Jump to content
Bonehead74

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

Recommended Posts

MIB

I thought I saw a post elsewhere a day or two ago by Trogluddite proposing some changes.   It seems like that ties in here.

 

I have a little different view of a path to the same end.

 

What I've already suggested to gumshoeye, which I'll suggest openly here, is putting a limit of 2 posts per person per thread per day.  This means everyone could give well thought out input on essentially any topic but nobody has the opportunity to fuel a flame war.   The difference between my notion and Trogluddite's seems to be how much you're willing to pay to post.   

 

I might even modify my suggestion to include the possibility of additional posts but each of those would require moderator approval.  That would keep us from losing value if something insightful came to someone late in the day.

 

I would also suggest that new threads require moderator approval before anyone can post to them.   This would address the alternating "gotcha" threads which crop up now and then.

 

MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry

The worse category I think would include those that are probably suffering from some sort of schizophrenia. The ones who, if we are to believe that they believe their claims, insist that they communicate with bigfoots or regularly see them up close and often attribute paranormal behavior to bigfoots. Things like cloaking and telepathy and the other more fringe claims made by these people. They are either taking the pretend to a next level, or they are indeed suffering some sort of mental illness.

 

Yeah, I agree.  Years ago we didn't have those folks posting here on the forum but we do now.  And, it's only a matter of time before the Mathew Johnston/Barb & Gabby/Sasquatch Ontario, etc., etc., types with their portals and mind speak begin to become prominant here and chase many of the common sense skeptics away anyway.  I'm starting not to care as the bf world gets goofier and goofier.  I do like hearing the thoughts from woodsmen and clear thinkers though (skeptical or not) and hopefully that will continue for a little while longer...

 

t.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

There is NO distinction for a JREfer between me and shape shifting ESP Bigfoot believer........NONE.

We removed paranormal Bigfoot discussion to its own area.

Whats left? Close our doors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonehead74

Terry,

You realize you are quoting dmaker, not Norseman, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Martin

 

For the time being, I'm predicting the animus displayed lately will tail off.  I am definitely resisting the urge to stir it up, and I think others have as well. Self-regulation is the only strategy that works in the long run.  Imposing external  limits on what should be a free-wheeling scientific discussion seems to me to be the last thing you'd want to do.  

 

^

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stan Norton

^ agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

There is NO distinction for a JREfer between me and shape shifting ESP Bigfoot believer........NONE.

We removed paranormal Bigfoot discussion to its own area.

Whats left? Close our doors?

 

Limit all responses to, "That's possible". Works as a response to every post and can offend no one. Doesn't matter if it references a possible T. Rex vs squatch (squatch wins handily) fight thread witnessed by a knower or a campfire chat post on smore recipes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotter

^that's possible.

 

:-)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crowlogic

The debates rage because the evidence supporting the premise is extraordinarily thin.  Consider that we just went through how many pages of postings concerning an event that happened 15 years ago in the form of the Skookum cast.  It's acceptance as bigfoot evidence always required a dispensing with the known and likely perpetrators for that type of  impression.  If a casual observer had taken the photos and presented them to an impartial audience it's true character would most likely have been ascertained in short order.

 

It is this willingness/necessity to ascribe normal occurrences to the abnormal, as in this case bigfoot, that helps fuel the voices of perhaps sounder reason to speak out in defense of that sounder reasoning.  If the romance for the idea of Bigfoot were to be dispensed with  nearly all, and perhaps all of the arguments for it's existence would evaporate rather quickly.  

 

I don't expect the issue to go on for that much longer.  Already we're seeing a resurgence in the truly bizarre with the likes of the bigfoot portal factions.  It's not surprising since the hopes pinned on the real science of the DNA tests came up empty handed and there hasn't been an extraordinary episode to reinforce the concept for bigfoot in a very long time.

 

The bigfoot proponent is increasingly forced to live in the past of things like the PGF and the classic sightings to bolster belief.  There seems to be a desire on the part of the proponents to cut themselves off from dissonant views which is indicative of a belief system in distress.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

Well that describes you well doesn't it Crow? I'd bet the farm that if you had something tall and furry cross your path at 2 am?

You'd be back to defending the PGF so quick it would make all our heads spin.

Not all of us rely on some sort of public opinion to make up our minds for us.......the answer will all ways be out there, and not in here!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill
 

^that's possible.

 

:-)

That's possible and it's possible I plussed your possibility. Peace is achieved, let the dancing begin. :dancing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

^^^^^

Thats not possible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ohiobill

That's possible, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WSA

Let's just have each member execute a  pledge, as follows:

I (your BFF name here) do solemnly swear or affirm that I will not submit any post for which the premise is my belief in the lack of existence of an animal known as Bigfoot, either stated directly in any said post, or as the underlying rationale for my skepticism in responding to any putative evidence. I further swear or affirm that I will address any such evidence only on its own relative merits, employing only sound scientific precepts, scientific precedents and relevant personal experiences that might explain my position. I will not state, infer or insinuate that my judgment of the evidence is in any way based on a personal belief that the animal is a scientific and biological impossibility, or only an imagined, mythical animal for which no rational individual need refute by analysis or examination of forensic, historic, biologic or anecdotal evidence.

 

To all of our resident self-styled skeptics: Why would this not be a perfectly acceptable pledge to sign? These two sticking points crop up over and over:

 

"I don't accept that BF is real or even possible", and;

"I don't need to address your evidence because BF isn't real."

 

This does tend to stifle civil discourse around here, don't you think?

Edited by WSA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonehead74

The debates rage because the evidence supporting the premise is extraordinarily thin.

I'll concede that point, and I have no desire to stifle honest debate. The problem is absolutists on both sides refuse to concede the slightest possibility that their position may be the incorrect one.

As far as the denialist camp goes, there is a vast gulf fixed between, "I do not find any of the evidence for bigfoot that I have examined compelling enough to accept the creature's existence." and "Bigfoot doesn't (or can't) exist, so any evidence proffered is not and cannot be legitimate."

This difference is my sticking point and WSA did a good job above of elaborating on the idea.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...