indiefoot Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I suspect some skeptics are here to run off as many noobs as they can, nip that BF'r in the bud, so to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I suspect some skeptics are here to run off as many noobs as they can, nip that BF'r in the bud, so to say. I think you give them too much credit. I think they just like to hear themselves talk and stir the pot. I think it gives them some sort of perverse thrill, and in some cases a badge of honor to the skeptic friends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 And then some of us noobs learn quickly what a great thing the "ignore" feature is and just in case as Old Dog said.....skip the post works lovely too. Not running me off.....I enjoy the discourse too much when things are discussed without nuanced insults.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) 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. What if I said a Bigfoot mind spoke it me? Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Why is it the polite thing to do? If I saw someone on the street standing on a soapbox spreading, what I perceive to be nonsense and made up stories as facts, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would go over and share my opinion. If someone were to apply true crfitical thinking to that statement "what I perceive" sticks out like a sore thumb. To do less is to do a disservice to critically thinking people everywhere. It's actually the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I suspect some skeptics are here to run off as many noobs as they can, nip that BF'r in the bud, so to say. No, actually. I was a noob here a couple of years ago. I was mildly curious about Bigfoot. A fence sitter if you will. It was the posts by some of the well spoken, educated skeptics here, such as Saskeptic, that really helped me inform myself and how to look at the evidence properly. Sorry DWA, Saskeptic over you any day. I was not run off in the least. Obviously I am still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 What if I said a Bigfoot mind spoke it me? As with your assertions to the habbers, you'd need to substantiate such a claim to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 What if I said a Bigfoot mind spoke it me? LOLOLOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 (edited) As with your assertions to the habbers, you'd need to substantiate such a claim to be believed. But they don't.... But I do see your point. I'm just having fun. Edited November 27, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 ^and do you believe them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 ... and you don't believe them, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 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. Looks to me like you just did. 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. Childish insults do nothing to further an argument. In fact, it causes many to automatically dismiss it. And I have no idea who John Smeldrum is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 ^both were hypothetical scientists..:-) @Sasfooty - LOL! Too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I think you give them too much credit. I think they just like to hear themselves talk and stir the pot. I think it gives them some sort of perverse thrill, and in some cases a badge of honor to the skeptic friends. It's a badge of honor to their fellow defenders of the established orthodoxy and materialism. "They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them." - Robert Anton Wilson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 ^That's interesting. I've found that rings true with some of the 'skeptics'. Being skeptical requires one to question everything, correct? Not just selectively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts