First Impressions are everything...

[T.A.M.]

Lately I have noticed alot of complaints from new members, albeit mostly from those leaning to the "Woo" side of things, that we are so antagonistic as to be prohibitive in starting a rational debate with them.

Now I know many of you are thinking...

"Rational Debate? For most of them this is not possible."

...and for some, you may be correct. I think the days of having a rational discussion with Christophera, for instance, are long gone, and it is getting close for ACE Baker as well. However, if we are inclined to beat the "Bejesus" out of a member the minute the "Mark of Woo" presents itself, what are we really accomplishing?

I know many of you, the more senior members here, are tired of it, annoyed with it, but is it not better just to ignore the "woo" component, if it comes out in a member, than to verbally assault them. If their woo is rediculous, the fence sitters will see. If it is subtle, than we can bring it out for all to see in a more civil fashion.

Gravy, for the most part, seems to practice in this fashion. He presents the evidence, and if the member calls it bogus, or starts to "Woo" out, he usually ignores them. Of course there are exceptions, and even Gravy can get riled up with them when they are repeatedly immune to logic and rational thought. I guess I am calling on the JREF CT subgroup to reflect on whether we need to tone things down a bit?

Am I wrong here, should I just shut up?

Any thoughts?

TAM

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's the age old issue. Heck, look at the last big evolution conference; some people were highly critical of Dawkin's approach to religion and religious people; others were not. Honestly, I think things we have been a lot better if we hadn't had the run of 6+ pdoh socks. There's been a fair amount of us becoming the people that heard the boy cry, "Wolf!" too many times.

All we can try to do is treat each new face as a blank slate with which to converse and try to recognize when we are getting too frustrated and step back for a bit.

[Mr. Skinny]

I've felt like bringing this up before, TAM, so, no, I don't think you are out of line.

I understand that many of the CT subforum regulars suffer from CT Fatigue Syndrome, but if that leads to them constantly refering to other people as idiots, morons, etc. and constantly mangling their screen names as some sort of put-down, then maybe it's time for them to take a break from the forum.

Some days when I read this sub-forum I get the feeling I'm back on a grade school playground given the behavior of a few people. It makes me cringe.

Frankly, I'm suprised the mods haven't stepped in a put a stop to it. Maybe that's why I'm not a mod.

[Overman]

I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

I know there are some hardcore troofers out there that do derserve to be instantly repelled like this, but what about the curious souls? If someone heard about the 9/11 'debate' the first thing they do is google it. After sifting thru mabye 50 or so pro CT sites they stumble across here, only to be berated instead of convinced.

I do think though, that everyone does a good job first directing people to the information they need (i.e Gravy's papers, Everyone's relevant posts, etc.) but if someone comes back and needs convincing still, give it to them.

Just because someone isn't totally convinced at first doesn't mean they won't be with the proper teachings...a lot of people come in here with 'common sense' but little idea of critical thinking methods.

The group is defineatly battle hardened, dealing with nutjobs daily, and I give mad props for that, because I would in no way be able to take it or have the patience that you guys do! I don't really swing by here too often, and when I do it is to reference a fact or two, and usally throw a couple of jabs at troofers in the process, but you can almost sense the strain this is causing on a lot of your posts. You guys have even made a 'troofer stamp' and can predict how the person will post??? What if you are wrong?

I just know about 10 years ago in life and in thought processes this could have easily been me popping in here to learn, and I would have been probably tilting the other way simply from mass exposure.

Arken posted about the fallacy of the middle 'you are either with us or against us'......

Just continue to have patience all, Logic will win out in this fight eventually, but you will never be able to convince eyes closed believers.

Much love and peace,

Overman

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

It's the age old issue. Heck, look at the last big evolution conference; some people were highly critical of Dawkin's approach to religion and religious people; others were not. Honestly, I think things we have been a lot better if we hadn't had the run of 6+ pdoh socks. There's been a fair amount of us becoming the people that heard the boy cry, "Wolf!" too many times.

All we can try to do is treat each new face as a blank slate with which to converse and try to recognize when we are getting too frustrated and step back for a bit.

I totally agree, and unfortunately, given the way he tends to think and act, we have probably given him some small victory in the way we respond to all newcomers now.

I hope some of us are able to see this and perhaps go back to "Pre Doh" times.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Overman

I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

I know there are some hardcore troofers out there that do derserve to be instantly repelled like this, but what about the curious souls? If someone heard about the 9/11 'debate' the first thing they do is google it. After sifting thru mabye 50 or so pro CT sites they stumble across here, only to be berated instead of convinced.

I do think though, that everyone does a good job first directing people to the information they need (i.e Gravy's papers, Everyone's relevant posts, etc.) but if someone comes back and needs convincing still, give it to them.

Just because someone isn't totally convinced at first doesn't mean they won't be with the proper teachings...a lot of people come in here with 'common sense' but little idea of critical thinking methods.

The group is defineatly battle hardened, dealing with nutjobs daily, and I give mad props for that, because I would in no way be able to take it or have the patience that you guys do! I don't really swing by here too often, and when I do it is to reference a fact or two, and usally throw a couple of jabs at troofers in the process, but you can almost sense the strain this is causing on a lot of your posts. You guys have even made a 'troofer stamp' and can predict how the person will post??? What if you are wrong?

I just know about 10 years ago in life and in thought processes this could have easily been me popping in here to learn, and I would have been probably tilting the other way simply from mass exposure.

Arken posted about the fallacy of the middle 'you are either with us or against us'......

Just continue to have patience all, Logic will win out in this fight eventually, but you will never be able to convince eyes closed believers.

Much love and peace,

Overman

The sad fact, is I, of all people, was the one (best I can recall) who coined the "Mark of Woo". While I do believe it exists, It does send me in with a certain mindset. I have, over the last few weeks considered taking an extended break from all this, but something keeps bringing me back...I think it is the fencesitters...

I just keep thinking of how easily my baby sister was taken in by the Woo until I set her straight. Now she too sees it for what it really is, but what about all the others...

TAM

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Overman

I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

I know there are some hardcore troofers out there that do derserve to be instantly repelled like this, but what about the curious souls? If someone heard about the 9/11 'debate' the first thing they do is google it. After sifting thru mabye 50 or so pro CT sites they stumble across here, only to be berated instead of convinced.

I do think though, that everyone does a good job first directing people to the information they need (i.e Gravy's papers, Everyone's relevant posts, etc.) but if someone comes back and needs convincing still, give it to them.

Just because someone isn't totally convinced at first doesn't mean they won't be with the proper teachings...a lot of people come in here with 'common sense' but little idea of critical thinking methods.

The group is defineatly battle hardened, dealing with nutjobs daily, and I give mad props for that, because I would in no way be able to take it or have the patience that you guys do! I don't really swing by here too often, and when I do it is to reference a fact or two, and usally throw a couple of jabs at troofers in the process, but you can almost sense the strain this is causing on a lot of your posts. You guys have even made a 'troofer stamp' and can predict how the person will post??? What if you are wrong?

I just know about 10 years ago in life and in thought processes this could have easily been me popping in here to learn, and I would have been probably tilting the other way simply from mass exposure.

Arken posted about the fallacy of the middle 'you are either with us or against us'......

Just continue to have patience all, Logic will win out in this fight eventually, but you will never be able to convince eyes closed believers.

Much love and peace,

Overman

Overman, i dont feel i have went on any kind of rants at all. Could you please point me to where specifically i have ranted?

I have joined as a new member and naturally people are curious as to why i hold my beliefs. I have merely answered these questions, i havent tried to coax people into following what i believe. Certainly not ranting.

[uk_dave]

Hypervoilet,

I believe Overman means the number of posts in response to yours, with you not necessarily being the ranter.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Overman, i dont feel i have went on any kind of rants at all. Could you please point me to where specifically i have ranted?

I have joined as a new member and naturally people are curious as to why i hold my beliefs. I have merely answered these questions, i havent tried to coax people into following what i believe. Certainly not ranting.

I agree, Hyperviolet. I don't think Overman was referring to you, but to those who responded negatively to you.

[Overman]

uk_dave is correct.

Garrette as well.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, this is another pattern that does little to help, we could call it the "JREF" bomb. When a new person comes aboard, we tend to flock, like bees to honey. Now this is ok, I guess, if it is to observe, to take note, but often it ends up in a gang beating of said user...

Fortunately, in Hyperviolet's case, he/she has remained civil, and so have our guys.

TAM

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by Overman

uk_dave is correct.

Garrette as well.

My apologies Overman, that was my fault.
I thought you were referring exclusively to rants in "hyperviolets post"

Sorry!

[Hyperviolet]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Yes, this is another pattern that does little to help, we could call it the "JREF" bomb. When a new person comes aboard, we tend to flock, like bees to honey. Now this is ok, I guess, if it is to observe, to take note, but often it ends up in a gang beating of said user...

Fortunately, in Hyperviolet's case, he/she has remained civil, and so have our guys.

TAM

He


Yes, you all have been welcoming and civil. I must say it only helps your cause, too

[beachnut]

When is the last time someone has come as a CTer and said I read Gravy's repost and have a problem with the following specific points?

No, they show up lazy to read and start to talk woo. Pagan, not one fact. Scooby, not one fact. SCG, not one fact. They all seem to be happy as bad actors trying to compete for the top high school drop out award, proud to be super ignorant on facts and oblivious to the facts presented because they just know 9/11 was an inside job. They have lost the competition to Charlie Sheen who is the most challenged truther and they think competition is still open.

You have not said much yet and I would expect someone really interested in the truth to read for days or weeks to learn the so called official story and why the truth movement is full of lies.

[T.A.M.]

Hyperviolet:

I agree, it is a positive thing, and I think every now and then we need someone to hold up their hand for a moment and say,

"hold on...I know it makes us upset, and angry, but lets take a moment to reflect on why we are doing this, and what is the best way to accomplish it."

I have been guilty from time to time, of beating up on some posters here, figuratively, so I can relate. However, I trust my gut, and my gut is telling me now, that we may be moving to easily to antagonism, mockery, and general name calling, and that it is starting to effect the fence sitters, perhaps, in a negative way.

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Overman

I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

Originally Posted by Hyperviolet

Yes, you all have been welcoming and civil. I must say it only helps your cause, too

I think part of the problem is also perceptions of what a "Rant" is. Overman mentions "all kinds of rants" in Hyperviolet's thread, yet Hyperviolet seems to disagree with this assesment. Perhaps Overman could link to a few of what he considers to be rants, so we'll know what he's talking about. One man's "Rant" may be another man's "forceful opinion".

There were a couple of posts I thought verged on impolite, but they were in reaction to other CT posters, not Hyperviolet. Same old arguments, new threads. I certainly wouldn't characterize that thread as having "all kinds of rants in it".

However, I do worry that some of us may be becoming inured to "rants" and may not notice them, while others may be overly sensitive. So examples are in order, I think.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by beachnut

When is the last time someone has come as a CTer and said I read Gravy's repost and have a problem with the following specific points?

No, they show up lazy to read and start to talk woo. Pagan, not one fact. Scooby, not one fact. SCG, not one fact. They all seem to be happy as bad actors trying to compete for the top high school drop out award, proud to be super ignorant on facts and oblivious to the facts presented because they just know 9/11 was an inside job. They have lost the competition to Charlie Sheen who is the most challenged truther and they think competition is still open.

You have not said much yet and I would expect someone really interested in the truth to read for days or weeks to learn the so called official story and why the truth movement is full of lies.

I see where you are coming from, and I have felt this way alot. I guess feeling this way is only human, and as I have said before, it is part of the fatigue we go through with deaing with this day in, day out.

I am just not sure it is productive...but that depends on the reasons why a given idividual comes here for in the first place.

Also, as I have said, PDoh and his dozen socks, have been a large part of why we have come to feel as you do on this...and unfortunately, in a not so obvious way, this is a victory for him.

TAM

[Overman]

All kinds of rants was strong verbage, it probably wasn't that...I haven't reread the thread since...I'll check it out when I get some time...

[azazal]

One of the rules from a different board I hang out at:

Quote:

If you intend to start a debate, search the forum and the associated websites first, to see if your arguments have been raised before. If you are too lazy to search the forum and the associated websites before launching what you no doubt believe to be an innovative and original argument, then do not complain if you are flamed to a crisp.

If some one comes in with the same old woo and is too lazy to see that is has been debunked several times over, well I hope they have their asbestoses undies on.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by azazal

One of the rules from a different board I hang out at:



If some one comes in with the same old woo and is too lazy to see that is has been debunked several times over, well I hope they have their asbestoses undies on.

Absolutely. If someone comes in here, and immediately begins to "spread the Woo", than they are fair game for flaming.

However, my point in the OP, is that I think we have gotten to the point where we often jump to quick. I also think we tend to gang up on said people. Yes I am sure it is no different at CTists forums, for debunkers that show up, but as someone who post here often says, why get down in the mud and wrestle with the swine...let us try to carry ourselves above this...is all I am saying. I am not telling people to stop, it is a free forum, a free world. I am merely saying, that if our objective is to convince or help out the fence sitters, than let us not make them fearful to join here and ask questions...or we are defeating our own purpose.

TAM

[RAMS]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Lately I have noticed alot of complaints from new members, albeit mostly from those leaning to the "Woo" side of things, that we are so antagonistic as to be prohibitive in starting a rational debate with them.

Now I know many of you are thinking...

"Rational Debate? For most of them this is not possible."

...and for some, you may be correct. I think the days of having a rational discussion with Christophera, for instance, are long gone, and it is getting close for ACE Baker as well. However, if we are inclined to beat the "Bejesus" out of a member the minute the "Mark of Woo" presents itself, what are we really accomplishing?

I know many of you, the more senior members here, are tired of it, annoyed with it, but is it not better just to ignore the "woo" component, if it comes out in a member, than to verbally assault them. If their woo is rediculous, the fence sitters will see. If it is subtle, than we can bring it out for all to see in a more civil fashion.

Gravy, for the most part, seems to practice in this fashion. He presents the evidence, and if the member calls it bogus, or starts to "Woo" out, he usually ignores them. Of course there are exceptions, and even Gravy can get riled up with them when they are repeatedly immune to logic and rational thought. I guess I am calling on the JREF CT subgroup to reflect on whether we need to tone things down a bit?

Am I wrong here, should I just shut up?

Any thoughts?

TAM

You are correct to a 'T'.

From what I have observed, for the most part, there seems to be an overabundance of extremely well thought out responses across the whole spectrum.

The one glaring error in many post replies is the vitriol, not humorous, that is laced in so many replies.

Example to Scooby, say, for the 'angle cut beam issue' elsewhere.

He is mistaken in his claim. Okay, fine. But I fail to see the point of responding to him with some sort of comment like this:

"like all you nutters, you post some unsubstantiated nonsense. You are a bunch of cowards too......."

Vs. this response:

"You are in error." (and then state why, with fact.) Nothing more or less.

That is the only issue I see in any of the post replies by so many here.

Great posts by so many. Leave out the vitriol.

RAMS

[Overman]

Originally Posted by Horatius

However, I do worry that some of us may be becoming inured to "rants" and may not notice them, while others may be overly sensitive. So examples are in order, I think.

Went it over comb and tooth, and found none. You guys actually all did a great job on this one, and I am not sure what I was reading into at first...Mabye a couple of words in quotation marks? Not sure.

Def. Not Rants, my bad.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Overman

Went it over comb and tooth, and found none. You guys actually all did a great job on this one, and I am not sure what I was reading into at first...Mabye a couple of words in quotation marks? Not sure.

Def. Not Rants, my bad.

Oh, good. I was afraid it was me going nuts, when it was actually you


But the point remains, it is all too tempting to just flame away at some people, so we must be constantly vigilant. Stop and ask yourself if you're really making a worthwhile point before hitting "submit reply".

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

I guess I am calling on the JREF CT subgroup to reflect on whether we need to tone things down a bit?

But . . . wouldn't that interfere with the government checks paying us as disinfo agents?

[LashL]

Great points, TAM (and others), and they needed to be said. It's easy to get wrapped up in things here, especially after the pdoh multi-sock debacle, so this thread is a timely, and appropriate, reminder.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

But . . . wouldn't that interfere with the government checks paying us as disinfo agents?

Serves 'em right. My last one bounced.

[Brainster]

This is what I was getting at in a roundabout way a couple months ago when I suggested that we specialize. New Deniers show up and are hit with 25-30 different JREFers. I am sure it is intimidating and at times ineffective.

[Minadin]

I apologize for relating my initial suspicion. There was just something about Hyperviolet's post that struck me as similar to how some of the old arguments with the old started out; I'm not even sure what it was. From here on in I'll do my best to give new posters the benefit of the doubt and keep my "gut feelings" in check.

[William Rea]

I suppose it was inevitable that I would post in here and somehow it now seems cliched for me to do so.

You guys have a problem don't you.

1. The CT forum is under observation from the owners because it generates bad post reports way above the level of any other forum. It's general level of behaviour has obviously become an embarrassment. I'm not in the least surprised.

2. A high percentage of posts are now just plain abusive and you have an embarrassment of so called "skeptic" posters who make it impossible for sensible "skeptic" posters to debate. In addition even some of the seemingly highly regarded "skeptic" posters are not averse to the sort of tactics TAM describes.

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

I don't suppose you noticed in the wording that this forum was not intended to be a home base for "skeptics".

You moderate posters have allowed this to go on for so long now that I don't know if this can be turned around.

[T.A.M.]

Minadin:

I don't think you need to apologize. The heightened suspicion is warranted, given the rash of PDoh puppets. I think it is in how we respond, how we react, that needs some "tuning". Like I said, if they begin to show the second sign of the "Mark of Woo", as we have labeled it, than we call them on it, make then prove their case. If however, they cannot, I am seeing that name calling and gang beating them is not effective. Not only does it get you nowhere with the poster in question, but the fear will mount in any fence sitters, who were perhaps contemplating joining to ask a few questions themselves.

TAM

[hellaeon]

Man, I hate being nice for the sake of it. Im not tolerant of their rubbish. If they want to be stupid fine, dont infect this place with it. This place is to learn, not to spread spam.

If someone comes along and says I dont like this aspect of blah, thats cool, it it highly likely to have a better explanantion weighing in reality then the CT counterpart. Its the next step of that person understanding their error and learning which gets me annoyed. Humility. The spooge of this kind of idiot still hangs from the forum walls - 28th, pdumb, killtown, docker....to the current horde of pdumb socks.

My thoughts

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by William Rea

I suppose it was inevitable that I would post in here and somehow it now seems cliched for me to do so.

You guys have a problem don't you.

1. The CT forum is under observation from the owners because it generates bad post reports way above the level of any other forum. It's general level of behaviour has obviously become an embarrassment. I'm not in the least surprised.

My posting of this thread has nothing to do with the owners. I have not been contacted by them or warned by them. I posted this out of personal observation of some of the reactions from newcomers, and my own personal reflections.

Originally Posted by William Rea

2. A high percentage of posts are now just plain abusive and you have an embarrassment of so called "skeptic" posters who make it impossible for sensible "skeptic" posters to debate. In addition even some of the seemingly highly regarded "skeptic" posters are not averse to the sort of tactics TAM describes.

I would say a higher percentage than one would like to see, but not neccesarily a high percentage as a percentage of the total. I would agree that some people have a more abrasive attitude toward the truthers than others, but it may, or may not be justified.

Originally Posted by William Rea

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

I admit, that my role as a debunker is defined by what I debunk, namely the 9/11 "truth" movement, more specifically the MIHOPs. I am for the honest truth as proven by SOLID EVIDENCE AND FACTS, not opinion and speculation,

Originally Posted by William Rea

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

I use the term "Twoofer" or "Woo" when I am refering to someone who is making a rediculous claim or accusation. I rarely, if ever use it on someone just asking questions. As a matter of fact, 99% of the time I am not using it on an individual, but in describing the movement itself.

Originally Posted by William Rea

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

Intelligence does not negate or exclude descriptives, even if of a more malignant or humorous nature.

Originally Posted by William Rea

I don't suppose you noticed in the wording that this forum was not intended to be a home base for "skeptics".

You moderate posters have allowed this to go on for so long now that I don't know if this can be turned around.

What this place, this SUBFORUM, has become, is similar to all subforums...it is a product of the people who contribute to it. As a result, this has become a place for truth movement skeptics/debunkers to gather. Similar to 9/11blogger, which has become a place for the truthers to gather.

I am sure, given the intelligence and civility of the vast majority of people who post here, that we can save it...if it needs "saving".

Thanks for your input William.

TAM

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by William Rea

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

Er this entire forum is pretty much define by what it is up against. Which is woo. Woo isn't just used here. Paranormal belief. That sort of thing. That's why the JREF exists - to combat pseudoscience, and people believing in nonsense like predicting the future and reading minds. All that is woo.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by hellaeon

Man, I hate being nice for the sake of it. Im not tolerant of their rubbish. If they want to be stupid fine, dont infect this place with it. This place is to learn, not to spread spam.

If someone comes along and says I dont like this aspect of blah, thats cool, it it highly likely to have a better explanantion weighing in reality then the CT counterpart. Its the next step of that person understanding their error and learning which gets me annoyed. Humility. The spooge of this kind of idiot still hangs from the forum walls - 28th, pdumb, killtown, docker....to the current horde of pdumb socks.

My thoughts

Not for the sake of it, but (1) to not lower ourselves to that type of behaviour that we detest ourselves, and (2) to be more productive in convincing those who watchthat we are not the silly ones, but rather the mature rational ones, with the rational arguements.

Don't forget, when PDoh was here, I was often the direct target of his slander and insults, so I for one lose no sleep over people berating him and his socks...

TAM

[William Rea]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

My posting of this thread has nothing to do with the owners. I have not been contacted by them or warned by them. I posted this out of personal observation of some of the reactions from newcomers, and my own personal reflections.

Thank you for your measured response.

I didn't mean to imply that you were acting on behalf of the owners. I know from posts in other forums that the CT forum is definitely under observation though.

Though of course you understand I don't agree with you completely on the other points.

[hellaeon]

TAM - totally fair call and pretty much sums up what most people think.

I struggle to deal with stupidity I attribute to people doing on purpose, or to take a short cut, or save time etc.

Example. Taxi driver. Pulls up to the taxi loading bit next to the pavement but straddles the taxi across the traffic lights before the zone blocking the walk way for pedestrians. He knew he would block it. The line of taxis was already long and he can see no passengers waiting. OK fine, wait for the lights to change. Lights change allowing people to walk. He don't move, or tries to, he sits their blocking the walkway and pedestrians being able to walk across (including wheelchairs).

Do I just shake my head and accept this? No I naturally say 'What are you doing you idiot?' and get that look from him that acknowledges the potatoes growing from his ears.

This is how I approach people here and in general day to day activities. If you don't know better fine, once you do and then should, your an idiot.

Common sense prevails.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Minadin:

I don't think you need to apologize. The heightened suspicion is warranted, given the rash of PDoh puppets.

Thanks TAM, however, just to clarify though, I was apologizing for relaying it, not for my own suspicion.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by hellaeon

TAM - totally fair call and pretty much sums up what most people think.

I struggle to deal with stupidity I attribute to people doing on purpose, or to take a short cut, or save time etc.

Example. Taxi driver. Pulls up to the taxi loading bit next to the pavement but straddles the taxi across the traffic lights before the zone blocking the walk way for pedestrians. He knew he would block it. The line of taxis was already long and he can see no passengers waiting. OK fine, wait for the lights to change. Lights change allowing people to walk. He don't move, or tries to, he sits their blocking the walkway and pedestrians being able to walk across (including wheelchairs).

Do I just shake my head and accept this? No I naturally say 'What are you doing you idiot?' and get that look from him that acknowledges the potatoes growing from his ears.

This is how I approach people here and in general day to day activities. If you don't know better fine, once you do and then should, your an idiot.

Common sense prevails.

That is a natural human response, and I would not deny you it. I my self am guilty of it here and elsewhere on more than one occasion. In reflection, however, taking out the "knee jerk" factor, I am able to see that for my own objective, to persuade the fence sitters, it can be counter productive, if they see this forum as a place to get ridiculed and lambasted if you ask questions.

"bombing" someone who comes here with the sole purpose of "spueing Woo" is not necessarily uncalled for, as they likely deserve a round of ridicule, but lately I have seen a pattern here where we are jumping the gun to early, and just venting our fatigue with dealing with this shaite.

my 2 cents in reply.

TAM

[hellaeon]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

That is a natural human response, and I would not deny you it. I my self am guilty of it here and elsewhere on more than one occasion. In reflection, however, taking out the "knee jerk" factor, I am able to see that for my own objective, to persuade the fence sitters, it can be counter productive, if they see this forum as a place to get ridiculed and lambasted if you ask questions.

"bombing" someone who comes here with the sole purpose of "spueing Woo" is not necessarily uncalled for, as they likely deserve a round of ridicule, but lately I have seen a pattern here where we are jumping the gun to early, and just venting our fatigue with dealing with this shaite.

my 2 cents in reply.

TAM

Very good points, agree on the knee jerk, its harder to place what I said in a discussion medium like a forum, as that observation of mine is based on behaviour, the forum is based on what is said, and there it is, in print. Its going to always be an issue where everyone has a slightly different slant. Heh, should I say, less a factual based discussion, more so opinion? This may belong in general skep forum.

Cheers TAM.

[tonicblue]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Lately I have noticed alot of complaints from new members, albeit mostly from those leaning to the "Woo" side of things, that we are so antagonistic as to be prohibitive in starting a rational debate with them.

Now I know many of you are thinking...

"Rational Debate? For most of them this is not possible."

...and for some, you may be correct. I think the days of having a rational discussion with Christophera, for instance, are long gone, and it is getting close for ACE Baker as well. However, if we are inclined to beat the "Bejesus" out of a member the minute the "Mark of Woo" presents itself, what are we really accomplishing?

I know many of you, the more senior members here, are tired of it, annoyed with it, but is it not better just to ignore the "woo" component, if it comes out in a member, than to verbally assault them. If their woo is rediculous, the fence sitters will see. If it is subtle, than we can bring it out for all to see in a more civil fashion.

Gravy, for the most part, seems to practice in this fashion. He presents the evidence, and if the member calls it bogus, or starts to "Woo" out, he usually ignores them. Of course there are exceptions, and even Gravy can get riled up with them when they are repeatedly immune to logic and rational thought. I guess I am calling on the JREF CT subgroup to reflect on whether we need to tone things down a bit?

Am I wrong here, should I just shut up?

Any thoughts?

TAM

I would like to thank TAM for starting this thread. I have lurked here since becoming disillusioned with the Loose Change forum after it's self-destruct last year.

I was reluctant to join up and post because of the feeding frenzy I observe when new members on the conspiracy side of the debate start to post. I decided to join up as a result of this thread, so thank you TAM.