Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[hiflier]

Hello Crowlogic,
 

...So the question is at what point do you walk away?  Since my position does not cause me concern , alarm  or unhappiness I never weigh the question.  Some may think I rage behind a keyboard but as I have often stated it is a rather dispassionate situation.

Somehow I find that statement hard to believe.

 

I'll stake my life that bigfoot has the potential to exist and I'd stake my life that it does not.  There does that explain the difference between believing and possibility?

Then welcome to my world and that of many others. Many of us are non-believers but skeptics who think the subject bears looking into. A pile of anecdotal reports doesn't make the creature real. But the pile of reports IS a major curiosity regarding the possibility of such a creature existing. The type specimen is the goal. Logging truckers report them on the roads-still....IDK ruling in BF or ruling out BF hasn't been so easy.  Reading the story of the new member is a case in point. Possibilities are the stuff of open mindedness. You strike me as being EXACTLY in the middle of the road.

 

And my last post came across a bit harsh so my apologies.

Edited August 26, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest Crowlogic]

Hiflier no offence taken.

[Bonehead74]

Very true Bonehead, only took 6 pages before it happened.

Let it be noted that it was Sal who started it this time.

Duly noted, but the problem lies not in the question itself, but the perpetual argument that is fed by both sides and the inevitable derailment of whatever discussion it was originally spawned from.

[hiflier]

Hello Crowlogic,

 

Cool, then shall we continue? I believe you're up.

Hello Bonehead74,

I'm working on getting this thing, "Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence", back on track

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[MIB]

'tis interesting and perhaps instructive that a thread on derailing itself gets derailed by exactly the people and exactly the approaches to the topic under discussion.  Hmmm.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."

 

MIB

[Rockape]

So the question is at what point do you walk away?  Since my position does not cause me concern , alarm  or unhappiness I never weigh the question.  Some may think I rage behind a keyboard but as I have often stated it is a rather dispassionate situation.  I believe 100% in the possibility that a creature like bigfoot could exist.  But I also believe that one day human beings will communicate telepathically with one another.  There is potential for both.  But potential does not a reality make.  I'll stake my life that bigfoot has the potential to exist and I'd stake my life that it does not.  There does that explain the difference between believing and possibility?

 

 

No, it's a word salad post worthy of DWA and I don't need a condescending explanation of the difference between believing and possibility. It doesn't explain what interest you have in bigfoot since you have made up your mind that it doesn't exist. Evidently it concerns you that others think it does exist or might exist because you spend a lot of time trying to convince those people it's all "magic".

[hiflier]

Hello MIB,

I know, and in a way you're right. But the underpinnings of why members derail is an important one and one that might not get openly addressed otherwise. It's something like this: There is a topic. All the members who read the title know what the topic is. And yet there is a disregard for the topic and worse, a disregard for the OP who started the thread. THAT"S where the problem begins and I can't think of anyone who could deny it.

 

It's all about respect or the lack thereof toward the member who initially posted the topic. That's where the issue really is. One of the prime rules of the Forum is respecting fellow members but when a proponent and denialist go head to head on someone else's thread it shows a lack of self discipline, then the respect for the topic, and the OP, goes out the window.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Doc Holliday]

 

 

Duly noted, but the problem lies not in the question itself, but the perpetual argument that is fed by both sides and the inevitable derailment of whatever discussion it was originally spawned from.

 

 

serious question here..... any suggestions on how to stop the perpetual argument?  

==

and good point MIB, + .

[MIB]

serious question here..... any suggestions on how to stop the perpetual argument?  

 

I believe (dangerous words here ) that limiting people to 2 posts per thread per day would go a long ways.   That stops people who heave 10-12 or more "grenades" at each other in a thread in a day currently, derailing the discussion, and discouraging people who want to have serious dialog.   Two wasted snippy posts and they're DONE for a day.   It's a whole lot easier to ignore them.

 

There is another thing ... I'm not sure how to say this without pointing fingers, but a couple of members have complained about others not getting warning points ... but based on moderator comments, they did not use the report function themselves, guess they just expect someone else should do that.   The moderators have said they don't have time to sit there and monitor every thread every moment, they have lives, too, and they often don't know action is needed 'til someone speaks up via the report function.    I would consider giving the person who posted a complaint in the thread but did not report a warning point as well.    When you recognize something is going wrong and choose not to make efforts readily available to you to address it, you become partially responsible, too.

 

IMHO. 

 

MIB

[roguefooter]

Sorry but there is absolutely no proof of Bigfoot regardless of what anyone wants to believe.

 

Hence one of the big problems we have here on the forum.

[Bodhi]

 

Very true Bonehead, only took 6 pages before it happened.

Let it be noted that it was Sal who started it this time.

Duly noted, but the problem lies not in the question itself, but the perpetual argument that is fed by both sides and the inevitable derailment of whatever discussion it was originally spawned from.

 

I understand the challenge, I have no solutions to offer though.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

There's no proof for the existence of Bigfoot that meets today's scientific standards, but things like the PGF can still be considered proof on a personal level if you can figure out what it shows. 

[Bodhi]

 

serious question here..... any suggestions on how to stop the perpetual argument?  

 

I believe (dangerous words here ) that limiting people to 2 posts per thread per day would go a long ways.   That stops people who heave 10-12 or more "grenades" at each other in a thread in a day currently, derailing the discussion, and discouraging people who want to have serious dialog.   Two wasted snippy posts and they're DONE for a day.   It's a whole lot easier to ignore them.

 

There is another thing ... I'm not sure how to say this without pointing fingers, but a couple of members have complained about others not getting warning points ... but based on moderator comments, they did not use the report function themselves, guess they just expect someone else should do that.   The moderators have said they don't have time to sit there and monitor every thread every moment, they have lives, too, and they often don't know action is needed 'til someone speaks up via the report function.    I would consider giving the person who posted a complaint in the thread but did not report a warning point as well.    When you recognize something is going wrong and choose not to make efforts readily available to you to address it, you become partially responsible, too.

 

IMHO. 

 

MIB

 

MIB,

What I envision with that rule are two ENORMOUS posts per day with numerous quotes within each and lengthy responses to each quote. It would cease to be a conversation and start to become a series of blogs. IMO

[roguefooter]

Hello Crowlogic, 

 

 

Somehow I find that statement hard to believe.

 

 

I don't find it hard to believe at all. You have to remember that his position is the norm in our society. He doesn't have the frustration of trying to push or convince anyone of anything because the majority of society is already in agreement. What does he have to be frustrated about?

 

You might think you're arguing with an individual guy but in reality you're arguing against a standard ideology. You can't be rid of it by simply getting rid of the person- this is something that people in this field need to come to terms with. Trying to block out that ideology from all discussion is not being realistic.

 

 

There's no proof for the existence of Bigfoot that meets today's scientific standards, but things like the PGF can still be considered proof on a personal level if you can figure out what it shows. 

 

That would still be just personal belief. What we're talking about is established proof.

Edited August 27, 2015 by roguefooter

[Rockape]

 

Hello Crowlogic, 

 

 

Somehow I find that statement hard to believe.

 

 

I don't find it hard to believe at all. You have to remember that his position is the norm in our society. He doesn't have the frustration of trying to push or convince anyone of anything because the majority of society is already in agreement. You might think you're arguing with an individual guy but in reality you're arguing against a standard ideology. You can't be rid of it by simply getting rid of the person- this is something that people in this field need to come to terms with.

 

You need to go back and read that again because your post has nothing to do with what hiflier said he found hard to believe.