speech and:
accuses everyone on the forum of being "afraid" of "the truth"

Lovey set of insults there


Then it's pretty obvious.
At least for the mods and members, and since it's their forum, that's the way it is, right, wrong, fair or not. [/B]

Yep and done soo subtely that they can still pretend to be open minded. You see that is all my tatics boil down to. They make you almost imposible to bann without making the hipocrasy clear.

[CFLarsen]

Ah, I missed this one:

Originally posted by turtle
When a skeptic starts to:
...
Demands proof or evidence
..
Then it's pretty obvious.
At least for the mods and members, and since it's their forum, that's the way it is, right, wrong, fair or not.

I take it that you don't see a demand for evidence as productive?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seems to me you can just be completely straightforward about it. Join the forum and express your views. Be polite. Try to be constructive. Stay on topic.

If the board accepts skeptical views, you'll stay. If not, you'll be banned. In the latter case, any skepticism you can sneak in before being banned probably won't make any difference anyway.

~~ Paul

[turtle]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignores requests from the mods to stop already, then:
Whines about their right to free speech and:
accuses everyone on the forum of being "afraid" of "the truth"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

geni said: Lovey set of insults there


???

What is insulting about that?

Here, I'll go over it again, since the point seems to escape some people here: My comments are based on direct, personal experience. They do not include every skeptic or debunker in the world or even on JREF.

You asked for clarification, I gave it.

So please do address how a mod asking someone to stop, and they don't, is "insulting?"

Address how a debunker/sketpic etc. who then whines and yes, whines, but if you prefer, then complains, that they have a right to "free speech" when asked by the mod to stop is "insulting?"

And how is the more rabid fanatical brand of skeptic, for that is what we're talking about, or at least, it's what I'm talking about, who posts that others are "afraid of the truth," "insulting?"

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
turtle,

Sorry, but no. It isn't merely opinion vs. opinion. People are being scammed, they are being hurt. They lose their money, they lose their ability to tell if they are being fooled, they lose their health, and sometimes they even lose their lives.

There are very high stakes in this. First, there is the possible discovery of something that will fundamentally change our outlook on this world: How it works, and why it works. Provided that the claims are true.

Second, there is the certainty that people do get hurt. If we allow false claims and beliefs to rule our lives, we will get dumber and dumber. And we will get exploited by shameless crooks. Like it is now in the paranormal world. Surely, you agree that the field is ridden with charlatans? Isn't it important to find out who is not a charlatan?

I really hope you agree that we need to look at the evidence. I also hope that you agree to draw the necessary conclusions, and not keep hiding behind beliefs that are shown to be false.

Now, I don't know where you came from, or what you believe in. So I am not judging you. But I would like to hear your stance on evidence of paranormal phenomena.

I don't go into a forum that's titled "Jews for Jesus Who Vote Republican" to rip them apart. I would love to, I'm tempted, but I don't do it. Especially if they say "no liberal pinko uppity women allowed" or something. Again, I'd be tempted, but I don't do it.

The rest of your post is only old terrority of how we all need to be protected from becoming dumber and dumber and it's the woos of the world who "believe" in UFOs who are to blame, etc. Fighting the good fight against things like prayer in schools, teaching Creationism "theory" er, myth, are far more productive than trolling, sorry, joining forums where people are sitting around and discussing their UFO or ghost stories. Those people are not out to make money, bilk anyone out of theirs, or get away with anything, and, they are not out to make America or the world "dumber and dumber." George Bush is doing that for us, and past 40 years of American education-- sorry, ranting.

You have your web site, do you not? That's another way of getting the "truth" out to people.

From what some of you have said here and elsewhere, a teacher who thinks ghosts exists, or that there is an animal out there we can call "Bigfoot" shouldn't be teaching. That's a lot scarier than some little forum somewhere where people exchange ghost stories.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ah, I missed this one:

I take it that you don't see a demand for evidence as productive?

Ah, you must have missed my post that explained that one.

Take another look and get back to me.

[turtle]

I haven't been banned, and don't see why I would be, but if it makes anyone feel better, I have had one of my posts edited by one of the mods.

And, I can see why. Also, even if I didn't, it's not my forum, it's theirs.

Which brings me to another point that I haven't seen addressed here in this thread yet: it may be silly, or whatever, to be banned from a forum (regardless of the type of forum it is) but, it's their forum! People can do what they want when it comes to their own forums. It doesn't have to be fair, logical, nice, or make sense. One would hope that it would be those things, but where is it written that it has to be?

I've been banned from many forums. One forum, because I didn't post enough! (it was a computer forum, nothing to do with the paranormal.) One was a paranormal forum, specifically, on ghosts. Yes, imagine, me! Banned from a ghost forum! The mods were fundanmentalist Christians, and took exception to my disagreement that their idea to ban all forms of religious activities in a public haunted location -- save for fellow Christians! -- was, er, intolerant.

I've been banned from a skeptic forum.:D No surprise there.

I was recently banned from a political forum simply because the guy didn't like me from one of MY forums, (political, not paranormal) where I did not ban him (he still isn't banned) in spite of his rude behavior.

And I was banned from another paranormal forum, because, even though we shared similiar opinions on many paranormal topics, he was a staunch conservative Republican who depised my political views, and had "pre banned" me.

So, the question isn't whether these bannings were justified or not, it's, do the mods have the "right" and the answer is, yes they do.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
Ah, you must have missed my post that explained that one.

Take another look and get back to me.

This must be it:

Originally posted by turtle
Hmm, I see that this is just leaving the door wide open. What I meant was, that A DEMAND is made. As if anyone owes anyone else anything. Oh I know, skeptic says oh yes you do you made the claim ...sigh.

I'm talking about the arrogant DEMAND of someone who breezes on in like they're a gift to the world. Well, the "demand" is met, as much as can be; since usually, as I've said now a few times, there really isn't any proof, just personal stories.

But that doesn't stop our intrepid debunker/sketpic what all. The DEMANDS increase, the tone of rudeness increases with it, and it is in THAT context of asking for proof, that I am referring to.

What you see as arrogant, I see as determined. As you undoubtedly know by now, I think that paranormal claims must be investigated, and an answer sought. People get hurt, etc, etc.

If the evidence is only personal stories, then we have nothing. All we have is a number of fairytales.

Do you see a problem with this, considering that people get hurt? Do you understand that some people are actually quite concerned with this?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
I've been banned from a skeptic forum.:D No surprise there.

What forum was that?

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle

What is insulting about that?

Here, I'll go over it again, since the point seems to escape some people here: My comments are based on direct, personal experience. They do not include every skeptic or debunker in the world or even on JREF.


Evidence that you are baseing this on experience rather than predudice?


You asked for clarification, I gave it.

So please do address how a mod asking someone to stop, and they don't, is "insulting?"

Address how a debunker/sketpic etc. who then whines and yes, whines, but if you prefer, then complains, that they have a right to "free speech" when asked by the mod to stop is "insulting?"

You see you are trying to say there is a magic group of sceptics out ther who you would not apply these terms to. Do you have any evidence that you have only applied these terms to those who deserve it?



And how is the more rabid fanatical brand of skeptic, for that is what we're talking about, or at least, it's what I'm talking about, who posts that others are "afraid of the truth," "insulting?" [/B]

Once again can you provide evidence that your description "rabid fanatical" is correct?

[Aussie Thinker]

JPK,

I believe Turtle was talking about me. I seem to have riled her considerably.

I even note I wish I could retain your soft questioning approach but I feel the need to “blurt� out possible mundane explanations for everything.

Turtle

I've been banned from a skeptic forum. No surprise there.

There is a HUGE surprise there…

Note the MASSIVE interest in you here.

Skeptic boards LOVE having someone to argue with.. I would be AMAZED you got banned from one..

I hope you noted Claus statements.. I have tried to get you to answer when I explained why these thing can and are dangerous but you just ignore it. Some of us have a genuine concern that the world blithely accepts this stuff as being real.

Geni,

I just cannot come at changing my name and being somewhat subversive.

I feel I have already “lost� something.. integrity or pride or honestly etc if I start to hide.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This must be it:



[QUOTE]What you see as arrogant, I see as determined.
What you see as determined, I see as arrogant.

When someone asks you four hundred million times -- in a rude demanding tone -- for an answer, it is not "determined," it is, at best, a pain in the ass.


As you undoubtedly know by now, I think that paranormal claims must be investigated, and an answer sought. People get hurt, etc, etc.

It is your generalization that "people get hurt" and I am mainly talking about some po-dunk forum where people are sitting around sharing personal accounts of UFOs, or something. How is anyone going to "prove" any of that? It's all anecdotal. So demands of "explanations" or "evidence" seem...silly. You can discuss them, but after a point, it quicky degenerates into the old believer vs. skeptic syndrome, both are unhappy, one of them gets banned, and then it starts all over again.


.[If the evidence is only personal stories, then we have nothing. All we have is a number of fairytales..[

Well now, you see, your little comment about "fairytales" is an example of the problem.

That is just loaded with snide, dismissive innuendo.

and, if that's what you think, then why go into forums like that, where all it is are "fairytales?"

Answer: troll.

Do you see a problem with this, considering that people get hurt? Do you understand that some people are actually quite concerned with this?

People are not getting hurt by discussions of the paranormal. Some slimey fraud who rips people off because they say they can speak to the dead is not the same thing as me chatting with people on line about a haunted house, or UFOs, or what have you.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What forum was that?

Why?

[c4ts]

You can get kicked off this board quite easily if you want to. All it takes is a lot of cursing (in this case it would be bypassing the board's automatic censor with malicious intent), personal insults, threats of violence, thread hijacking, posting links to X rated websites or deliberate virus attachments, releasing information that poses a threat to national security, spamming the boards with advertisements, giving away the whereabouts of another poster without their consent, signing up under multiple accounts (we call them "sock puppets") for the purpose of fooling other members, seriously threatening to sue Randi or anyone else on the board, flooding the boards with lewd excerpts from pornographic novels, (etc)... and for the most part, one or two minor infractions won't do it alone. However, none of this has anything to do with your beliefs.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by turtle
Why?

Because it's very unlikely that you got kicked off for what you are doing here.

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
Evidence that you are baseing this on experience rather than predudice?

You seem to be prejudiced here, and, defensive. As I said, SOME sketpics, the more fantatical kind, and based on my personal expereince.

[You see you are trying to say there is a magic group of sceptics out ther who you would not apply these terms to. Do you have any evidence that you have only applied these terms to those who deserve it?

If someone behaves themselves, fine. It really is simple. As far as "evidence" goes, what do you expect? What "evidence" do you for so called believers and their behaviors? As I've said, when someone comes into a forum and behaves rudely, arrogantly, calls people mentally ill or what have you, then it's fair to say they are the more rabid type or fanatical.

Why you seem to want to start something here I can only guess. You seem to be accusing me of NOT applying those terms to those who do not deserve it. Defensive.

Is it so bizarre a concept that there are degrees of behavior within any group? This includes skeptics.


Once again can you provide evidence that your description "rabid fanatical" is correct?

Of course it's "correct." Look, if someone is rude, they're rude. If they don't stop and fling about with the things I've listed above, they're "fanatical."

I must ask you again: why do you think I mean ALL skeptics? Why do you think you have to wear the shoe if it doesn't fit? Why do you think my personal opinions and observations need some sort of "evidence" supplied? Why do you think that when I say "some skeptics of the more rabid variety" I mean everyone who's held a skeptical view on something?

[turtle]

Originally posted by plindboe
Indeed, the HP moderators ban people simply for being JREFers, and not for their behavior, as they claim is the cause for these mass-bannings.

As far as I know, "Operaraider" is still over there. . .

[turtle]

Originally posted by c4ts
Because it's very unlikely that you got kicked off for what you are doing here.
You're nice.

You aren't the one who posed the question, but I will say, that it seems I was banned in a sort of "mass banning" -- there were a few of us so-called believers, one of them, no, not me, posted something that ticked the mod off, and so, it was off with all of our heads, at once.

BTW, just what is it that I am doing over here that seems to have upset you?

[turtle]

Originally posted by c4ts
You can get kicked off this board quite easily if you want to. All it takes is a lot of cursing (in this case it would be bypassing the board's automatic censor with malicious intent), personal insults, threats of violence, thread hijacking, posting links to X rated websites or deliberate virus attachments, releasing information that poses a threat to national security, spamming the boards with advertisements, giving away the whereabouts of another poster without their consent, signing up under multiple accounts (we call them "sock puppets") for the purpose of fooling other members, seriously threatening to sue Randi or anyone else on the board, flooding the boards with lewd excerpts from pornographic novels, (etc)... and for the most part, one or two minor infractions won't do it alone. However, none of this has anything to do with your beliefs.



Maybe some paranormal forums do ban skeptics for their beliefs, but the point I'm trying to get across here is that it isn't their beliefs that gets them banned, it IS their behavior.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
As far as I know, "Operaraider" is still over there. . . I have gotten a notice that I have been put on "moderation"

I'm not sure what this entails, but I get the sense it's not good.

If you could point out any posts I've made that demand special treatment from the administration, I'd love to know what I did wrong.

besides being a skeptic that is

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
I have gotten a notice that I have been put on "moderation"

I'm not sure what this entails, but I get the sense it's not good.

If you could point out any posts I've made that demand special treatment from the administration, I'd love to know what I did wrong.

besides being a skeptic that is

I didn't realize they put on moderation. I just took a look over there, looks like your last post is "waiting approval" and without reading it, who can say?

I can take a stab at it and say, that, your last post to me over there was after the mod told us both to knock it off (said much nicer of course) and maybe she was annoyed at your posting after that. I don't know.

:(

[c4ts]

Originally posted by turtle
Maybe some paranormal forums do ban skeptics for their beliefs, but the point I'm trying to get across here is that it isn't their beliefs that gets them banned, it IS their behavior.

So you are saying you got banned from a skeptic board for your behavior? What behavior was it?

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
I didn't realize they put on moderation. I just took a look over there, looks like your last post is "waiting approval" and without reading it, who can say?

I can take a stab at it and say, that, your last post to me over there was after the mod told us both to knock it off (said much nicer of course) and maybe she was annoyed at your posting after that. I don't know.

:( My last post, the one awaiting approval, is only a link to the thread requested by General.

I was sent a letter last night concerning our conversation. It said that they had edited your post where you referred to me as an idiot, or a liar, or etc. I replied to the moderator that it wasn't my intention to get you into any trouble over it. I should point out that I did not respond in turn. Yet, I'm the one on moderation. I'm assuming of course that you didn't get the same treatment. Am I wrong?

[Aussie Thinker]

Turtle,

BTW, just what is it that I am doing over here that seems to have upset you?

You haven’t upset anyone here…

In fact we LOVE you…

Most believers are shot of us within seconds.

At least you have the gumption to come on a argue your case.

Most “psychics� have so little backbone they cannot handle defending their powers.

Regardless of how much I might badger you about you I takes me hat of to ya for at least discussing it.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Regardless of how much I might badger you about you I takes me hat of to ya for at least discussing it. Side note:

Aussie,

Did you get put on mederation from healthy pages?

I thought I saw some of your posts being edited over there

[c4ts]

It looks like just about every new post on that board is now awaiting moderator approval. What's going on over there?

N/M it's just one new poster bumping topics. And you.

Wait, are they just subjecting new members to automatic censorship?

[Operaider]

Originally posted by c4ts
It looks like just about every new post on that board is now awaiting moderator approval. What's going on over there?

N/M it's just one new poster bumping topics. And you.

Wait, are they just subjecting new members to automatic censorship? We'll see, I'm curious as to how long it will go on. So far I've barely posted anything, and the only post waiting approval looks like this link (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870684292).

I did notice their message about skeptics posted by a administratorTo all members,

Recently we have been visited by people who have come here from another website, claiming to be sceptics on all things spiritual, psychic or paranormal.

They are most welcome to state their point of view, as we learn by being challenged, however, quite a few have become confrontational and abusive and it has been necessary to moderate or ban them. As they keep arriving, can I ask you kindly, NOT to get upset, or confrontational in return, but to ignore them and wait for the moderators and admin to do their job.

Please just ignore any comments which seem to goad and push your limits, and continue to post in answer to those other members you are talking to, and who you are used to. Sometimes, sadly, people do visit websites in order to attempt a mass hysterical outburst. Let's show them that we can rise above it!!!

Gilly
ADMIN

[c4ts]

Please just ignore any comments which seem to goad and push your limits,

And they wonder why Socrates was put to death...

"We welcome skeptics to our forum, but don't actually be skeptical of us! Because that makes us angry."

[Aussie Thinker]

Operaider,

I was moderated out of existence.

They even backtracked and removed most of my posts so I don’t even have any proof that I posted NOTHING bad at all (even mildly bad).

I was only trying to get people to at least THINK of an alternative to a paranormal answer.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Operaider,

I was moderated out of existence.

They even backtracked and removed most of my posts so I don’t even have any proof that I posted NOTHING bad at all (even mildly bad).

I was only trying to get people to at least THINK of an alternative to a paranormal answer. I seem to be no longer moderated. We'll see how long that lasts

[Operaider]

Originally posted by Operaider
I seem to be no longer moderated. We'll see how long that lasts nope, still moderated

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
When someone asks you four hundred million times -- in a rude demanding tone -- for an answer, it is not "determined," it is, at best, a pain in the ass.

All it takes is for the believers to say: "We don't have evidence. All we have is our beliefs." And that's fine! Then, we can begin to explore the possible natural explanations, e.g. why a UFO abduction could be a hallucination of some sort.

But when believers start pointing to evidence, such as UFO implants, information from psychics that "couldn't" have been cold reading, or that a homeopathic remedy "works", then we have to investigate. We have to demand to see this evidence, because this evidence is not merely for those who claim to have experienced it. It belongs to all of humanity.

How can you possibly keep a homeopathic cure for cancer to yourself? Or the knowledge that aliens are visiting us? That is an incredibly selfish attitude.

Originally posted by turtle
It is your generalization that "people get hurt"

Oh, no. It's a fact: People get used to stop asking questions, and instead accept dogma, thereby rendering them helpless to judge for themselves. They lose their money to scam artists. They get sick from concoctions made by "wizards". And sometimes, they die.

You want verified stories? I got verified stories.

Originally posted by turtle
and I am mainly talking about some po-dunk forum where people are sitting around sharing personal accounts of UFOs, or something. How is anyone going to "prove" any of that? It's all anecdotal. So demands of "explanations" or "evidence" seem...silly. You can discuss them, but after a point, it quicky degenerates into the old believer vs. skeptic syndrome, both are unhappy, one of them gets banned, and then it starts all over again.

But why ban those who think different than yourself? Why not simply agree to disagree? What good can possibly come from censorship of those you don't agree with?

Originally posted by turtle
Well now, you see, your little comment about "fairytales" is an example of the problem.

That is just loaded with snide, dismissive innuendo.

and, if that's what you think, then why go into forums like that, where all it is are "fairytales?"

Answer: troll.

Not at all. That's the point: There is absolutely no difference between a fairytale and the anecdotes that believes tell. Don't you think people should know that they are wasting their lives on fantasies?

Originally posted by turtle
People are not getting hurt by discussions of the paranormal. Some slimey fraud who rips people off because they say they can speak to the dead is not the same thing as me chatting with people on line about a haunted house, or UFOs, or what have you.

Ah, but we are not merely talking about discussions, are we? We are talking about discussions among people who refuse to consider normal explanations. And that's a dangerous path: By automatically shutting out dissenting voices, you are exhibiting cult-like behavior.

How are you going to tell the difference between a fraud and someone with real abilites, if you are not allowed to question them?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
You aren't the one who posed the question, but I will say, that it seems I was banned in a sort of "mass banning" -- there were a few of us so-called believers, one of them, no, not me, posted something that ticked the mod off, and so, it was off with all of our heads, at once.

So, which board was it? I'd like to check.

That's what a skeptic does, you know.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
Maybe some paranormal forums do ban skeptics for their beliefs, but the point I'm trying to get across here is that it isn't their beliefs that gets them banned, it IS their behavior.

This is not correct. Personally, I have been banned from astrology boards, and from psychics boards, simply because I dared to ask questions, and not follow the party line.

On one, Steve Grenard's SurvivalScience (now defunct), it was specifically made clear that asking for evidence was tantamount to harrassment.

On another, Pam Blizzard's John Edward board, I was banned for even questioning the validity of John Edward. Pam later threatened me with turning up on my doorstep with her gun-toting Marine husband.

On an astrology board (www.astrology.dk), all skeptics were banned, simply because I pointed out that the evidence the astrologers claimed was sound, wasn't.

It's not all that rosy in the field of paranormal. Believers can get extremely nasty if you question their beliefs, despite you being polite or rude.

[Operaider]

I just tried to log onto healthy pages and the forum doesn't seem to be coming up.

I'm receiving a blank page everytime I attempt to go to one of the forums or to log in.

Am I being banned or is the forum down?

I found this message above the register/log in pageNOTICE: Classified / Vacancy Section Notice
Due to a re-development of these areas they will be unavailable for approximately 2 months It doesn't seem to me like it's referencing the forum page, but perhaps it is.

Anyone else able to get it to come up?

[rdtjr]

It hasn't really been clearly stated yet, so I'd just like to point out that anecdotal accounts are not "evidence". Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron and should be recognized as such.

Evidence is something that is subject to verification by any party not witness to an event and can be tested. An anecdote is just a story someone tells about what they think happened, without any supporting evidence available. An anecdote may be a version of events that actually occurred and can be corroborated by evidence, but an anecdote may also be a lie, a figment, or a deranged imagined occurence. It's important to note that even when particular events in an anecdote actually occurred that does not mean that the anecdote has any veracity. Any tellers may be placing themselves in a place or time where the were not, be changing minor details (deliberately or unconciously) to add color or to exaggerate their importance to the events described. And who among us has never done any of that for the purposes of telling a "good story".

The important thing is that in the abscence of evidence there is no way to differentiate between an anecdote based on real events, one based on real events that have been exaggerated or misportrayed, or whether it's a case of mistaken perception, a lie, figment, hoax, or the result of mental illness. There is no way to know the difference at all. Bring some evidence in and we can discuss how it applies. We can test evidence to determine its relevance, we can't test an anecdote.

This is where the skeptics and the paranormalists seem to misunderstand each other. Paranormalists don't understand the difference between an anecdote and evidence, and skeptics don't care that to a paranormalist asking for evidence to support an anecdote is often tantamount to calling the story teller a liar. It's not just a language problem is a perception problem. Paranormalist typically can't conceive why anyone wouldn't take an anecdotal story at face value and skeptics consider any tale only as good as the evidence that backs it up.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
Maybe some paranormal forums do ban skeptics for their beliefs, but the point I'm trying to get across here is that it isn't their beliefs that gets them banned, it IS their behavior.
No, it's not. I've been put on moderation immediately upon joining a forum, once it became clear I was skeptical. I have been banned from forums while at the same time the moderator said I was the most polite skeptic she'd ever seen.

It's really simple: Many people cannot distinguish questioning their beliefs from insulting them. There is no desire to discuss a topic, only to support it.

~~ Paul

[Operaider]

is anyone else able to so much as look at the healthy pages forum?
I'm trying to figure out if it's just me or if the whole thing went down

I can't seem to be able to even look at other posts

[TheBoyPaj]

Yeah, I can view the pages. Now I'm depressed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by rdtjr
It hasn't really been clearly stated yet, so I'd just like to point out that anecdotal accounts are not "evidence". Anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron and should be recognized as such.


This is flat out incorrect. You clearly do not understand what the word evidence means. You probably think it means scientific evidence, or even scientific proof.



Evidence is something that is subject to verification by any party not witness to an event and can be tested.



Yup, you're talking about a special kind of evidence here; namely scientific evidence.


An anecdote is just a story someone tells about what they think happened, without any supporting evidence available.


If I say I just went to my local shop (store), do you think it would be appropriate for me to say I only think I did?



An anecdote may be a version of events that actually occurred and can be corroborated by evidence, but an anecdote may also be a lie, a figment, or a deranged imagined occurrence.



{shrugs}

So what? I think you confuse "evidence" with "proof". More importantly absolute incorrigible proof is unobtainable.

I also point out that even a lot of scientific evidence gets rejected out of hand; witness the scientific evidence for parapsychological phenomena.


It's important to note that even when particular events in an anecdote actually occurred that does not mean that the anecdote has any veracity. Any tellers may be placing themselves in a place or time where the were not, be changing minor details (deliberately or unconciously) to add color or to exaggerate their importance to the events described. And who among us has never done any of that for the purposes of telling a "good story".


I can't ever recall doing that. Having said that, I think I'm unusual and I suspect that the vast majority of people do this. This simply means that anecdotal evidence doesn't constitute proof, but so what? Who has claimed otherwise?



The important thing is that in the abscence of evidence there is no way to differentiate between an anecdote based on real events, one based on real events that have been exaggerated or misportrayed, or whether it's a case of mistaken perception, a lie, figment, hoax, or the result of mental illness. There is no way to know the difference at all. Bring some evidence in and we can discuss how it applies. We can test evidence to determine its relevance, we can't test an anecdote.


Depends on ones metaphysical presuppositions, the nature of the alleged phenomenon and how widespread it has been reported. I agree that the reports of unusual phenomena which apparently contravenes what we understand about the Universe, and which is either a unique incident, or strictly limited in time and place, is unlikely to have actually occurred as reported. Those that are universal are very likely to be a more or less accurate account of peoples' experiences - whether or not that represents a genuine phenomenon, or whether this is because we are all similarly psychologically and physiologically constituted, is a question that remains open.



Paranormalist typically can't conceive why anyone wouldn't take an anecdotal story at face value and skeptics consider any tale only as good as the evidence that backs it up.

I understand absolutely perfectly.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Yeah, I can view the pages. Now I'm depressed. damn, looks like they banned me

[Interesting Ian]

My very brief time spent on believer boards suggests that the vast majority of them simply don't want skeptics there. Indeed, on one believer board I was berated for providing a link to it on here! I kinda feel some sympathy for their position because "skeptics" (the way the word is used now) have an a priori conviction that no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. If "skeptics" were just sceptics in the original sense of the word - i.e they disbelieve but are extremely willing to change their minds should reason and evidence (including anecdotal evidence) warrant it, then I feel you would all be much more welcome.

BTW just looked on healthypages board and they mention this thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My very brief time spent on believer boards suggests that the vast majority of them simply don't want skeptics there. Indeed, on one believer board I was berated for providing a link to it on here! I kinda feel some sympathy for their position because "skeptics" (the way the word is used now) have an a priori conviction that no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever. If "skeptics" were just sceptics in the original sense of the word - i.e they disbelieve but are extremely willing to change their minds should reason and evidence (including anecdotal evidence) warrant it, then I feel you would all be much more welcome.

BTW just looked on healthypages board and they mention this thread.

Actually, on the other board Turtle says:

"And I (for I am "turtle" on other forums) have said several times now that only those skeptics, or rather, the so-called skeptics who are of the debunker variety, and the trouble making kind, are the ones who are not welcome in most of my forums".

Which seems to confirm what I said :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Operaider
damn, looks like they banned me

BTW, no I am not Ian Wallace! LOL

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
My very brief time spent on believer boards suggests that the vast majority of them simply don't want skeptics there. Indeed, on one believer board I was berated for providing a link to it on here! I kinda feel some sympathy for their position because "skeptics" (the way the word is used now) have an a priori conviction that no paranormal phenomena exists whatsoever.
What utter rubbish you talk (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47826).

[phildonnia]

Lurk on the board for a while to get the hang of the culture; then try to blend in. Kinda like conversing at cocktail party. Start by talking about the weather, then as you get rapport, move to something slightly more controversial. Well, ok, don't actually talk about the weather -- but maybe I've made my point.

Work by asking questions that appear to be innocent, but contain a hidden barb; this can be difficult to do without appearing snide. e.g.:

Hmm, at 80 astronomical units, I calculate an orbital period of 715.5 years, not 6 million. What did I do wrong?


Remember that the people you talk to are as married to their own cosmologies as you are to yours. Remember the times you've changed your mind in the past about something. It was likely not sudden, nor precipitated by the ideas of a single person.

As the woo-woo Richard Bach said, "Nothing is as annoying to a savior as someone who does not want to be saved". Don't be a savior. Don't identify someone else as your own personal project. You will come off way to strong and be disappointed. Just put a little rational thinking in the stew, and stir slowly. When someone decides they like it, they won't even remember your name.


Originally posted by geni

5. Don’t use your JREF nic

I have to disagree with this. I use the same name everywhere, which means I have to assume that anyone can google my entire virtual paper trail. This means I have to think carefully, and take responsibility when I offend someone. Using the same name everywhere forces one to speak honestly.

I guess the problem might be if you're being deceptively polite at say, RaptureReady, and then someone points out that you're a real a-hole at JREF. The solution is not to be deceptively anything. My excuse is, I'm an a-hole at JREF because the culture tolerates it, and I'm not ashamed that I behave differently among different groups of people.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
No, it's not. I've been put on moderation immediately upon joining a forum, once it became clear I was skeptical.

That's because, dahling, in your case, your reputation precedes you. We all know who you are , and there is an underground Cabal of Woos who speak of you around the fire in hushed and somber tones. . .

I have been banned from forums while at the same time the moderator said I was the most polite skeptic she'd ever seen.

True. Polite, but nonetheless deadly. Your behavior is still the issue, as you well know.

Now, I am not going to get into our years old grudge fest over here, but I must point out for thebenefit of others (like they care, still, I can try) the facts.

It's really simple: Many people cannot distinguish questioning their beliefs from insulting them. There is no desire to discuss a topic, only to support it.

All I can say is that in YOUR case, this is simply unso. Not true. False. Ah, if only you DID follow those rules: you know, discussing a topic. But as I've said, let's take our dirty laundry and air out elsewhere.

[CFLarsen]

turtle,

You seem to say that merely being a skeptic is exhibiting questionable behavior?

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, which board was it? I'd like to check.

That's what a skeptic does, you know.

Oy, what, are you calling me a liar? :rolleyes:
Sheesh, some skeptic forum somewhere about 2 years ago; I find your obsessive need to go forth and pour through tons of posts just to find one where I got booted from a skeptic forum -- and I'm not complaining about it mind you, just stating a fact -- absurd. Their board, they can do what they want, history, who the heck cares?

(Prediciton: lots of posts from CFLarsen on how come I won't provide the link, I'm a typical woo, I run and hide, demands I answer his question, accusations I'm a liar, etc. )

Honestly.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
turtle,

You seem to say that merely being a skeptic is exhibiting questionable behavior?

Where am I merely saying this?
What post or thing are your referring to here?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
Where am I merely saying this?
What post or thing are your referring to here?

This one:

Originally posted by turtle
Polite, but nonetheless deadly. Your behavior is still the issue, as you well know.

Paul said that he was nothing but polite. All he did was to state that he was a skeptic.

So, why is stating that you are skeptic "deadly"? Why does stating that you are a skeptic mean that your "behavior" is the "issue"?

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This one:



Paul said that he was nothing but polite. All he did was to state that he was a skeptic.

So, why is stating that you are skeptic "deadly"? Why does stating that you are a skeptic mean that your "behavior" is the "issue"?

I'm trying to avoid, as I said, bringing in dirty laundry from other forums into this one. You seem to want it though.

I also said, that in THIS case, meaning Paul (or Mylar Head, as we like to call him) is no mere "skeptic." (I also implied that, while politeness is sure appreciated, it isn't always what it seems)

Simple, nothing more to it, no big deal, and again, once again...(sigh) trying to avoid tangled histories and behave myself in here.

You seem, so far, to be itchin' fer a fight. :(

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
I'm trying to avoid, as I said, bringing in dirty laundry from other forums into this one. You seem to want it though.

I also said, that in THIS case, meaning Paul (or Mylar Head, as we like to call him) is no mere "skeptic." (I also implied that, while politeness is sure appreciated, it isn't always what it seems)

Simple, nothing more to it, no big deal, and again, once again...(sigh) trying to avoid tangled histories and behave myself in here.

You seem, so far, to be itchin' fer a fight. :(

:(

No, I am trying to find out what you are saying on this forum.

All Paul did was to state that he was a skeptic. You saw that as "deadly". You saw that as his "behavior" being the "issue".

You did so on this forum. So, I am asking you to explain what you meant. Please do so. On this forum.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, I am trying to find out what you are saying on this forum.

All Paul did was to state that he was a skeptic. You saw that as "deadly". You saw that as his "behavior" being the "issue".

You did so on this forum. So, I am asking you to explain what you meant. Please do so. On this forum.

I believe I said it. He said it isn't always behavior, that he's been told he's polite (which is true, 95% of the time) and yet, he still gets banned. His interpretation is that, it isn't behavior, but it is indeed the fact one is a skeptic, that gets you banned.

In HIS case, while he is polite as I said (what, three times or so now?) his BEHAVIOR IS what gets him banned, in SPITE of his politeness.

(the use of 'deadly' by the way was a bit of poetic license, don't be so literal.)

I don't know how much clearer I can be. I have answered your question. (snorting and lol @ at haughty "please do so.")

If you are looking for specifics, as I've said (again, avoiding dragging in baggage) I will not state them, for then MH will respond with HIS side, which I suppose is understandable, and off we go.

I will say this and say it once: it is the BEHAVIOR that gets him kicked off, not the fact he is a skeptic.

For the record, he is on two of my forums: one paranormal, one not.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
I believe I said it. He said it isn't always behavior, that he's been told he's polite (which is true, 95% of the time)

How do you know this? How did you come to that figure?

Originally posted by turtle
and yet, he still gets banned. His interpretation is that, it isn't behavior, but it is indeed the fact one is a skeptic, that gets you banned.

No, no, no. You claim that it is his behavior. You claim that it is the "issue". Please explain why.

Originally posted by turtle
In HIS case, while he is polite as I said (what, three times or so now?) his BEHAVIOR IS what gets him banned, in SPITE of his politeness.

What "behavior"? All he did was being a skeptic. Is that enough?

Originally posted by turtle
(the use of 'deadly' by the way was a bit of poetic license, don't be so literal.)

Fine with me. What did you mean, then? Why do you consider a skeptic "deadly"?

Originally posted by turtle
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I have answered your question. (snorting and lol @ at haughty "please do so.")

Spare us the condescending attitude, please. You made claims, you are asked to clarify.

Originally posted by turtle
If you are looking for specifics, as I've said (again, avoiding dragging in baggage) I will not state them, for the MH will respond with HIS side, and off we go.

I will say this and say it once: it is the BEHAVIOR that gets him kicked off, not the fact he is a skeptic.

For the record, he is on two of my forums: one paranormal, one not.

But his "behavior" is that he is saying that he is a skeptic. Why is this reason enough for him to be banned, or even censored?

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you know this? How did you come to that figure?

I used my Magic Amazing Woo-Woo Ruler


No, no, no. You claim that it is his behavior. You claim that it is the "issue". Please explain why.

I told you I would not. And I told you why I would not.


What "behavior"? All he did was being a skeptic. Is that enough?

Is what enough? The fact he is a skeptic? As I SAID, no, it's not because he's a skeptic. (I find it amusing that you, being so skeptical and all, take his words at face value. Where's the push for evidence in regards to him, hmmm?)


Fine with me. What did you mean, then? Why do you consider a skeptic "deadly"?

(are you serious by the way, or just enjoying amusing yourself playing with the new woo?) I don't consider a skeptic 'deadly.' I said, in his case, his seeming polite veneer is 'deadly.'



Spare us the condescending attitude, please. You made claims, you are asked to clarify.

I can still think your request, or tone, is haughty. Which I do.

But his "behavior" is that he is saying that he is a skeptic. Why is this reason enough for him to be banned, or even censored?

No, his "behavior" is not saying he's a skeptic!! Where do you get that from? His behavior on other forums - namely mine but also others -- is the issue, not his being a skeptic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
I used my Magic Amazing Woo-Woo Ruler

This does nothing to promote the idea that you are in any way serious about this.

Originally posted by turtle
I told you I would not. And I told you why I would not.

Fine. You just want to make the accusation. Gotcha.

Originally posted by turtle
Is what enough? The fact he is a skeptic? As I SAID, no, it's not because he's a skeptic. (I find it amusing that you, being so skeptical and all, take his words at face value. Where's the push for evidence in regards to him, hmmm?)

Because you are making the claim. Therefore, you provide the evidence. But you refuse. That leaves your claim in the dust.

Originally posted by turtle
(are you serious by the way, or just enjoying amusing yourself playing with the new woo?) I don't consider a skeptic 'deadly.' I said, in his case, his seeming polite veneer is 'deadly.'

Why do you consider it a "veneer"? Because he is a skeptic? What do you base that on?

Originally posted by turtle
I can still think your request, or tone, is haughty. Which I do.

Which is fine. It still leaves your claim unsupported.

Originally posted by turtle
No, his "behavior" is not saying he's a skeptic!! Where do you get that from? His behavior on other forums - namely mine but also others -- is the issue, not his being a skeptic.

So, you retract your former claim? Fine. What, then, is his "behavior"? AFAIK, all he did was to state that he was a skeptic.

Take your time and explain it.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to explain this.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This does nothing to promote the idea that you are in any way serious about this.

Well, ahem, respectfully I will say it's funny though. And simply because one makes a smarty pants remark in response to such a somber and serious question that far outweighs its context, does not mean one is also not sincere.

How serious to you want me to be? I've known him for a long time, and, in my experience, I agree with his statement that he is "polite." He is polite a good part, the majority of, the time. I didn't realize that a precise measurment was required. Hence, my humorous, and yet unappreciated, comment.

Fine. You just want to make the accusation. Gotcha.

No, you don't "gotcha."

Once again, I will say, that from my experience with him on other forums, it's been his behavior, not the fact he is a skeptic, that's gotten him booted off. That's not even an 'accusation" it's just a fact. You're really making this into a huge deal. I'm not calling him names, I'm not saying anything other than in his case, in the past, on other forums, it is not the fact he's a skeptic that got him kicked off.

Because you are making the claim. Therefore, you provide the evidence. But you refuse. That leaves your claim in the dust.

No it doesn't. First of all, HE made the claim. He claimed it was the fact he was a skeptic that got him kicked off, not his behavior. Secondly, as I said, it ain't a big deal. Past history has shown that he can't behave himself. That's all. Shrug.

Why do you consider it a "veneer"? Because he is a skeptic? What do you base that on?

No, oh defensive one, not because he's a skeptic. :rolleyes: Why do I need to repeat myself? Very tiresome.


Which is fine. It still leaves your claim unsupported.

Yes it is fine, thank you very much. (Um, fine as in: that I think your tone is haughty, -- just to clear any up any misunderstandings.)
So, you retract your former claim? Fine.
?????? I'm serious, I do not understand. WHAT "former claim?"

What, then, is his "behavior"? AFAIK, all he did was to state that he was a skeptic.

I'm not talking about his behavior here, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure why, or what, you are not understanding here.

This is becoming very surreal.

Yes, he claimed he was a skeptic. Who is polite. And that being a skeptic was what done got him kicked off. and then, I like, you know, said, no, it's like, he got kicked off cuz, you know, it's more like his behavior, not the fact he's askeptic, that got him kicked off.

Sorry. But I am getting very woozy as well as frusrated from this Kafka like thread. . .

Take your time and explain it.

Snideness not appreciated.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to explain this.

It's not "hard for me to explain" I said I will not, because, as I said three times now or so, I'm not getting into a "feud" of past baggage from other forums in here.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to understand that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
Well, ahem, respectfully I will say it's funny though. And simply because one makes a smarty pants remark in response to such a somber and serious question that far outweighs its context, does not mean one is also not sincere.

How serious to you want me to be? I've known him for a long time, and, in my experience, I agree with his statement that he is "polite." He is polite a good part, the majority of, the time. I didn't realize that a precise measurment was required. Hence, my humorous, and yet unappreciated, comment.

I am not privvy to your previous experiences, nor do I think you can expect me to be. I do ask that you address this issue with the same level of sincerity as you seem to ask for.

I could be wrong, of course. You could view this as an exercise in just how farcical one can be.

Originally posted by turtle
No, you don't "gotcha."

Once again, I will say, that from my experience with him on other forums, it's been his behavior, not the fact he is a skeptic, that's gotten him booted off. That's not even an 'accusation" it's just a fact. You're really making this into a huge deal. I'm not calling him names, I'm not saying anything other than in his case, in the past, on other forums, it is not the fact he's a skeptic that got him kicked off.

I understand that. That's why I am asking you to explain why you think his "behavior" is the "issue". So far, you have not been able to explain this. Despite your many words.

Originally posted by turtle
No it doesn't. First of all, HE made the claim. He claimed it was the fact he was a skeptic that got him kicked off, not his behavior. Secondly, as I said, it ain't a big deal. Past history has shown that he can't behave himself. That's all.

Shrug.

Shrug all you like, I am asking you what it is about his past history that showed that he can't "behave himself". So far, you have not been able to explain this. Despite your many words.

Originally posted by turtle
No, oh defensive one, not because he's a skeptic. :rolleyes: Why do I need to repeat myself? Very tiresome.

Because, so far, you have not been able to explain this. Despite your many words.

Originally posted by turtle
Yes it is fine, thank you very much.

No, that is not "fine". It leaves you with an unsupported claim.

Originally posted by turtle
?????? I'm serious, I do not understand. WHAT "former claim?"

Please do not play games with me. You saw his behavior as "deadly". You saw that as his "behavior" being the "issue". You have admitted that you cannot support this claim with evidence.

Originally posted by turtle
I'm not talking about his behavior here, if that's what you mean. I'm not sure why, or what, you are not understanding here.

This is becoming very surreal.

Yes, he claimed he was a skeptic. Who is polite. And that being a skeptic was what done got him kicked off. and then, I like, you know, said, no, it's like, he got kicked off cuz, you know, it's more like his behavior, not the fact he's askeptic, that got him kicked off.

Sorry. But I am getting very woozy as well as frusrated from this Kafka like thread. . .

Don't play games with me. Don't claim that you are getting "woozy". It is not that difficult to follow. It is actually quite plain.

Originally posted by turtle
Snideness not appreciated.

Then do not dispense snideness yourself.

Originally posted by turtle
It's not "hard for me to explain" I said I will not, because, as I said three times now or so, I'm not getting into a "feud" of past baggage from other forums in here.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to understand that.

It is not "hard" for me to understand that at all. You make a claim, you admit that you can't back it up. Been there, done that. You are absolutely not special in any way.

Answer the questions, OK?

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am not privvy to your previous experiences, nor do I think you can expect me to be. I do ask that you address this issue with the same level of sincerity as you seem to ask for.

I could be wrong, of course. You could view this as an exercise in just how farcical one can be.

Oh sweet lovin' Jupiter! I've explained, and answered your questions, and sorry if humor bothers you, and that you don't like the answers given. Nothing I can do about that.

I understand that. That's why I am asking you to explain why you think his "behavior" is the "issue". So far, you have not been able to explain this. Despite your many words.

I am "able" --,, I said, I will not.


Shrug all you like, I am asking you what it is about his past history that showed that he can't "behave himself". So far, you have not been able to explain this. Despite your many words.

What can I say, I was an English major in college. I love words.
I also seem to need them, for apparently I must repeat myself since you're asking the same thing over and over.
And, once again, I am quite 'able' to explain. Don't infer please that I'm some type of idiot that is not "able." I choose not to drag in dirty laundry. Or even, clean laundry for that matter.

Because, so far, you have not been able to explain this. Despite your many words.

Once again, I am quite 'able" I ain't gonna. And what's with the repeating of the same phrases? ('despite your many words") -- just curious about your style there.

No, that is not "fine". It leaves you with an unsupported claim.

If I think you are haughty, it most certainly is fine. As I SAID it's fine I think you're haughty, not fine about the claim.


Please do not play games with me.

Okay, now I'm ticked. Before, I was merely miffed.

I honestly do not know what you are asking, or talking about here, and I am not "playing games" and why are you so defensive?

You saw his behavior as "deadly". You saw that as his "behavior" being the "issue". You have admitted that you cannot support this claim with evidence.

No, I have said that I will not drag in stinking, moldy laundry.


Don't play games with me.

Again, I am NOT playing games with you.

Don't claim that you are getting "woozy".

Hey, but excuse me! Don't tell me what not to claim! Really now. I AM getting woozy.

It is not that difficult to follow. It is actually quite plain.

You think so, clearly, but it isn't to me. If it were, I wouldn't ask for clarification. Instead, you're accusing me of "playing games." :(


Then do not dispense snideness yourself.

I'm not. Humor, sure. Snideness, nope. I've tried to be quite civil, and in fact, that's why I'm not bringing in all kinds of "so and so did this in a forum, then he did THIS, and then, you know, he did THAT..."


It is not "hard" for me to understand that at all.

Well seems to be, since you keep going on about it and don't seem to understand that: (one more time now...)

It's not the fact he's a skeptic
It's his behavior


I will remind you that he is currently on one of my paranormal forums. So see, I'm not so bad.

You make a claim, you admit that you can't back it up. Been there, done that.

You mean you've made claims, and couldn't back them up? (sorry :D)
Once again, I have "admitted" no such thing at all. AT ALL.

You are absolutely not special in any way.

Whoa! Where did that come from???!!! "I'm not special in any way?" WTH?????????

Answer the questions, OK?

Why? Simply because you asked?
Gee, after being told not to be snide, play games, that my humor isn't appreciated, and that I'm not special, why would I want to answer you?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
No it doesn't. First of all, HE made the claim. He claimed it was the fact he was a skeptic that got him kicked off, not his behavior. Secondly, as I said, it ain't a big deal. Past history has shown that he can't behave himself. That's all. Shrug.
It appears that turtle is assuming that I was refering to her forums specifically when I made my remarks. Interesting assumption.

Yes, he claimed he was a skeptic. Who is polite. And that being a skeptic was what done got him kicked off. and then, I like, you know, said, no, it's like, he got kicked off cuz, you know, it's more like his behavior, not the fact he's askeptic, that got him kicked off.

Sorry. But I am getting very woozy as well as frusrated from this Kafka like thread.
It's Kafkaesque because, as usual, you will not actually explain what the hell you're talking about. When we ask you to, you holler "bad behavior!"

This is all significantly sillier than usual outside the context of your own forums. :D

~~ Paul

[gnome]

I think one way of avoiding a ban, would be to keep your remarks mostly private. That is... stop trying to argue to the group, and let people come to you that wish to listen to you.

Someone posts a supernatural experience that you think you can explain or cause them to rethink...

You could respond with: "I think there are some other possibilities you may not have considered. If you are interested in a discussion, PM me."

Or some variation of that.

Even well-intentioned questioning can quickly begin to seem like you are trying to publicly humiliate someone or question their intelligence. Someone might be more willing to listen in a private conversation. And then if the argument turns hostile, you can end it without a public battle that disrupts the board.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here's an idea, turtle: Why don't you explain in general what sort of behavior skeptics sometimes exhibit that get them moderated and banned? That way, you don't have to bring in any dirty laundry about me specifically (not that I mind). You never know, your remarks might help us to behave ourselves better.

~~ Paul

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's an idea, turtle: Why don't you explain in general what sort of behavior skeptics sometimes exhibit that get them moderated and banned? That way, you don't have to bring in any dirty laundry about me specifically (not that I mind). You never know, your remarks might help us to behave ourselves better.

~~ Paul

Good idea. Except I've done that already, in response to geni's post and a couple of others.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
It appears that turtle is assuming that I was refering to her forums specifically when I made my remarks. Interesting assumption.

Well, seeing as you belong to, or have belonged to, about a million different forums that I've either modereated, co-moderated, or was on, or am on, and the fact you are currently a member of two of my forums, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption.

And even if you weren't specifically refering to my forums, my comments are still an appropriate response to your comment, or belief.

It's Kafkaesque because, as usual, you will not actually explain what the hell you're talking about. When we ask you to, you holler "bad behavior!"

Incorrect.

It's "Kafkasque" because CF kept asking me the same damn (is that considered a swear word in here?) questions over and over.

I haven't "hollered bad behavior!" though I did ask him to not be snide, and was quite taken aback by the "you're not special" comment.

How much clearer do I need to be?

I said you were a skeptic.
I said that was not why you were kicked off.
I said you were polite. (and then asked to explain how I knew that were polite 95% of the time -- now, if that isn't an example of a post becoming a bit Kafkaesque or surreal, I don't know what is)
I said it was your BEHAVIOR (regardless of being skeptic, or, not) that got you booted off
I said I would not go into detail about the kinds of behaviors

And yet, for some reason, I am accused of playing games, being snide, not being serious, and presenting myself, apparently, as something special. Oh, and being wordy.

Oh well. I tried.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, I guess this was your explanation:

Repeat themselves
SHOUTS a lot
Demands that you answer their question
Demands proof or evidence
Alludes to you being not quite mentally balanced, or, lying, or, having some deep rooted emotional need to feel special
Goes on and on and ON...and ON
Ignores requests from the mods to stop already, then:
Whines about their right to free speech and:
accuses everyone on the forum of being "afraid" of "the truth"

Doesn't fit me, so that doesn't 'splain why I was banned.

I particularly liked this response to "Don't use your JREF nic":
Why? What are you hiding? This smacks of more "trolling" tactics. Is it so that the "woos" can't come after you?
Hardy har har.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
Well, seeing as you belong to, or have belonged to, about a million different forums that I've either modereated, co-moderated, or was on, or am on, and the fact you are currently a member of two of my forums, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Well, this exposes another assumption you made, namely that I knew you were the owner of your forums when I made this post:
No, it's not. I've been put on moderation immediately upon joining a forum, once it became clear I was skeptical. ...
But I did not know it was you until you replied with your trademarked "dahling" in your next post. Had I read this thread from the beginning, I would have known it was you, but I did not.

And yet, for some reason, I am accused of playing games, being snide, not being serious, and presenting myself, apparently, as something special. Oh, and being wordy.
That would be because (a) you won't give straightforward answers, which is perceived as playing games; and (b) you chose Claus to argue with. The clash of the Titans, to be sure.

~~ Paul

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle


You seem to be prejudiced here, and, defensive. As I said, SOME sketpics, the more fantatical kind, and based on my personal expereince.



If someone behaves themselves, fine. It really is simple. As far as "evidence" goes, what do you expect? What "evidence" do you for so called believers and their behaviors? As I've said, when someone comes into a forum and behaves rudely, arrogantly, calls people mentally ill or what have you, then it's fair to say they are the more rabid type or fanatical.

Why you seem to want to start something here I can only guess. You seem to be accusing me of NOT applying those terms to those who do not deserve it. Defensive.

Is it so bizarre a concept that there are degrees of behavior within any group? This includes skeptics.




Of course it's "correct." Look, if someone is rude, they're rude. If they don't stop and fling about with the things I've listed above, they're "fanatical."

I must ask you again: why do you think I mean ALL skeptics? Why do you think you have to wear the shoe if it doesn't fit? Why do you think my personal opinions and observations need some sort of "evidence" supplied? Why do you think that when I say "some skeptics of the more rabid variety" I mean everyone who's held a skeptical view on something? [/B]


Show that you daon't mean all sceptics. You presumebly keep records of those you ban. At the moment all we have is you subjective judgement that these sceptics were behaving as you claim.

[Dogwood]

One of these days I'll make a T-shirt that says, "I Survived Survival Science. (And all I got was this lousey T-shirt.)"

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Oh, I guess this was your explanation:

Doesn't fit me, so that doesn't 'splain why I was banned.

Surely you jest.

(Okay, CF, here's a couple of examples of the behavior I refered to)

In my forums, and a few others, you most certainly do repeat yourself and go on and on and on and ON and it is hysterical that you think you do not.

Now, I am going to regret this because at least you and likely CF, and probably a few others, are going to post with demands for evidence, proof of posts and threads where this behavior has occured, countless, endless, pointless rounds of posts of "did too," "did not," "that isn't repeating oneself" "yes it is," "no it isn't " etc, etc, etc.

I could be psychic if the above comes true!

If it does, I shall be sad. It's all so amazingly unproductive. I shall try to remain civil and mature and above the fray, and yet, I will be accused of spamming, trolling, causing trouble, running away, being incapable of providing evidence, and making accusations.

Sigh.

Like I said, I tried.
:(

[c4ts]

Quoting a moderator in a signature is not rude behavior. Inserting "duh duh duh I'm so stupid" into the signature because you are a moderator instead of saying why you thought the quote bothered you is rude. Also banning me for getting rid of the signature altogether, in other words complying with your dislike of it and obeying the rules of the message board, was very rude behavior indeed. Do the rules not apply to the moderators?

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
Show that you daon't mean all sceptics. You presumebly keep records of those you ban. At the moment all we have is you subjective judgement that these sceptics were behaving as you claim.

LOL, of course it's "subjective." We're talking about converstations with people. In little forums. That talk about ghosties and ufos and nessie and thingies.

I don't mean to be rude, honest, but I find your demand that I "show you I don't mean all skeptics" truly surreal.

Isn't that some sort of reverse something or another? (I'm sure there's a name for that in argument techniques.)

I say I don't mean all skeptics, and that's what I mean, and that's that.

Again, I really am not being rude (or "snide") but are you serious? We can exchange the word "skeptic" for anything. Plumber. Nurse. Mechanic. Chef.

If I say "Some mechanics I've dealt with have been cheaters" and you say, "show me that you don't mean all mechanics?" -- I mean, HUH?

I suppose one answer to your demand is: well, I'm here aren't I? If I thought all skeptics were the same, I wouldn't be.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
Surely you jest.

(Okay, CF, here's a couple of examples of the behavior I refered to)

In my forums, and a few others, you most certainly do repeat yourself and go on and on and on and ON and it is hysterical that you think you do not.
Oh, I agree on that point. I certainly do. Takes at least two to tango, though.

I thought a rabid skeptic had to exhibit all those behaviors. If only some, then almost every person who ever posts on any forum is rabid.

Okay, so the first point is that persistence makes one a rabid skeptic. Next.

~~ Paul

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
I suppose one answer to your demand is: well, I'm here aren't I? If I thought all skeptics were the same, I wouldn't be. Every post I've ever read of yours is simply an endless rant about skeptics, and debunkers, and pseudoskeptics, and skeptoids. I've yet to see you actually talk about the paranormal. It seems to me that your here just to start an argument, as your clearly not here to debate the veracity of paranormal claims

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
LOL, of course it's "subjective." We're talking about converstations with people. In little forums. That talk about ghosties and ufos and nessie and thingies.

I don't mean to be rude, honest, but I find your demand that I "show you I don't mean all skeptics" truly surreal.

Isn't that some sort of reverse something or another? (I'm sure there's a name for that in argument techniques.)

Not really the number of sceptics you have banned must be finte so either you need to show where you have not banned a sceptic who behaved or that in a repersentive sample of those you have banned alll the banning were justifed


I say I don't mean all skeptics, and that's what I mean, and that's that.


Evidence? Come on you should be able to give me some reason to belive you.

Again, I really am not being rude (or "snide") but are you serious? We can exchange the word "skeptic" for anything. Plumber. Nurse. Mechanic. Chef.

If I say "Some mechanics I've dealt with have been cheaters" and you say, "show me that you don't mean all mechanics?" -- I mean, HUH?


Pretty simple produce a mechanic who you have delt with and do not consider a cheater


I suppose one answer to your demand is: well, I'm here aren't I? If I thought all skeptics were the same, I wouldn't be.

You claimed to have followed yahweh's posting for a while that should mean you know something about the forum. You should know that gold/Olaf/ QII thinks all sceptics are pretty much a waste of space but still posts here from time to time. We've had people post here who think sceptics are the ultimate evil. Your posting here doesn't provide evidence for anything.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Oh, I agree on that point. I certainly do. Takes at least two to tango, though.

I thought a rabid skeptic had to exhibit all those behaviors. If only some, then almost every person who ever posts on any forum is rabid.

Okay, so the first point is that persistence makes one a rabid skeptic. Next.

~~ Paul

As I pointed out to CF, your idea of being "persistent" is very different from someone else's. What you believe to be "consistent" is seen as arrogant, fanatical obsessive-compulsive repeating of oneself for no apparent reason other than to "bully" others, or be extremely irritating, ignoring the pleas of moderators and some members to please stop--- until, you're either put on moderation or banned.

(I mean "you" as in "one" but you too, I guess. )

But, I said all this before. Unlike some, I do not like repeating myself. And, wouldn't want to be chided again for my being so wordy.

Next!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dogwood
One of these days I'll make a T-shirt that says, "I Survived Survival Science. (And all I got was this lousey T-shirt.)"

Yup, that's one board I survived too! I think I remember your posts. Long time ago now! :)

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
Every post I've ever read of yours is simply an endless rant about skeptics, and debunkers, and pseudoskeptics, and skeptoids. I've yet to see you actually talk about the paranormal. It seems to me that your here just to start an argument, as your clearly not here to debate the veracity of paranormal claims

:( Just when I thought you were okay . . .gee, didn't you just post to me here you hope I stay? Now you're going after me.

Since this thread is about tactics and skeptics being kicked off woo forums, etc. AND, I've been asked questions here in regards to that, of course that's what I'm going to talk about. If you mean other forums, -- that doesn't have anything to do with this.

As I keep saying, I'm not looking for a fight, I've been trying to avoid one, but it seems this is a prickly bunch. I'm the one who kept saying I don't want to bring up old issues from other forums, and then I'm accused of running.

You can think what you like. Since nothing paranormal has come up in this thread, I don't see how I can be attacked for not talking about paranormal topics.

I think I asked something about anecdotal evidence and experience in another thread. . .

I thought one of the main complaints skeptics have is that woos don't invite other opinions, they don't want to hear the other side.

Here I come to share my perceptions on why 'bleevers' respond the way they do, and it's seen as "starting an argument."

Well, like I said, I tried.

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
Not really the number of sceptics you have banned must be finte so either you need to show where you have not banned a sceptic who behaved or that in a repersentive sample of those you have banned alll the banning were justifed

Why do you say "they're finite?" That's quite an assumption.

I'm sorry, I just think this is such a topsy turvy "argument."


Evidence? Come on you should be able to give me some reason to belive you.

At this point, I don't care if you believe me or not. Seems clear you're intent on having already made up your mind about me, so, nothing to do about it.

Pretty simple produce a mechanic who you have delt with and do not consider a cheater

Fine.

So, I'm waiting for some skeptic in here to not jump all over me and at the very least, appreciate my charming sense of humor.

Actually, I think I did give an example, though unintentionally, on another thread, about JPK.

Now. We have an example. That should settle things!



You claimed to have followed yahweh's posting for a while that should mean you know something about the forum.

??? Who's yahweh?


You should know that gold/Olaf/ QII thinks all sceptics are pretty much a waste of space but still posts here from time to time.

I don't know who these people are either.

We've had people post here who think sceptics are the ultimate evil. Your posting here doesn't provide evidence for anything.

Hey, I'm just giving my "subjective" opinions based on direct and personal experience, as I've said now many times, ...

by the way, are you "skeptic62" or whoever?

[Operaider]

Originally posted by turtle
:( Just when I thought you were okay . . .gee, didn't you just post to me here you hope I stay? Now you're going after me. I do, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the paranormal. Not just on skeptics

Since this thread is about tactics and skeptics being kicked off woo forums, etc. AND, I've been asked questions here in regards to that, of course that's what I'm going to talk about. If you mean other forums, -- that doesn't have anything to do with this. I mean every forum so far that I've seen you in. From what I've seen it looks like you are going around looking for a fight. And they do have to do with this since, as I already pointed out, this thread is about going into other forums and how to properly act. So how you act in this forum as well as past forums is on topic.

As I keep saying, I'm not looking for a fight, I've been trying to avoid one, but it seems this is a prickly bunch. I'm the one who kept saying I don't want to bring up old issues from other forums, and then I'm accused of running.

You can think what you like. Since nothing paranormal has come up in this thread, I don't see how I can be attacked for not talking about paranormal topics. There are plenty of other threads that are talking about the paranormal. You seem to stuck with this one. I just read through your past posts. Not once in your posts to this board do you discuss the paranormal, they read like an endless rant against "pseudoskeptics". If you wish to discuss the paranormal, I'd be more than happy to hear what you have to say. This endless tirade about skeptics is getting old fast

I think I asked something about anecdotal evidence and experience in another thread. . .

??

[turtle]

Originally posted by Operaider
I do, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the paranormal. Not just on skeptics I mean every forum so far that I've seen you in. From what I've seen it looks like you are going around looking for a fight. And they do have to do with this since, as I already pointed out, this thread is about going into other forums and how to properly act. So how you act in this forum as well as past forums is on topic. There are plenty of other threads that are talking about the paranormal. You seem to stuck with this one. I just read through your past posts. Not once in your posts to this board do you discuss the paranormal, they read like an endless rant against "pseudoskeptics". If you wish to discuss the paranormal, I'd be more than happy to hear what you have to say. This endless tirade about skeptics is getting old fast

I admit I"m uppity and don't like it when people fling me (can we say crap in here?) and I'll fling it right back. I'm not a warm and fuzzy woo woo. Just a woo.

So if that's seen as "looking for a fight" so be it.

I haven't discussed the paranormal in here because I haven't gotten there yet. Sheesh.

Again, since the two threads I am in here have to do with bleevers vs. skeptics, that's going to be the content of my posts.

If this "endless tirade" is getting old fast, I suggest you go to another thread.

I think I've been very honest, open, and civil so far in here.

I have not, however, been non-uppity.

Like I said, I may be a woo, but I'm no warm and fuzzy New Agey Spacey woo.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
Why do you say "they're finite?" That's quite an assumption.

Assume worse case senario. Every person on the planet is posting to your forum as a sceptic. The number would still be finite. So not much of an assumption


I'm sorry, I just think this is such a topsy turvy "argument."


Can you prove that it is though?


At this point, I don't care if you believe me or not. Seems clear you're intent on having already made up your mind about me, so, nothing to do about it.


Fell free to present evidence that opposses my position. More than just claims real hard evidence.


Fine.

So, I'm waiting for some skeptic in here to not jump all over me and at the very least, appreciate my charming sense of humor.


And you would not bann such a sceptic?


Actually, I think I did give an example, though unintentionally, on another thread, about JPK.



Now. We have an example. That should settle things!
[/quote]

link?




??? Who's yahweh?


The person who you responded to about 2/3 of the way down the first page of this thread. Remember? you said "Your comment "with new thoughts seeping in" is a bit insulting. Don't know if you meant to be snide or not. Although having followed your posts for many months, I wouldn't be surprised. There are lot of wakcos indeed out there (I mean, Reptilain Lovers? Please) but the majority are not, and are quite aware of these so called "new thoughts." "



I don't know who these people are either.


No you do not. it would be easy for you find out. Some of the names are in the member lists.


Hey, I'm just giving my "subjective" opinions based on direct and personal experience, as I've said now many times, ...


this stament is not relivant in the context.


by the way, are you "skeptic62" or whoever?

I will leave you to work that one out.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
As I keep saying, I'm not looking for a fight, I've been trying to avoid one, but it seems this is a prickly bunch.
Us? Prickly? Why that's the most outrageous, ridiculous, stoopid, absurd thing I've ever heard. Harumph!

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
Like I said, I may be a woo, but I'm no warm and fuzzy New Agey Spacey woo.
This, my friends, is most certainly true. We may have had our differences over the months, but warmth and fuzziness were not part of them.

~~ Paul

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
Assume worse case senario. Every person on the planet is posting to your forum as a sceptic. The number would still be finite. So not much of an assumption

? Why would you want to assume the worst? Not "every person on the planet is a skeptic, nor or they posting in my forums. -- I don't get you here...sorry.


Can you prove that it is though?
LOL, for heaven's sake, it's my opinion is all. Honestly.
Are you askng me if I can prove it's my opinion?


Fell free to present evidence that opposses my position. More than just claims real hard evidence.

This is the point, as with CF, that the wooziness starts to overtake me and I start to lose focus. Probably because this is just some crazy go around...like a surreal Merry Go Round.

Prove what? That I have opinions?

Oh well...


And you would not bann such a sceptic?
Um, do you mean would I "not bann" a sceptic from here? How could I? Not my forum.

Or do you mean, if one joined one of my forums? I don't know, it simply depends.

Do you mean JPK? If so, from what I've experienced with him so far, no, I wouldn't ban him.


Now. We have an example. That should settle things!

link?
Link to what???


The person who you responded to about 2/3 of the way down the first page of this thread. Remember? you said "Your comment "with new thoughts seeping in" is a bit insulting. Don't know if you meant to be snide or not. Although having followed your posts for many months, I wouldn't be surprised. There are lot of wakcos indeed out there (I mean, Reptilain Lovers? Please) but the majority are not, and are quite aware of these so called "new thoughts." "

I'll have to go back and re read that post; could have been I meant CF, or could have been I meant in a general sense..


No you do not. it would be easy for you find out. Some of the names are in the member lists.
Okay, seriously, it can't just be me. First you say I know them, then you say I don't, but for some reason I'm supposed to find out..????


this stament is not relivant in the context.
Oh heck, it is so.


I will leave you to work that one out.
Affirmative.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
? Why would you want to assume the worst? Not "every person on the planet is a skeptic, nor or they posting in my forums. -- I don't get you here...sorry.

Good then the number is an even smaller sub infinte. Yuo conced the point



LOL, for heaven's sake, it's my opinion is all. Honestly.
Are you askng me if I can prove it's my opinion?




I'm asking if you have any evidence to back up you opinion.


This is the point, as with CF, that the wooziness starts to overtake me and I start to lose focus. Probably because this is just some crazy go around...like a surreal Merry Go Round.

Prove what? That I have opinions?


Prove that your opinions are based on evidence rather than predudice.




Um, do you mean would I "not bann" a sceptic from here? How could I? Not my forum.

Or do you mean, if one joined one of my forums? I don't know, it simply depends.

Do you mean JPK? If so, from what I've experienced with him so far, no, I wouldn't ban him.




[B]
Link to what???



The relivant topic.


I'll have to go back and re read that post; could have been I meant CF, or could have been I meant in a general sense..


Not without doing some pretty major damage to the english language.


Okay, seriously, it can't just be me. First you say I know them, then you say I don't, but for some reason I'm supposed to find out..????


My first statment assumed that you were telling the truth when responding to yahweh. My second on does not make this assumption. Is that clear?


Oh heck, it is so.


No it isn't

[B]
Affirmative.

Have fun.

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
Good then the number is an even smaller sub infinte. Yuo conced the point

???? (I assume you mean by "Yuo conced.." you mean "you concede") this really issurreal; because I don't understand what you're asking, I've conceded? Um, okay...


I'm asking if you have any evidence to back up you opinion.

Dude, it's an opinion -- subjective one at that, based on direct personal experience. It's not a claim of aliens landing in my bedroom and giving me the cure for cancer.

Is this what us 'bleevers have to look forward to in here?



Prove that your opinions are based on evidence rather than predudice.

Other than repeating myself ad naseum, which seems to be a passtime in here, I don't know what else I can do. If you seriously mean, you want me to post dozens of posts from various forums out of context, -- and I can't believe that is what you want -- then you can forget it. It won't prove a thing, it still amounts to "subjective" (witness Paul's recent post here who said he doesn't go on and on, I say he does, it's a matter of perception.)






The relivant topic.

WHAT "relivant" topic?


Not without doing some pretty major damage to the english language.
??? Wow, I am sorry, but I am having a very hard time trying to understand you.
FYI, I re read the post, and now I know who you're talking about. What is the big deal?Is there a point here somewhere?
(frankly, from reading your posts, I don't think you can be a judge of doing "major damange to the English language")


My first statment assumed that you were telling the truth when responding to yahweh. My second on does not make this assumption. Is that clear?
No, it isn't. You mean you think I know the second list of names you listed? I don't believe I know them.


No it isn't
Well neener neener neener, lol, it is so.


Have fun.

At this point, I don't care.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
... (witness Paul's recent post here who said he doesn't go on and on, I say he does, it's a matter of perception.) ...
Uh, not really. I agreed with you. When you said:
In my forums, and a few others, you most certainly do repeat yourself and go on and on and on and ON and it is hysterical that you think you do not.
I replied:
Oh, I agree on that point. I certainly do. Takes at least two to tango, though.

~~ Paul

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
At this point, I don't care.

Have you ever?

[turtle]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Uh, not really. I agreed with you. When you said:

I replied:


~~ Paul

Okay, true. Thanks...

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Have you ever?

That's not necessary. Or nice.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
That's not necessary. Or nice.

Isn't that a fair question? You waltz in here, throwing accusations around that skeptics are not nice, but fail abysmally to back it up - heck, you don't even see the necessity of doing it.

So what do you care about? Why are you here? Not to share experiences, because you don't do that.

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Isn't that a fair question? You waltz in here, throwing accusations around that skeptics are not nice, but fail abysmally to back it up - heck, you don't even see the necessity of doing it.

So what do you care about? Why are you here? Not to share experiences, because you don't do that.

My "I don't care anymore" comment was directed to one specific statement in one post to someone else.

Since you cannot understand the concept of "some" I will -- yet again -- repeat myself, and say, SOME skeptics.

Are you of the belief that skeptics are the only group of people where everyone is the same? Answer the question please.

This thread is about skeptics promoting skepticism on paranormal boards, -- if I choose to discuss paranormal issues, I'll find an appropriate thread to do so.

What part of "how can I 'back up' my personal sujbective opinions based on personal direct experiences over the years" is hard for you to understand? Answer the question.

What part of "SOME skeptics" are more fanatical, etc. than others, do you not understand? Answer the question.

What part of JPK seems to be okay and I'd have him in my forums do you not get? Answer the question.

What part of Paul is in two of my forums, do you not understand? Answer the question.

What part of "if the shoes doesn't fit, don't wear it" do you find difficult. Answer the question.

I'll be happy to help you out, even though I am quite tired from repeating myself. Anything to show that I am not here to cause trouble, or whatever thing you think it is I'm doing.


From what I've read in here, and from what many skeptics seem to complain about, is the inability of woos to welcome skeptics and engage in discussion. I guess, from your behavior towards me in here so far, it isn't okay the other way around.

That all aside, your latest comment is not fair, not nice, not necessary, and simply an attempt to get something unpleasant going.

Take care...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
My "I don't care anymore" comment was directed to one specific statement in one post to someone else.

Since you cannot understand the concept of "some" I will -- yet again -- repeat myself, and say, SOME skeptics.

But you refuse to tell us who, and why.

I see you have a line of questions for me. Here's where the difference between you and I lies: I welcome questions, because that gives me an opportunity to explain what I mean.

Here we go...

Originally posted by turtle
Are you of the belief that skeptics are the only group of people where everyone is the same? Answer the question please.

Gladly: Absolutely not. That's why I ask people to clearly explain what it is they say, mean, and claim. And, of course, to provide evidence of these claims. Unfortunately, you have refused to show evidence of your own claims.

Originally posted by turtle
This thread is about skeptics promoting skepticism on paranormal boards, -- if I choose to discuss paranormal issues, I'll find an appropriate thread to do so.

But all you have done so far is to declare that skeptics are banned because of their behavior, but refuse to give examples of this.

Originally posted by turtle
What part of "how can I 'back up' my personal sujbective opinions based on personal direct experiences over the years" is hard for you to understand? Answer the question.

Gladly: These are not subjective at all. You point to "behavior", you need to provide examples of this. Unfortunately, you have refused to show evidence of your own claims.

Originally posted by turtle
What part of "SOME skeptics" are more fanatical, etc. than others, do you not understand? Answer the question.

Gladly: Nobody is denying that people - skeptics or not - are different. Paul has his ways, I have mine. But if you want to point to those fanatical skeptics, you also need to name them. Otherwise, we don't know if you made it all up. Unfortunately, you have refused to show evidence of your own claims.

Originally posted by turtle
What part of JPK seems to be okay and I'd have him in my forums do you not get? Answer the question.

Gladly: There is no part of that which I do not get. Where have I expressed myself otherwise?

Originally posted by turtle
What part of Paul is in two of my forums, do you not understand? Answer the question.

Gladly: This emphasizes the need for you to provide examples of which skeptics have exhibited this behavior, and examples of what they have done. Unfortunately, you have refused to show evidence of your own claims.

Originally posted by turtle
What part of "if the shoes doesn't fit, don't wear it" do you find difficult. Answer the question.

Gladly: I don't find it difficult at all. However, you are the one pointing fingers at skeptics. Unfortunately, you have refused to show evidence of your own claims.

Originally posted by turtle
I'll be happy to help you out, even though I am quite tired from repeating myself. Anything to show that I am not here to cause trouble, or whatever thing you think it is I'm doing.

I understand why you are tired from repeating yourself. All it takes is for you to provide evidence of your claims. Unfortunately, you have refused to do this.

Originally posted by turtle
From what I've read in here, and from what many skeptics seem to complain about, is the inability of woos to welcome skeptics and engage in discussion. I guess, from your behavior towards me in here so far, it isn't okay the other way around.

Hey, I'm all for discussion. But I am most of all interested in finding evidence. And if you come here claiming that skeptics are behaving badly, and should therefore be censored, you can bet your cute little woowoo-ass that I will be there to ask you for evidence.

Originally posted by turtle
That all aside, your latest comment is not fair, not nice, not necessary, and simply an attempt to get something unpleasant going.

Not at all. I have to go with what you tell us, and so far, I have not seen any indication that you are interested in anything else than spreading manure.

Originally posted by turtle
Take care...

Likewise.

There, you have my answers to your questions. Do you still think you are entitled to refuse to answer mine?

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But you refuse to tell us who, and why.

I do believe I have addressed this point but since you do not recall I will once again repeat myself.

I do not find it at all productive or well mannered to post names of specific actual skeptics I think, in my little subjective experience world, are 'sketpoids' or whatever. Doing so does not 'back anything up' and I have a feeling you know that. Moot point however.

IOW, I have not refused to tell you why, and yes, I have refused to tell you who specifically. Although, I did mention Paul.

I have said several times already that some things I, and many other woos, consider 'bad behavior' on a skeptics part is going on and ON, for example. You yourself replied to that point earlier.

If you want to hold onto to the opinion that I am "spreading manure" because I relate personal experiences of mine re: SOME skeptics that I find highly irritating, there is nothing I can do about it. They idea of this bizarre nitpicking and insistence on "providing evidence" for someone's personal journeys through the land of paranormal forums and skeptics is, as I've said, surreal. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, I'm not going to go on and ON and on...I realize that you do, but it's not for me. You can consider it whatever you like: running away, ignoring the question, "spreading manure" -- your opinion. Wrong, but your opinion.

There, you have my answers to your questions. Do you still think you are entitled to refuse to answer mine?

No one is under any obligation to answer anything, whether or or not their questions were answered.

But, I've tried to answer what I can, it is not good enough for you, nothing more to be said.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by turtle
I do believe I have addressed this point but since you do not recall I will once again repeat myself.

I do not find it at all productive or well mannered to post names of specific actual skeptics I think, in my little subjective experience world, are 'sketpoids' or whatever. Doing so does not 'back anything up' and I have a feeling you know that. Moot point however.

IOW, I have not refused to tell you why, and yes, I have refused to tell you who specifically. Although, I did mention Paul.

I have said several times already that some things I, and many other woos, consider 'bad behavior' on a skeptics part is going on and ON, for example. You yourself replied to that point earlier.

If you want to hold onto to the opinion that I am "spreading manure" because I relate personal experiences of mine re: SOME skeptics that I find highly irritating, there is nothing I can do about it. They idea of this bizarre nitpicking and insistence on "providing evidence" for someone's personal journeys through the land of paranormal forums and skeptics is, as I've said, surreal. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore, I'm not going to go on and ON and on...I realize that you do, but it's not for me. You can consider it whatever you like: running away, ignoring the question, "spreading manure" -- your opinion. Wrong, but your opinion.

(sigh...)

You are on a skeptics board. Here, we investigate claims. Here, we ask pertinent questions. Here, we expect answers. If we do not get them, gee, golly, we are not going to collapse on the floor, all bambi-eyed, and simply believe you.

Originally posted by turtle
No one is under any obligation to answer anything, whether or or not their questions were answered.

That much is true. However, you cannot expect anyone to attach any significance to anything you say, unless you back it up with evidence. Where, in the off-line world do you expect this? At work? At home?

Originally posted by turtle
But, I've tried to answer what I can, it is not good enough for you, nothing more to be said.

It isn't, as it were. However, I do think we are wiser to how you argue. By innuendo, by rumor, by anecdote.

All worthless here.

Sorry!

[turtle]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(sigh...)

You are on a skeptics board. Here, we investigate claims. Here, we ask pertinent questions. Here, we expect answers. If we do not get them, gee, golly, we are not going to collapse on the floor, all bambi-eyed, and simply believe you.

I understand that perfectly. But asking me for 'evidence to back up claims" and "proof" of a subjective, years long, personal, observation/experience involving people's behaviors, and asking for evidence to back up claims of psi or aliens, are two different things. I've already stated the bizarro fixation with my passing along personal observations in here.

I don't expect anyone to "collapse" or get all "Bambi-eyed" over my personal opinion/observations.


That much is true. However, you cannot expect anyone to attach any significance to anything you say, unless you back it up with evidence. Where, in the off-line world do you expect this? At work? At home?

You know, if I said I like scrambled eggs, I don't think it at all reasonable for someone to hound me with demands for evidence to back it up.


It isn't, as it were. However, I do think we are wiser to how you argue. By innuendo, by rumor, by anecdote.

It is not "innuendo, nor rumor" -- I've been pretty specific with some examples, including naming one person specifically, as I've said now, many times.

(just curious, who is this "we" and are you the official spokesperson?)

All worthless here.

As far as you are concerned, sure. I guess then, those of you here who continue to find ways to join paranormal forums without getting banned shall continue on. Of course, input from the "other" meaning, woos, won't help you, since you don't seem to want it. You just want to go in there. But then are surprised when you're banned or moderated. But you didn't listen to any comments from woos. Hmm, well, if that's your method, not for me to worry.

Like I said, I tried.

Sorry!

Yes, it is, isn't it?

Oh, a question, out of curiousity: are you a moderator on any of these forums here?

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder how many posters on believer sites are actually sceptical 5th columnists working from within?

I'm starting to wonder about the polite people here.

Paranoia here we come.

[turtle]

I don't know where this should go, in this thread or if the mod wants to put it in another thread, I wasn't sure...

but I was wondering if anyone knows of any forums where both skeptics (of all kinds) and "woos" (of all kinds) can go to discuss, not only paranormal topics, but the whole skeptic vs. woo "debate." In a calm, nice, reasonable way. If anyone knows of such a place, let me know. Thanks.

[JPK]

On another forum, turtle has been very open discussing psychic/paranormal stuff. I must admit that it has taken a great deal of time learning how to converse with people who have experienced something strange, without them thinking you are attacking them. But then again, this was in a thread with believers, talking about believer stuff. They are comfortable there talking to other believers and of course when someone questions there beliefs they get defensive. Turtle answered lots of questions helping me understand why she believes what she believes happened. I had plenty of posts on that thread removed by mods and was pretty pissed. Silly me, I was used to the freedom of this forum. The fact is, the mods can run the forum anyway they want and if the edit your posts or ban you so be it. I had to change the way I approach subjects. It is kinda like walking through a mine field. You never know what might be interpeted as an insult. I have found that continually repeating a question is seen as an attack. IF a question is not answered, it seems to be bad form to ask it again. They do not wish to answer it. The whole point of me going to these other forums is to try and see why people who experience something strange believe it has some mystical/psychic/paranormal explaination instead of an already scintificly demonstratable normal human function? We all have experienced things we can't explain, but what makes the believer differant from me? I have also seen that it is virtully impossible to mention that the mind can and does play tricks on every one of us without being accused of calling them "insane" or "mentaly unstable". Even when someone seems to have a very good understanding of how memories are reconstructed or just a good understanding that memories are falable, when it comes to themselves, they are absolutly sure this is not the case.

So I take my time and ask questions that will help me understand whats going on without being confrontational.
I have not intention of trying to get a believer to question thier own beliefs. I don't think I could make that happen.
JPK

[turtle]

Originally posted by JPK
On another forum, turtle has been very open discussing psychic/paranormal stuff. I must admit that it has taken a great deal of time learning how to converse with people who have experienced something strange, without them thinking you are attacking them. But then again, this was in a thread with believers, talking about believer stuff. They are comfortable there talking to other believers and of course when someone questions there beliefs they get defensive.

If I were to discuss any of my experiences here, what would be the point? As CF so clearly pointed out to me, anecdotal evidence is simply not allowed. Or, taken in any way seriously, or considered. At least in a so-called believer forum, your experiences are listened to. That doesn't mean, necesarrily, believed, but no one is demanding that you stop, or insisting that you "provide proof." How can I provide proof of an experience? I can't. So, I either don't share it with skeptics on skeptic forums, since they won't tolerate it, and do on "believer" forums.

The questions from skeptics are not what makes me uncomfortable. I can't speak for other woos but fair to say my perceptions can include a good number of them. It's the non-stop onslaught, often in sneering tones, and the often thinly veiled innuendos that you're crazy, or a liar, or some other insult, that is the problem.

And when one does answer the question, if it's not an answer the skeptic likes, instead of accepting it, it just continues...goes on and on and ON, as I've said.

It is this that gets most woos upset.


Turtle answered lots of questions helping me understand why she believes what she believes happened. I had plenty of posts on that thread removed by mods and was pretty pissed. Silly me, I was used to the freedom of this forum. The fact is, the mods can run the forum anyway they want and if the edit your posts or ban you so be it. I had to change the way I approach subjects. It is kinda like walking through a mine field. You never know what might be interpeted as an insult.

You've always been pretty good about being perfectly well behaved.

I have found that continually repeating a question is seen as an attack. IF a question is not answered, it seems to be bad form to ask it again.

Ah, there's the problem I think. (always keeping in mind, that simply because someone asks a question, does not mean one has to answer it.) So many times I've answered someone's quesiton, only to be told I hadn't. ???? All I can do is try to be a bit clearer, but after awhile, it does become an "attack."

They do not wish to answer it. The whole point of me going to these other forums is to try and see why people who experience something strange believe it has some mystical/psychic/paranormal explaination instead of an already scintificly demonstratable normal human function?

The two are not always exclusive. I believe I had posted on the other forum something about "being psychic" in some cases had a lot to do with reading people, being intuitive, etc. It isn't a great huge mystical mystery.

[geni]

Originally posted by turtle
???? (I assume you mean by "Yuo conced.." you mean "you concede") this really issurreal; because I don't understand what you're asking, I've conceded? Um, okay...


You original claimed that I was making a big assumtion in assuming the number of sceptics visting your forums was sub infinite. You have conceeded that I was not making much of an assumption.






Dude, it's an opinion -- subjective one at that, based on direct personal experience. It's not a claim of aliens landing in my bedroom and giving me the cure for cancer.


If your opions are not based on facts they are based on predudice


Is this what us 'bleevers have to look forward to in here?


Being asked for evidence to support thier position? yes



Other than repeating myself ad naseum, which seems to be a passtime in here, I don't know what else I can do. If you seriously mean, you want me to post dozens of posts from various forums out of context, -- and I can't believe that is what you want -- then you can forget it. It won't prove a thing, it still amounts to "subjective" (witness Paul's recent post here who said he doesn't go on and on, I say he does, it's a matter of perception.)


That is exacty what I want you to do (or link to where I can find them).







[B]
??? Wow, I am sorry, but I am having a very hard time trying to understand you.
FYI, I re read the post, and now I know who you're talking about. What is the big deal?Is there a point here somewhere?
(frankly, from reading your posts, I don't think you can be a judge of doing "major damange to the English language")


I was giveing the you benifit of the doubt that there was some wriggle room in the original statment. Personaly I don't think there is which would mean you were lying but there is always the posibilty that I'm wrong.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

turtle said:
If I were to discuss any of my experiences here, what would be the point? As CF so clearly pointed out to me, anecdotal evidence is simply not allowed. Or, taken in any way seriously, or considered. At least in a so-called believer forum, your experiences are listened to. That doesn't mean, necesarrily, believed, but no one is demanding that you stop, or insisting that you "provide proof." How can I provide proof of an experience? I can't. So, I either don't share it with skeptics on skeptic forums, since they won't tolerate it, and do on "believer" forums.

The point would be to describe the experience and then discuss it, without instantly taking offense that someone dare ask a question. I agree that you can't provide much in the way of evidence for a personal experience, but you can discuss the experience.

As an example, people have told me about odd experiences, such as a visitation or abduction experience, that they had at night. As soon as I ask whether they were asleep and could it have been a dream---BAM! instant offense. Is it not a reasonable question?

If they have any patience at all, they might say: Don't you think I've considered that? Yes, I do, but let's consider it again.

In case anyone asks, yes, I do think people have the right not to discuss something. It would be helpful, though, if they would come right out and say "I don't want to discuss it."

~~ Paul

[geni]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
The point would be to describe the experience and then discuss it, without instantly taking offense that someone dare ask a question. I agree that you can't provide much in the way of evidence for a personal experience, but you can discuss the experience.

As an example, people have told me about odd experiences, such as a visitation or abduction experience, that they had at night. As soon as I ask whether they were asleep and could it have been a dream---BAM! instant offense. Is it not a reasonable question?

If they have any patience at all, they might say: Don't you think I've considered that? Yes, I do, but let's consider it again.

In case anyone asks, yes, I do think people have the right not to discuss something. It would be helpful, though, if they would come right out and say "I don't want to discuss it."

~~ Paul

This is what happens if you fail to follow the third bit of advice in my list

[Ashles]

The two are not always exclusive. I believe I had posted on the other forum something about "being psychic" in some cases had a lot to do with reading people, being intuitive, etc. It isn't a great huge mystical mystery.
But the point is that "being psychic" is entirely different from being intuitive etc. but people get this confused and often claim one when it is the other.

No-one here would doubt that everyone can "read" people to a certain extent by judging body languange, tone of voice, expression etc. and some people are extremely good at this.
But this is entirely different to psychic which, by it's definition, is not emplying these methods.

You may have read about the "human lie detectors" who can tell with amazing accuracy whether someone is telling the truth or not. They never claim to be psychic.

The two are ENTIRELY exclusive.

If you ask a psychic if they are getting the information from body language and similar methods they will say they aren't.

This is the distinction that is being drawn.

[turtle]

Originally posted by geni
If your opions are not based on facts they are based on predudice

Of course they're based on facts. In so much as the "facts" of my experience.

Let me ask you something. Have you ever called anyone a woo, bleever, true believer, nutjob, wacko, fuzzy headed fluff bunny, etc? If so, what was this based on? Opinion? Facts? Experience?

At this point, you're pretty much calling me a liar, as you are below:


[I was giveing the you benifit of the doubt that there was some wriggle room in the original statment. Personaly I don't think there is which would mean you were lying but there is always the posibilty that I'm wrong.

"Wiggle room" in what "original statment.." the one where I said I didn't know who what's his face was? ??????? This makes me a liar? Man, you are out there, I must say.

:rolleyes: