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

[Guest]

I have a simple request of you that will settle your claims for all - Please present just one recognized as reputable scientific journal that substantiates your claims of reports as being testable and repeatable evidence.

DWA,

In an effort to keep on topic, how about you start a thread citing this paper and we can learn all about it.

[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.

Nothing I said was being critical of you.    You complained about the thread going off topic and I was trying to be constructive and throw out some ideas that might allow an original poster to have some control of his thread.     No such rules exist now but nearly everyone thinks something needs to be done.  Other wise they always degrade into the same circular arguments about existence.     Only the original poster knows where he wants the thread to go.     I think the OP should have more say about that.    But that is just me I guess.

 

Can you see how I might interpret this as being critical of me?

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.

 

As far as guiding the conversation or managing the discussion, please refer to the last sentence of my original post:

I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject. 

I spoke my piece and wanted to hear other voices/viewpoints, not moderate a debate. I don't have a solution, sorry. Do you really think that asking some here to refrain from following certain lines of discussion will yield positive results? I'm skeptical, but then again I'll admit that I haven't tried it much. When I have, though, the results have always been sub-par. It seems I've been taking fire here for being MIA at times, but please remember that some of us have plenty of daily life and responsibilities to deal with before we can stop and focus on an online purse fight about bigfoot.

 

My two guiding philosophies are those of self-determination and personal responsibility. First, one should be free to make one's own decisions about what to believe and do, and second, that one is responsible for the results and repercussions of those decisions. The logical expession of these philosophies requires one to act in an intelligent and respectful manner. I don't believe that I am responsible for anyone's behavior but my own. That is why, from a philosophical standpoint, I am slow to try steering the conversation here. I'm not sure that it can (or should) be done, anyhow.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

 

Better than people who say there is none?  Better than people who recognize only proof as evidence?

 

As I say.  Let stuff speak for itself.

Those sort of self absorbed slightly veiled insults are just as bad as anything any scofftic does.

 

You  have pointed that out to him on several occasions. He never responds. I respect you for doing so. I admit I was wrong with my denialist/scoftic rhetoric. He is never wrong. Just ask him.

[Trogluddite]

Hello All,

Just thought I get a sense for where folks stand at this juncture. I've seen some mention that the OP's are in the best positions to manage their threads and for the most part I think that's true. But, at the same time, it's important to leave ample room for ideas and opinions and not clamp down in such a way that no one will post on a topic. Or someone gets a reputation as being overburdening. This Forum should still be a place to express ideas and have disagreements with the overlay being that things are still on topic or, if not soon will be, if the OP is willing to make requests.

So what do members think? Because this is the place to air your opinions on the matter of OP's managing threads on those few occasions when existence debates show up or the topic has drifted for a bit too long and needs pulling back. It shouldn't happen all that often but if it does is this the best way to approach the problem at least for the time being to see whether things get better?  

***OFF-TOPIC!!***

 

I think, I am so confused...

[roguefooter]

Hello All,

Just thought I get a sense for where folks stand at this juncture. I've seen some mention that the OP's are in the best positions to manage their threads and for the most part I think that's true. But, at the same time, it's important to leave ample room for ideas and opinions and not clamp down in such a way that no one will post on a topic. Or someone gets a reputation as being overburdening. This Forum should still be a place to express ideas and have disagreements with the overlay being that things are still on topic or, if not soon will be, if the OP is willing to make requests.

 

 

You mean like giving the OP the power to moderate their own thread? Delete posts as they see unfit?

[hiflier]

Hello Trogluddite,

 

I guess I am. And it was confusing for a while. But I think the road to fixing the spilling of existence debates onto threads is looking OK.

[hiflier]

Hello roguefooter,

 

Hello All,

Just thought I get a sense for where folks stand at this juncture. I've seen some mention that the OP's are in the best positions to manage their threads and for the most part I think that's true. But, at the same time, it's important to leave ample room for ideas and opinions and not clamp down in such a way that no one will post on a topic. Or someone gets a reputation as being overburdening. This Forum should still be a place to express ideas and have disagreements with the overlay being that things are still on topic or, if not soon will be, if the OP is willing to make requests.
 

 

You mean like giving the OP the power to moderate their own thread? Delete posts as they see unfit?

 

 

Aw heck no, that would be a nightmare LOL. It's saying that's it's OK to request existence debaters who start debating existence on a thread to instead keep more to whatever the thread's topic happens to be. Example? Someone starts a thread on capturing a BF on a trail cam. Someone comes along and says don't bother because Bigfoot doesn't exist. Someone else enters the thread and says but Bigfoot does exist and the debate becomes the focal point. We've all seen it happen many times. What this does is allow the OP to simply request that those debaters keep to the topic of BF's and Trail cams. It may stop the existence debate or it may not. If not then the debaters will be reported for derailing a thread and the Admins or Mods take it from there and the thread might just be able to return to the initial discussion. 

 

All this is is a sanction to allow the OP's to make those kinds of requests. No more, no less. members have NEVER had the power to delete posts and they never will have that option- ever. But now they can ask posters to keep to a topic- IF they want to. Many might not ask at all. And it's not something an OP can just joke around with either. It's a fairly serious matter and should only be deployed for pretty serious situations. An OP using this capacity frivolously could be reported as well.  

Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier

[Guest DWA]

 

Hello See-Te-Cah NC,

 

Uh....Mr. Chief Administrator?....Ahem....Uh......you're off topic

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm no more off topic than someone that wants to tout how science recognizes reports as true evidence. I'll try to do better!

 

I could parse the *several* points on which that sentence gets it wrong...but that would be off topic. 

 

 

 

 

Better than people who say there is none?  Better than people who recognize only proof as evidence?

 

As I say.  Let stuff speak for itself.

Those sort of self absorbed slightly veiled insults are just as bad as anything any scofftic does.

 

You  have pointed that out to him on several occasions. He never responds. I respect you for doing so. I admit I was wrong with my denialist/scoftic rhetoric. He is never wrong. Just ask him.

 

This is off topic too.  Hey, we need to show people how this gets done. 

 

 

 

Hello salubrious,

 

Let's be clear here: members are not moderators and should not attempt to moderate or direct (that's in the forum rules).

Does this officially mean then that OP's couldn't, or shouldn't, remind existence debaters on their threads that the subject under discussion isn't about existence or non-existence and to please to return to discussing the topic at hand?

If that's the case then it would seem that we are back to square one. Maybe allow one request and then if unsuccessful hit the report button?

 

 

That is a good point and either the OP or moderation are good for that. Again there is a sort of judgement call...

 

I think that allowing an OP some degree of latitude in managing what is talked about on that thread is essential to both the OP's getting discussed the thing the OP wants discussed and to a smooth-running forum in general.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

 

 

Hello See-Te-Cah NC,

 

Uh....Mr. Chief Administrator?....Ahem....Uh......you're off topic

 

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm no more off topic than someone that wants to tout how science recognizes reports as true evidence. I'll try to do better!

 

I could parse the *several* points on which that sentence gets it wrong...but that would be off topic. 

 

OK, if you say so.

 

 

 

Better than people who say there is none?  Better than people who recognize only proof as evidence?

 

As I say.  Let stuff speak for itself.

Those sort of self absorbed slightly veiled insults are just as bad as anything any scofftic does.

 

You  have pointed that out to him on several occasions. He never responds. I respect you for doing so. I admit I was wrong with my denialist/scoftic rhetoric. He is never wrong. Just ask him.

 

 

This is off topic too.  Hey, we need to show people how this gets done. 

 

Question - How many times have you interjected your opinions into a thread that weren't exactly keeping with the topic? Be honest about it, please.

 

It's getting things done when you do it, but it's not fair when others with a differing opinion do likewise. Pity, that.

 

 

Hello salubrious,

 

Let's be clear here: members are not moderators and should not attempt to moderate or direct (that's in the forum rules).

Does this officially mean then that OP's couldn't, or shouldn't, remind existence debaters on their threads that the subject under discussion isn't about existence or non-existence and to please to return to discussing the topic at hand?

If that's the case then it would seem that we are back to square one. Maybe allow one request and then if unsuccessful hit the report button?

 

 

That is a good point and either the OP or moderation are good for that. Again there is a sort of judgement call...

 

 

I think that allowing an OP some degree of latitude in managing what is talked about on that thread is essential to both the OP's getting discussed the thing the OP wants discussed and to a smooth-running forum in general.

 

Smooth for the OP maybe, but disingenuous as a whole. If you want a topic where you can preach about this "evidence" without any sort of questioning, then I bet you do think this. If a hedge of protection from critique is required to bolster your opinion, your opinion(s)may be weak.

 

As for it being essential to a smooth-running forum, I suspect you don't feel that it's running smoothly presently- Which is OK. However, we, the staff, have real lives, with things to do other than watch someone bloviate constantly. We also don't want to save your skin when the heat gets too hot in the kitchen when you make some of the ludicrous statements you come up with. 

 

I have an idea - Why don't you start your own site where you can make your own rules? That way, you can present your viewpoint as much as you want and restrict those with a differing opinion.

 

We're still waiting for that journal entry regarding the validity of reports as scientific evidence. A simple link will do nicely.  As much as you claim that science should, and does, recognize reports as evidence it should be a snap.

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

Off topic!   Guys, just show me I'm wrong, it's really that simple.  (REPORTS ARE EVIDENCE.)

 

Oh.  Um, 24, give or take.  Just getting it done.

 

With some of the stuff I have to put up with here, I get my innings, don't I?

 

THE OP, HARRUMPH, was about this ridiculous thing that keeps happening between people who know what's up ...and people who don't.  That comes at least ....majorly....from the idea that all opinions are equal, which on a scientific topic, which this is, simply isn't true.  A reduction in the amount of this kind of activity that goes on can be achieved by recognizing this, and nipping it in the bud when it happens.  I don't think the OP would have posted if the rules of the Forums were accomplishing the objective.  But I may be wrong. 

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Dude, this isn't a scientific forum. It's in the rules. If you want to pontificate your opinion on a scientific forum I suggest you find one.

 

Nip what in the bud, those that express disagreement with you or feel that the creature doesn't exist?

 

News flash - You are very wrong.

 

What, yet again no reference to a reputable journal to substantiate your claims? Why am I not surprised?

[Guest DWA]

"Reputable journals" are part of the problem here, but this has been discussed other places where it is ON-TOPIC.

 

Nip what...has been described by the OP.  I'm starting to see the issue...

 

What the forum is called doesn't change what the topic is.  It's a scientific topic; and it would be a major uptick in the dialogue - making threads like this one unnecessary - were it so treated.  But you can do with it what you want, I guess.  Won't change what people of scientific bent who are paying attention think of the subject matter.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

So, that's the game is it? That's the respect you have for my efforts? Turning the off-topic problem into some kind of joke now? There's been no vote, no poll, nothing. It can all backfire anytime. It can fall apart much quicker than it came together. Don't play around with this topic thing DWA. It isn't a done deal yet and even if it was it won't save you from anyone. It's not a shield.

[Guest DWA]

Nope.  Just trying to keep the conversation on-topic.

 

I've been on bigfoot forums where this kind of thing didn't become such a major problem that an entire discussion thread was devoted to just it.  And I've said what the problem appears to be:  what the rules say about how the topic should be treated doesn't go, on the ground.  We can do something about that; the mechanisms are in place and all we have to do is apply them.

[hiflier]

Hello DWA,

"This kind of thing" is of your own making. YOU'RE why the OP started this topic. YOU and your "opponents" over the years who have blistered more threads as fast as anyone could write them. Taken them over with ridiculous unwinnable existence debates that has ruined thread after thread after thread. Halted OP discussions, ignored members trying to sustain an unbroken line of thought and more or less been a bully. You, DWA, are a chief reason this topic was ever even necessary. Truth.

Edited August 28, 2015 by hiflier