norseman Posted November 28, 2013 Admin Posted November 28, 2013 I think this thread highlights why we may need to segregate the forums abit. I think this circular argument is doing more harm than good. While I sympathize with skeptics demand for proof, this is a forum to discuss bigfoot, and you cannot have a meaningful discussion if someone's position is that the topic is pure fiction and there is no sense in discussing it. Surely even the skeptics must see this yes? I think as adults it's about time we sat down and discussed this. 1
LeafTalker Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Hear, hear. I remember your saying this same thing in another thread, and I meant to say then that I thought it was a great idea. The only thing I would add is that I think it's not necessary to segregate the forum, if by segregation, you mean setting up password-protected areas of the forum. (That idea didn't seem to be a big hit, although I appreciated the effort Bipedalist made to get some feedback on a possible way of limiting the bloodshed around here). Maybe there could be one thread called, "Does Bigfoot exist?" -- and all the arguments about existence could be had there. Then maybe all the rest of the threads could be declared Existence-Argument-Free Zones. Edited to add: Anyone could post in those Existence-Argument-Free Zones, but any comment raising questions about existence would be subject to removal via the usual avenue: The Report button. Edited November 28, 2013 by LeafTalker
Bonehead74 Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 Oh, brother. You guys don't ever give up, do you? You guys ought to take this stuff to The Tar Pit and let the blood flow. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30015-important-news-premium-access-memberships-are-now-available/
Old Dog Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 I think this thread highlights why we may need to segregate the forums abit. I think this circular argument is doing more harm than good. While I sympathize with skeptics demand for proof, this is a forum to discuss bigfoot, and you cannot have a meaningful discussion if someone's position is that the topic is pure fiction and there is no sense in discussing it. Surely even the skeptics must see this yes? I think as adults it's about time we sat down and discussed this. Actually the skeptics, not the true skeptics, because they actually engage in an informed discussion, but the other subspecies of skeptic, the pseudo~skeptic does provide a certain level of entertainment. Agreed, it can get distracting at times, but you just have to limit your personal exposure to them. It's like the banana slug, it might be cool to touch to see what it's like, but you don't want to set and cuddle with one, it's just icky. Instead of segregating the forums, just ignore those who are trying to bait you and get the pot stirred. If they don't have a platform, they will eventually move along like Kit did. Just because someone is putting out their ideas, and you don't agree with them, you don't have to listen, and you certainly don't have to respond, that is what they thrive on. Just like any other creature, you starve them long enough, they die. There are some on these forums I do not agree with, and that's on both sides of the issues, but I refuse to argue points with them, it's not productive and gets boring real fast. I believe the way I do, and they the way they do. No amount of discussion or argument will change either's mind. Sure, if there is a mutual give and take, one might see things from a different perspective, but the hard core "my way or nothing" style of argument is useless and is a waste of bandwidth. Hey, it's just the way I see things. Right or wrong, that's my take on this whole tempest in a teapot. Oh yeah, just wanted to share this with the hunters in the group. I shot my first Thanksgiving turkey today!!!. Man it sure scared the heck out of all the people in the frozen food section. Have a great Thanksgiving everyone. May you and your families be blessed. Skeptics and believers alike. Peace.
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 If you notice, most of my comments in this thread are not asking for proof or shouting to the world that Bigfoot is not real. I mostly get engaged when DWA either tells me that I don't know how to read or some other insufficiency that I suffer from evidenced by the fact that I do not agree with him, OR to counter some misinformation being spread by him such as recent comments around Meldrum's sacrificing of his career to Bigfooting or his other claim that science does not look at Bigfoot evidence. I'm actually not making a big stink about the existence of Bigfoot one way or the other in this thread.
Guest DWA Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 Hear, hear. I remember your saying this same thing in another thread, and I meant to say then that I thought it was a great idea. The only thing I would add is that I think it's not necessary to segregate the forum, if by segregation, you mean setting up password-protected areas of the forum. (That idea didn't seem to be a big hit, although I appreciated the effort Bipedalist made to get some feedback on a possible way of limiting the bloodshed around here). Maybe there could be one thread called, "Does Bigfoot exist?" -- and all the arguments about existence could be had there. Then maybe all the rest of the threads could be declared Existence-Argument-Free Zones. Edited to add: Anyone could post in those Existence-Argument-Free Zones, but any comment raising questions about existence would be subject to removal via the usual avenue: The Report button. I am totally sure this would work, and totally flummoxed that it hasn't been tried. I have seen one thread where a mod came down on a violation of that Forums paragraph I quoted above. It needs to be enforced more, just my opinion. The existence argument is tiresome. And irrelevant.
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 The problem ( one of them anyway) with the above is that it will do nothing to prevent discussions of the evidence. For example, in any thread it could easily come up that a piece of evidence is something to one person and something else to another. And then DWA will waltz in and tell whoever it happens to be that disagrees with him that they are incapable of looking at evidence properly and that this is a clear fact since they disagree with him. And then maybe he will throw a mocking "Got Monkey" in for good measure. More often than not it is personalities that clash here, not beliefs.
norseman Posted November 28, 2013 Admin Posted November 28, 2013 If you notice, most of my comments in this thread are not asking for proof or shouting to the world that Bigfoot is not real. I mostly get engaged when DWA either tells me that I don't know how to read or some other insufficiency that I suffer from evidenced by the fact that I do not agree with him, OR to counter some misinformation being spread by him such as recent comments around Meldrum's sacrificing of his career to Bigfooting or his other claim that science does not look at Bigfoot evidence. I'm actually not making a big stink about the existence of Bigfoot one way or the other in this thread. I noticed your last statement from your previous post, although my post was not directed squarely at you or any single skeptic. But it does seem that arguments in varying threads with different topics all devolve into a question of existence.
Old Dog Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) If you notice, most of my comments in this thread are not asking for proof or shouting to the world that Bigfoot is not real. Back on topic: Bigfoot is not real No, of course not. Why, you never said anything of the sort. Edited November 28, 2013 by Old Dog
dmaker Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) I think it's pretty obvious the entire post was meant to be light hearted OD. And I said most, not all. Edited November 28, 2013 by dmaker
MIB Posted November 28, 2013 Moderator Posted November 28, 2013 Oh yeah, just wanted to share this with the hunters in the group. I shot my first Thanksgiving turkey today!!!. Man it sure scared the heck out of all the people in the frozen food section. Hee !!!! Congratulations. MIB
Guest Posted November 28, 2013 Posted November 28, 2013 (edited) Here is your source for 62 very well documented clinical studies: http://www.realityzone.com/lch.html Here's your source for an actual survey of clinical studies. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005476.pub3/abstract;jsessionid=CC8E01744463921E8C88CEF57E5DD2E1.f03t01 Yes I know. The source is too mainstream and thus evil. But your beloved medical "establishment" can't make any money selling people Vtamin B-17. However it makes Billion$ per year off of the Cancer industry. They don't make much money off vaccines either but they promote those. Edited November 28, 2013 by Jerrymanderer
Guest LarryP Posted November 29, 2013 Posted November 29, 2013 They don't make much money off vaccines either but they promote those. But they do make money selling vaccines. Again, there's no money to be made from selling Vitamin B-17 and there's a tremendous amount to lose by promoting it as an effective cure and an excellent method of prevention. You brought up clinical studies and I provided them for you. But like all pseudo-skeptics, perpetual denial of evidence and cognitive dissonance, while never doubting their own views, rules the day.
Guest Posted November 29, 2013 Posted November 29, 2013 But like all pseudo-skeptics, perpetual denial of evidence and cognitive dissonance, while never doubting their own views, rules the day. Pot meet kettle. When confirmed with evidence that your hero was wrong, you dismissed it. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/40268-forest-rangers-pilots-bf-uaps/page-2 Again, there's no money to be made from selling Vitamin B-17 and there's a tremendous amount to lose by promoting it as an effective cure and an excellent method of prevention. Same could be said of vaccines and they are promoted. They do actually cure and prevent diseases. I guess "big pharma" failed on that.
Guest LarryP Posted November 29, 2013 Posted November 29, 2013 Pot meet kettle. When confirmed with evidence that your hero was wrong, you dismissed it. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/40268-forest-rangers-pilots-bf-uaps/page-2 Who is my "hero"? Same could be said of vaccines and they are promoted. They do actually cure and prevent diseases. I guess "big pharma" failed on that. As you know, I didn't say that vaccines didn't work and that big pharma failed in that regard. But you just did for some reason. Why is that? Trying to create a straw man to avoid something? .
Recommended Posts