Skeptics

[WSA]

Of all the characteristics of the skeptic mindset, the one I find most distasteful is the idea of the need to save people from the ideas and beliefs of others. If something is not objectively provable, it should have no legs, and continuously pointing out the obvious only serves to vex others, nothing more. This is not the dissemination of sedition and fomenting of civil unrest we are talking about here dmaker. Even in your most jaundiced view, it is merely people talking about imaginary animals. Do you truly believe the experiences posted by a habituator pose some threat to you?  Even if you had the best intests of the field in mind, you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate how these (you say) ravings will move or hinder those investigations. I have not illusions that you do have those interests either. You accomplish nothing by doing that except a kind or very wearisome self-validation. It is tiresome in the extreme to all who have to endure it. Self-serving agendas always are.

[Guest DWA]

^I'd love to see you at the next US Presidential Debate dmaker!!  You'd go hoarse.

 

I would so PAY.

 

On an aside, it astonishes me that the folks that are complaining about other certain folks constantly interrupting with what they feel is nonsensical proof/evidence demanding haven't long since put the offenders on their ignore list.  But that's just me.

 

Boy lemme tellya.  Ignore is a good way to excise from an interesting discussion all the white noise that doesn't contribute.  Those of us who take the Golden Gloves approach can open Pandora's Box sometimes.  But you don't have to; the only way you can see them is if somone else quotes them; and ...yep, it restores to a great degree what these forums should be about:  thought; information; and conversation leavened by experience and exposure to evidence.

[WSA]

"I don't really care too much about them anymore."

 

Care even less would be my fervent wish, and we'd both get what we want. 
 

[Guest DWA]

Of all the characteristics of the skeptic mindset, the one I find most distasteful is the idea of the need to save people from the ideas and beliefs of others. If something is not objectively provable, it should have no legs, and continuously pointing out the obvious only serves to vex others, nothing more. This is not the dissemination of sedition and fomenting of civil unrest we are talking about here dmaker. Even in your most jaundiced view, it is merely people talking about imaginary animals. Do you truly believe the experiences posted by a habituator pose some threat to you?  Even if you had the best intests of the field in mind, you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate how these (you say) ravings will move or hinder those investigations. I have not illusions that you do have those interests either. You accomplish nothing by doing that except a kind or very wearisome self-validation. It is tiresome in the extreme to all who have to endure it. Self-serving agendas always are.

BIG TIME.  ^^^THAT.

 

You aren't saving me from anything but having to listen to you when you aren't providing anything that would give a reasonable person who has looked at a lot of this stuff and thought about it a lot any reason at all to think you are right. 

 

Know how bipto is considering being humbly moved by the noble efforts to set him straight?  Pack up shop and leave the forums.

 

Wow, mission accomplished.  Hey...book-burning is another good way.

[dmaker]

While certainly in line with the rules? I think not. Nobody has ever said that anyone shouldn't "go over and share their opinion." All that's expected here is a degree of general civility, i.e. - no name calling.

 

In your soap box analogy, what would happen if you went over to defend critical thinkers everywhere, and you started tossing insults - like calling them hoaxers, crazy, etc. - what do you think the outcome would be? Would that cause them to possibly see your point of view? Would you be educating them, or would such claims cause a rift? Would your intention be to educate or to insult them?

 

It appears that you are not impressed with the civility rules of the forum. I understand this, but they're there for the benefit of the forum and it's members.

 

Personally, I don't believe many of the claims made on the forum. However, that doesn't mean that I can call those that make such claims hoaxers. After all, I have no proof to substantiate my claims. The main issue that the skeptical have with those making outlandish claims is that they don't provide adequate proof of those claims. Aren't those calling others hoaxers guilty of doing exactly the same thing? You claim hoax, yet you fail to provide evidence of that claim. I've heard it a million times - If you make a claim, you should present adequate evidence to substantiate it.

 

I'm the first to agree that some claims have a huge degree of suspicious tales accompanying them. I don't believe what I find to be simply unbelievable or unsubstantiated. Yet I fail to see how belittling them or name calling will do anything to improve others accepting a point of view or improve discourse.

What would be the result of me calling the soapbox snake oil salesman a hoaxer?  Well, in your analogy my last intention is to befriend the villain, so who cares what conflict might arise between myself and that individual? The upside might be that one or two folks in the crowd might still have enough common sense left to be dissuaded from buying into whatever bull turd is on offer.

 

And, no, I do not have a problem with the civility rules. They can be tricky to navigate and still make your point sometimes, but not impossible. And I have seen BF blogs/forums with little to no moderation, they are tedious, sophomoric places that are fun to visit for a shot of bawdy humour in the middle of your day, but you don't want to linger too long ere the gray matter starts to leak out of your ears. 

 

One area of the civility rules that gets irksome is the whole membership confers diplomatic immunity. For example, you are prevented from giving even a mildly candid opinion on someone if they are a member. Even if they haven't posted since they signed up. Examples would be Jeff Meldrum, perhaps Ketchum, maybe even Derek Randles for a more recent example. I cannot say, even in polite words, what I think of their activities without running afoul of the rules because they are members here. 

 

And like DWA mentioned ( once, twice..one hundred times) in his last few posts, this is a Bigfoot House. So if I am going to come here and denounce the very raison d'etre du Chateau Bigfoot, then I should at least be polite about it.    

Of all the characteristics of the skeptic mindset, the one I find most distasteful is the idea of the need to save people from the ideas and beliefs of others. If something is not objectively provable, it should have no legs, and continuously pointing out the obvious only serves to vex others, nothing more. This is not the dissemination of sedition and fomenting of civil unrest we are talking about here dmaker. Even in your most jaundiced view, it is merely people talking about imaginary animals. Do you truly believe the experiences posted by a habituator pose some threat to you?  Even if you had the best intests of the field in mind, you'd be very hard pressed to demonstrate how these (you say) ravings will move or hinder those investigations. I have not illusions that you do have those interests either. You accomplish nothing by doing that except a kind or very wearisome self-validation. It is tiresome in the extreme to all who have to endure it. Self-serving agendas always are.

Equally tiresome is being lectured at over and over again about how one should be interpreting the evidence. Being told constantly that you are incapable of proper reading comprehension if you don't see Bigfoot at the end of the evidence chain is tiresome in the extreme. 

BIG TIME.  ^^^THAT.

 

You aren't saving me from anything but having to listen to you when you aren't providing anything that would give a reasonable person who has looked at a lot of this stuff and thought about it a lot any reason at all to think you are right. 

 

Know how bipto is considering being humbly moved by the noble efforts to set him straight?  Pack up shop and leave the forums.

 

Wow, mission accomplished.  Hey...book-burning is another good way.

Hey now, don't put Bipto's threats of leaving on me. I almost never participate in that thread. As if you wouldn't just follow him wherever he went anyway. 

Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker

[Old Dog]

WSA brought up a interesting point for me.  If this forum is for people who believe in "imaginary animals", why do people who don't believe in them even bother to come and read this?  Even more, why do they bother to comment on the posts, unless it is to just harass the people posting here?  Seems that if I thought so little of the subject and the people, I wouldn't be spending my time in such a manner, and would find more constructive ways to occupy my self.  They may claim it is to "enlighten" those folks to the real truth of the subject, but do they really think they are going to change peoples point of view, any more than their own view will be changed?  I really find it hard to understand why such people come here.  There are forums for just about anything you can think of, there must be a forum for those who steadfastly do not believe in the animal just as there are for those that do.  Why are they not there communing with their own?  Anyone who can give me a real, honest and logical answer, I would really love to hear it.

[Guest DWA]

As I always put it...anyone here ever see me on paranormal sites?

 

Reason for that.

And yep, there's always JREF.  Another place you will never see me, because everything they assert about BF is sheer unadulterated fantasy.

[dmaker]

^^ I've answered that question many times, in many other threads.

 

 

Sometimes one can be interested in the phenomenon and the people involved while having zero belief in the reality of the animal.  I don't believe Nessie exists either but I bet you that the people that do are a colorful bunch...

 

"And yep, there's always JREF.  Another place you will never see me, because everything they assert about BF is sheer unadulterated fantasy."  DWA

 

Funny, they say the same thing about you. What you would call "cutting edge science" would be called unsubstantiated claims over there. I can see why you would not like it. 

Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

One area of the civility rules that gets irksome is the whole membership confers diplomatic immunity. For example, you are prevented from giving even a mildly candid opinion on someone if they are a member. Even if they haven't posted since they signed up. Examples would be Jeff Meldrum, perhaps Ketchum, maybe even Derek Randles for a more recent example. I cannot say, even in polite words, what I think of their activities without running afoul of the rules because they are members here. 

 

This statement is simply not accurate. You can't personally attack other members here, but you can discuss their public efforts.

 

Let's say that there's a member here called "Dr. Bagelburger." He is investigating BF sightings in Idaho. He comes onto the BFF and discusses his opinions and his personal thoughts on some specific evidence he's presented. If a member puts it out there, it can be discussed, or the member can even be told that you think they're mistaken or just plain wrong. However, what you can't do is claim he's a hoaxer (not without proof to substantiate it, anyway), crazy, or talk about his mother's footwear.

 

Also worthy of note is that when a member goes public with something (think Dr. Ketchum), then all protection afforded by the forum is civil in nature. The forum DOES NOT protect a member from critique and from other members voicing their opinion. If you call the member a name, imply that their crazy, or get personal with them otherwise, that's a violation. Telling a member that their claims are ridiculous is not. We have never, nor will we ever, attempt to protect a member from their own public claims. The same could be said of "Dr. Bagelburger" if he presents a paper for peer review publicly under his real name. If he does so, and then discusses it on our forum (or another public forum) under the "Dr. Bagelburger" moniker and/or his real name, then we aren't under any obligation to protect his true identity, as he's already outed himself. Obviously, that's the price of fame. However, all other member info would still be held in strict confidence.

[Guest DWA]

^^ I've answered that question many times, in many other threads.

 

 

Sometimes one can be interested in the phenomenon and the people involved while having zero belief in the reality of the animal.  I don't believe Nessie exists either but I bet you that the people that do are a colorful bunch...

 

"And yep, there's always JREF.  Another place you will never see me, because everything they assert about BF is sheer unadulterated fantasy."  DWA

 

Funny, they say the same thing about you. What you would call "cutting edge science" would be called unsubstantiated claims over there. I can see why you would not like it. 

The only thing JREF would have to do is unearth one thing - or however many things necessary - that could throw all sasquatch evidence into doubt, and everyone here would be all ears.

 

They don't; and we aren't.

[Sasfooty]

On an aside, it astonishes me that the folks that are complaining about other certain folks constantly interrupting with what they feel is nonsensical proof/evidence demanding haven't long since put the offenders on their ignore list.  But that's just me.

 

It astonishes me, too. The ignore feature is wonderful. Sometimes I run across complete pages with no posts showing but DWA's. Seriously.

 

It makes life much more pleasant.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^I'd really appreciate your not spilling the beans about DWA's "Ignore Them" feature....

[Old Dog]

Then you can also do what I do.  When I see certain names being the poster, I just simply skip over their post, knowing they have nothing of interest to offer me or in my opinion, the topic at hand.  I refuse to give their comment any traction, and seldom respond to their comment to me unless I find it particularly insightful, but that seldom happens.

[dmaker]

I understand See, but if I wanted to say the I feel Dr.Bagelburger is dishonest in his efforts and activities, I am not allowed to say that.  For example, if Dr.Bagelburger or his compatriot, John Smeldrum, ABD were to put up a picture of something and say it is a Bigfoot, but I think it is a cow. I can say I think it is a cow, but I cannot say I think they know it is a cow and are milking it ( pardon the pun) for all that it's worth. 

The only thing JREF would have to do is unearth one thing - or however many things necessary - that could throw all sasquatch evidence into doubt, and everyone here would be all ears.

 

They don't; and we aren't.

You mean, of course, aside from the complete lack of any objective, verifiable, scientific evidence for Sasquatch?  

Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I understand See, but if I wanted to say the I feel Dr.Bagelburger is dishonest in his efforts and activities, I am not allowed to say that.

 

You're not allowed if you don't have the proof to substantiate your claim. If you have prolonged email exchanges and cited sources outside of the forum, then yes, you could reasonably assert that he was dishonest. Well, disingenuous would probably be a better term to use.

 

In fact, with adequate proof, you could even assert that he was a hoaxer.