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

[hiflier]

Hello Chasing Rabbits,

 

Hello DWA,
 

What you are receiving, my experience here shows, is utterly uninformed feedback.

I disagree. I've seen both skeptics and denialists who are very well informed. "Where's the body?", "Where are the bones?", and "Where are the fossils?" are all good questions and no one can deny it. But what I truly, truly, don't understand is why folks JUST AREN'T GETTING that those questions, even though they may appear on threads, don't mean that proponents need to weigh in and become a party to the inevitable, unwinnable debate about existence to the extent that the original topic of the thread becomes all but obliterated.

Hardline denialists or hardline proponents are NOT the problem or the issue; where, when, and for how long they end up conducting their debates IS the issue. Is ANYONE capable of understanding this one very critical point?

 

 

I think there is a feeling of futility when reasons have been given for why bodies, bones and fossils are rare/non-existent and the same questions are brought up ad nauseum, or the reasons are ignored.

 

It's as though people think if an animal or plant falls down a ravine, it will become fossilized, when the process of fossilization is dependent upon factors such as soil pH, soil mineral content, humidity, temperature, etc. Ditto for bones. And even when these basic geological and biological facts are brought up, they are ignored or worse, mocked.

 

As for bodies, I agree with you. There is a lack of bodies, but a growing number of undetermined tissue samples. Which brings up a general pet-peeve regarding scientific papers: people interpret phrases such as "undetermined at this time", "more studies needed at this time", as "no evidence (or "proof") case closed, moving right along" when these phrases mean by using the current technology or current body of data they can't conclude if something is true or false, iow, the case isn't closed.

 

And the futility leads to frustration to the point that posters either leave or begin to quarrel. Note that I use the word quarrel, because what happens is not argument.

 

 

<sigh> I give up. You folks are hopeless.

[Bonehead74]

[SWWASAS]

_{Seems like the vey title of this thread is designed to get both sides poking sharp sticks at each other and stir up old arguments.     I wish Bonehead would weigh in and steer the discussion a bit.       Perhaps that is what is missing in many threads that get out of control.     We should give the thread originator more latitude to declare things off topic.    After all it is their thread to begin with and they should be given some latitude to steer the discussion.   Perhaps the thread originator should be allowed to post something as simple as ^^^^Post 210 Off topic^^^ and if someone continues off topic report them for highjack.       If  someone has something off topic they want to develop, they can always start their own thread.}  

[Guest DWA]

 

Well.  One did ask.

 

And one is tempted to say that 99% of the 'discussion' that goes on here is really doing nothing, not even turning the topic over and examining it from various angles...which is something.

 

There is way more than enough evidence for a full-time mainstream involvement to wrap this up within months.  (Meaning:  essentially confirm that at least one unlisted animal awaits scientific classification and study.  At the absolute minimum least.)  This should be easy enough to grasp; but some seem to be making a career goal out of not grasping it.

Edited August 27, 2015 by DWA

[Bonehead74]

It's not my job to make people act like rational adults. I am spending the day on a rare dad-daughter date with my 3 year old girl. You'll all need to act like grownups without my constant attention.

Also, I really resent the implication that I designed this thread's title to inflame tensions. You are way out of your lane, SWWA.

[MIB]

Silence is an acceptable option among mature adults.    When you realize the person you're arguing with is too stupid to get your point ... they might be coming to the same conclusion.   You could both be right.   There is a time to walk away.   Remember the movie "War Games"?    The only way to win is not to play.

 

Can anyone not see the mirror here?

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

...There is way more than enough evidence for a full-time mainstream involvement to wrap this up within months.  (Meaning:  essentially confirm that at least one unlisted animal awaits scientific classification and study.  At the absolute minimum least.)  This should be easy enough to grasp; but some seem to be making a career goal out of not grasping it.

Off Topic. AGAIN? Must you DWA? Why?

@Bonehead74,

In that case I'll stay on here Enjoy your day.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

Whoever asked up thread, I put out a draft that would restrict posting based upon level of financial support of the Forums. My initial limits would have been low, but they were just markers. Had any discussion been allowed, I would have supported higher limits and, if technically feasible, some "no-cost" areas, eg, Campfire Chat.

I believe if members had limited assets (number of posts), they would spend them more wisely.

[norseman]

But another possible scenario is that they will just move to another venue that is free.

[Guest DWA]

Whoever asked up thread, I put out a draft that would restrict posting based upon level of financial support of the Forums. ...

 

I don't like the idea of people buying forums any more than elections.  As someone who had a scoftic pay for his premium membership just so he could tell him in fourth-grade language what he thought of him (amusing...and no, the Tar Pit didn't hold my attention long), I really think that that sort would consider it well worth paying a lot of money to hijack the conversation.  Look at the life capital they're spending plugging fingers in ears and shouting uninformed blather!  What's $2000 a year against that?  Let alone twenty bucks?

 

Posting should be restricted based on detraction from the conversation.

[Trogluddite]

True - depends on whether goal is to be the best or the biggest.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

OK, this is more like it. Thank you. I think someone mentioned that limiting posts might result in posts becoming bloggish in length. I'm beginning to wonder if any official framework will rectify the problem. It's why I say the issue of long unwanted debates on existence, which is the primary issue, can be addressed right away, TODAY, if OP's manage their threads like I've been trying to do with this one. The method is to keep steering the dialogue back onto topic.

Sure, it's work, and requires some consistent diligence, but it works. It may take some effort when dealing with those more locked into their methodologies as you've recently witnessed but as a course of action monitoring threads and directing the focus back onto the subject of a thread is effective. It simply takes practice.

[Martin]

Posting should be restricted based on detraction from the conversation.

 

 

 

Agreed and it should go both ways.

True - depends on whether goal is to be the best or the biggest.

 

Even now BFF is the biggest and the best IMHO.

[David NC]

Some people may not believe you create your own reality, but here on this forum everyone has that power. You talk about making people disappear from the forum, you have that power. You do not want to argue with the same person over and over then draw the line and use your power and start your ignore list. My ignore list is very short because I can mentally ignore the occasional posts by denialists and scofftics. If they get to nasty for me to even look at I put that person on ignore. This is not only for knowers to put all scoftics out of their view. I consider my self in the knower category and have to admit that the first person I put on ignore was a proponent that I just could not stand to read their posts anymore. We need to not rise to the bait like big fat trout.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

 

...Posting should be restricted based on detraction from the conversation.

Yes, I agree but who is going to do the restricting? I'm saying that for now until something gets implemented (or not) that it should be up to the OP to restrict the influx of existence debates when they threaten the derailment of the subject in the thread's title. It's the only immediate way to begin sending the message out to seasoned members and newbies as well. A mature approach would be to allow some newbies a bit more leeway until they get to understand the principle.

In my mind this is a workable solution. It may not be successful depending on how well the OP conducts the direction the conversation takes but it is a method to at least currently try. Remember this is not meant to stifle discussion on threads. It's to stifle endless debates on existence that crop up on those threads.

Edited August 27, 2015 by hiflier