A Suggestion On How to Handle the CT-Posters

[Brainster]

Why don't we break up the task into segments that different groups can handle? As I have mentioned on the debate thread, this would make life easier for all of us. One group (say 4-5 people) can handle the WTC collapses, another WTC 7, a third the planes, the fourth the Pentagon, and yet another the passengers. As an added benefit, it would cut down on the way these idiotic threads seem to grow and constantly appear at the top of the CT Forum front page.

Remember, part of the problem from the Denier's standpoint is that he makes one post and he's got thirty replies. For example, look at the Silverstein insurance thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67094). Docker asks his question; in my view a fairly legitimate question. It does seem a little unfair that Silverstein asked to be paid twice. I explained why that's not so unreasonable in the thread and he pretty much backed down.

The first page of that thread contains 33 replies by JREFers, and 7 by Docker (counting the initial post). The second page contains 35 replies by JREFers, the third page 34 (all pages have 40 posts total). So although we criticize Docker/Pdoh etc for excessive posting, he's actually replying to maybe 20% of the folks who commented on his post(s), assuming the JREF replies are to him and not commendations on other JREFer posts.

Note that I am not excusing Docker/Pdoh in any way for his general trollishness. Just saying that getting dozens of responses in an hour is empowering for these idiots. And I am not suggesting that others can't chime in on another group's threads, just that it should be done judiciously.

Thoughts?

[orphia nay]

A team response is a good suggestion, Brainster.

One point I'd like to comment on: I'm debating CTists in another forum, and it's basically 'only' 6 of them against just me. I do not find it 'empowering' being overwhelmed with replies and links and then being accused of ignoring people.

But the pdoherty/Dockers might be of a different species than I. :D

[Anti-sophist]

Can I be on the "CT Hypothesis Analyzer" team? That would be an easy job.

[kc440_]

Why don't we break up the task into segments that different groups can handle? As I have mentioned on the debate thread, this would make life easier for all of us. One group (say 4-5 people) can handle the WTC collapses, another WTC 7, a third the planes, the fourth the Pentagon, and yet another the passengers. As an added benefit, it would cut down on the way these idiotic threads seem to grow and constantly appear at the top of the CT Forum front page.

Note that I am not excusing Docker/Pdoh in any way for his general trollishness. Just saying that getting dozens of responses in an hour is empowering for these idiots. And I am not suggesting that others can't chime in on another group's threads, just that it should be done judiciously.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I have thoughts. Where would this Forum be if it wasn't for people who disagree with the general consensus? What would you people talk about? Who would you talk to?

kc440

[Lisa Simpson]

Skeptics will disagree about most anything.

"The sky is blue."

"The color of the sky is dependent on the viewer's frame of reference."

See?

[bob_kark]

Skeptics will disagree about most anything.

"The sky is blue."

"The color of the sky is dependent on the viewer's frame of reference."

See?
The sky has no color at all. Color shill...

[kc440_]

Skeptics will disagree about most anything.

"The sky is blue."

"The color of the sky is dependent on the viewer's frame of reference."

See?

Not a good analogy. The sky is blue. That's a given. That's like saying John F. Kennedy was a man. Well, he was. Another given.

kc440

[LashL]

Why don't we break up the task into segments that different groups can handle? As I have mentioned on the debate thread, this would make life easier for all of us. One group (say 4-5 people) can handle the WTC collapses, another WTC 7, a third the planes, the fourth the Pentagon, and yet another the passengers. As an added benefit, it would cut down on the way these idiotic threads seem to grow and constantly appear at the top of the CT Forum front page.

Remember, part of the problem from the Denier's standpoint is that he makes one post and he's got thirty replies. For example, look at the Silverstein insurance thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67094). Docker asks his question; in my view a fairly legitimate question. It does seem a little unfair that Silverstein asked to be paid twice. I explained why that's not so unreasonable in the thread and he pretty much backed down.

The first page of that thread contains 33 replies by JREFers, and 7 by Docker (counting the initial post). The second page contains 35 replies by JREFers, the third page 34 (all pages have 40 posts total). So although we criticize Docker/Pdoh etc for excessive posting, he's actually replying to maybe 20% of the folks who commented on his post(s), assuming the JREF replies are to him and not commendations on other JREFer posts.

Note that I am not excusing Docker/Pdoh in any way for his general trollishness. Just saying that getting dozens of responses in an hour is empowering for these idiots. And I am not suggesting that others can't chime in on another group's threads, just that it should be done judiciously.

Thoughts?


While I understand and can see real merit in your proposition in principle, I think it's probably unworkable in practice. Moreover, I think that assigning "teams" to respond to certain posts on certain topics would also discourage people from posting when and as they wish, and would also scare off newcomers who would likely view it as cliquish rather than as an open exchange of ideas and information.

I think it would be far more productive if JREFers in general adhered to a certain level of debate rules in order not to allow trolls like docker, doherty, laith, truthseeker1234, etal to control the ebb and flow of a thread but instead to keep the troll to the subject at hand instead of taking the trollbait in which the troll, instead of responding meaningfully to legitimate discussion or debate tries to change the subject without the initial subject being resolved.

We've probably all been guilty of that at one time or another in responding to quickly to the bait and allowing the troll to go off on a tangent while leaving all of the other legitimate posts unanswered, but if we all resolved not to allow the lunatics to get away with it, that would go a long, long way toward better discussion and debate, and would probably put a very quick end to most of the trollbait threads.

I also think that your example of the docker/troll insurance thread was only a good example of Docker ignoring the facts and evidence pointed out early in the thread and his/her refusing to look at the prior thread that explained in the detail the "double occurrence" issue, etc.

Just my $0.02

[kookbreaker]

Not a good analogy. The sky is blue. That's a given. That's like saying John F. Kennedy was a man. Well, he was. Another given.

kc440

What color is the sky if you are color blind? How about eyeballs not primed to view the blue portion of the spectrum? Is the sky still blue?

How about when the sky is red?

[CurtC]

Not a good analogy. The sky is blue. That's a given.
Not necessarily. When you look up at the cloudless sky in daylight, it appears blue, but that's not because the air you're looking at has any inherent bluishness. No, what you're seeing is the blue end of the spectrum of light coming out of the sun, not taking a direct path, but instead being scattered around, and therefore the blue comes at you from various directions, making the sun itself appear less blue (more yellow) and the sky appear blue.

We endeavor to be accurate.

[kc440_]

What color is the sky if you are color blind? How about eyeballs not primed to view the blue portion of the spectrum? Is the sky still blue?

How about when the sky is red?

Ask Lisa.

kc440

[kookbreaker]

Ask Lisa.

kc440

No, we blame Lisa. You need to ask yourself.

[Anti-sophist]

What is blue? This term is insufficiently precise. In the wrong hands, it can mean just about anything.

[defaultdotxbe]

What is blue? This term is insufficiently precise. In the wrong hands, it can mean just about anything.
all these years ive been tryign to figure out whats got the sky so sad

[Bell]

I thought the sky was made of cheese? O wait, that's the moon.

[roger]

I just looked outside, and it is most definitely black.

The sky is black. Here is a photo:

[R.Mackey]

Yeah, I have thoughts. Where would this Forum be if it wasn't for people who disagree with the general consensus? What would you people talk about? Who would you talk to?
I'm with you, kc440. I want dissenting viewpoints.

But I really want ones that are educated and reasonable. Ask me a hard question. Bring me a careful analysis. Let's learn together.

Most of the Troother posts here are little more than graffiti. Not all, but most.

[Brainster]

Yeah, I have thoughts. Where would this Forum be if it wasn't for people who disagree with the general consensus? What would you people talk about? Who would you talk to?

kc440

There is nothing wrong with dissenting thoughts; my suggestion actually might encourage them. Instead of being hit from 20 directions they would be facing the local experts.

But I accept that this is dreaming.

[LashL]

We've probably all been guilty of that at one time or another in responding to quickly to the bait...

Grrr. It's too late to edit, but I just wanted to correct my typo, where I wrote "to" instead of "too" above. Make that:

We've probably all been guilty of that at one time or another in responding too quickly to the bait...

[hellaeon]

Brainster: Do you have the different groups suggestion?
Seems a bit 'club' orientated.

I'd like to think I try not to say too much in this particular part of the forum when someone posts some claims as I notice they get bombarded, most times I dont want to add anything except read and hoepfully learn, if I do its usually something silly and likely to be dismissed by the CTer.

Perhaps it would be easier if a few of us just stepped back more and left the guys who are well versed in the thread topic to handle it.
Some of the threads lately have degenerated into one sentence replies full of slander or similar comments which is hardly anything to be educated with.

My thoughts.

[gumboot]

Not a good analogy. The sky is blue.


I've always argued a given object/thing is every colour EXCEPT the colour it appears to be - because the only colours you see are the ones that reflect off it - the colours that are absorbed by the thing are not visible to you.

Hence only the colours you cannot see are part of the thing where as the colours you CAN see are not part of it.

Anyone confused? :confused:

Back to the OP. Personally I have sort of been doing this myself anyway, though I aren't to keen on the idea of labelling people into specific areas.

There's aspects of 9/11 that I either don't know much about, or simply lack the expertise for indepth discussion. I tend to avoid these. There are also what I call the "common sense" topics that I am confident discussing, but I know others have significantly more knowledge than me regarding (and example would be WTC7 and Gravy).

So I tend to trawl the threads, reading others' comments and learning, and just chipping in where I can. If a thread comes up that I DO feel confident leading the charge in, I'll do so (such as discussions about NORAD or videos).

Otherwise, I might look for specific points that I'm okay with, that have been missed by others.

I've only started doing this since my return, and I am quite enjoying it. I'm much more relaxed, and I'm learning a tonne.

(Although there's still threads like the AA77 FDR one that just do my head in).

Anyway.

My meagre comments.

-Gumboot

[Brainache]

I've always argued a given object/thing is every colour EXCEPT the colour it appears to be - because the only colours you see are the ones that reflect off it - the colours that are absorbed by the thing are not visible to you.

But when we describe a thing's colour, we are describing its reflective properties. We are not describing what colours it absorbs, we are describing the colour it reflects.


Hence only the colours you cannot see are part of the thing where as the colours you CAN see are not part of it.


Does not reflecting certain frequencies of radiation make them a part of me? Is the green or purple which I'm not reflecting somehow "part of" me?


Anyone confused? :confused:


:hypnodisk


Back to the OP. Personally I have sort of been doing this myself anyway, though I aren't to keen on the idea of labelling people into specific areas.<snip>


I'm glad there are people prepared to devote serious time, energy and thought to counter the lie movement, but I'm unfortunately one of nature"s peanut gallery dwellers. So I suppose I belong to a loose association of cheap jokesters (you know who you are).

I think South Park got it right, the only way to deal with the ridiculous is with ridicule.

That's how we know how these CTs are ridiculous: If they were reasonable or plausible they wouldn't disintegrate so thoroughly after only twenty six minutes of popular culture spotlight exposure.

I'm not saying anyone rigged explosives within the "Trooth Movement", I'm saying the stucture was too flimsy to withstand the impact of Eric Cartman.