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

[Guest Stan Norton]

Indeed. Take a sample of posts here and compare them to a sample from the other place. I'm willing to take a stab that the second sample will contain more absolutist statements than the first. And which is the self-proclaimed sceptical forum?

 

The core of intelligent discussion on this forum revolves around possibilities not absolutes. That is when the BFF performs at its best: for me, the denialists suck the good out of it whereas the knowing proponents just raise my eyebrow or elicit a wry grin.

 

There's a good quotation somewhere from Sir Clive Woodward, ex England Rugby World Cup winning coach. It sums up the effects of energy sappers and energy givers and how a team which includes the former is likely to fail.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I'm not sure whether the opponent positioning and it's input has any material effect on the matter.  It may ruffle feathers and it might make some uncomfortable but has it ever stopped anyone from pursuing the issue?  

 

The bigfoot question is not unlike the old argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Consider we have pin heads and we have historical accounts and renditions of angels.  There must be something to it.  Why would all of those artists over the past 2000 years draw and paint angels if there wasn't some base of reality to it.  The renditions are consistent too.  Why would people deny the issue of angles there's a lot of historical data to back it up?  A lot of people claim to encounter angels can they all be lying, mistaken or making it up?  Therein lies the core of the proponent/antagonist argument points.  As far as I know nobody has ever collect a feather from the wing of and angel so there isn't any hard proof.  It seems to be about the same situation for bigfoot belief.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Yuchi1]

IMO, the cult(ish) environment created by either extreme of the discussion is what many have grown weary of as well as dealing with the incessant SS/DD postulations from those quarters.

 

The symbiotic relationship these two groups appear to exhibit is probably why both expend tremendous time and energy with clamoring for the support of those in the middle.

 

Those of us that had the good (or, bad) fortune to experience an encounter with ( insert your favorite homind term) as a group, tend to exhibit a level of understanding that neither of the aforementioned extremists will ever attain.

 

IMO, the only rule that would have any hope of restoring balance is one that requires strict adherence to the OP of a particular thread.  That way, when the derailers/trolls come into the mix, they would either be excised out (of the thread) or forced to start their own thread (for that particular tangential topic) and it would either grow it's own roots or die on the vine from the malady of irrelevance.

 

Part of the reason I voted to make the forum (active posting priviliges) a paid subscription as stakeholders (especially with this topic) would stand the best chance of meaningful discourse.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Yuchi1

[Rockape]

I'm not sure whether the opponent positioning and it's input has any material effect on the matter.  It may ruffle feathers and it might make some uncomfortable but has it ever stopped anyone from pursuing the issue?  

 

The bigfoot question is not unlike the old argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Consider we have pin heads and we have historical accounts and renditions of angels.  There must be something to it.  Why would all of those artists over the past 2000 years draw and paint angels if there wasn't some base of reality to it.  The renditions are consistent too.  Why would people deny the issue of angles there's a lot of historical data to back it up?  A lot of people claim to encounter angels can they all be lying, mistaken or making it up?  Therein lies the core of the proponent/antagonist argument points.  As far as I know nobody has ever collect a feather from the wing of and angel so there isn't any hard proof.  It seems to be about the same situation for bigfoot belief.

 

I'm just glad someone here has finally spoken up and told us there is no evidence that bigfoot exists, that it is nothing more than fanciful imagination, that believing bigfoot exists is the same as thinking angels exist.

 

No one has ever told us that before. It must have took a lot of courage for you to speak up like this.

 

I guess we can close the forum now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

[hiflier]

Hello Yuch1,

It does seem that lately I've had to ask posters to remain on topic more. Straying is normal in any discourse but if someone starts a thread I think it prudent for the OP themselves to make the attempt to keep their thread in target. If it was important enough for someone to start a new thread then it should be just as important for the OP to help things stay the course in order that the idea maintains a good thought flow until the either the idea is played out or the OP is satisfied that the subject has resulted a better understanding of whatever the topic was that was presented.

Bottom line is if the tread is to stay on track then the OP probably needs to issue some timely reminders here and there in a way that doesn't stifle a bit of normal sidetracking. Bringing the discussion back onto the topic isn't hard and most folks will get and appreciate the effort and intention.

Edited August 24, 2015 by hiflier

[gigantor]

I'm not sure whether the opponent positioning and it's input has any material effect on the matter.  It may ruffle feathers and it might make some uncomfortable but has it ever stopped anyone from pursuing the issue?

I agree, other than some members being offended and leaving on their own, the answer is no. Yet you are trying to weasel out of the real issue, which is that it has stopped members from participating in the BFF, thus injuring it.

 

The bigfoot question is not unlike the old argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

So is string "theory", the difference is that dorky fantasies are labeled scientific, when in fact they are not.

 

As far as I know nobody has ever collect a feather from the wing of and angel so there isn't any hard proof.  It seems to be about the same situation for bigfoot belief.

Nobody has ever solved string theory equations either, much less even proposed a way to confirm the theory experimentally, so it's all just belief, just like BF.

The question we are asking here is whether trollish behavior like the one you excibit here, should be tolerated. I think more aggressive moderation is in order.

Edited August 24, 2015 by gigantor

[hiflier]

Hello Rockape,

THANK YOU! I'm one of those followers that just keeps mindlessly hanging on for no good reason, following the crowd, until someone gives me permission to quit

WHEW! I'm going to take a nap now

[gigantor]

IMO, the only rule that would have any hope of restoring balance is one that requires strict adherence to the OP of a particular thread.  That way, when the derailers/trolls come into the mix, they would either be excised out (of the thread) or forced to start their own thread (for that particular tangential topic) and it would either grow it's own roots or die on the vine from the malady of irrelevance.

 

I agree and the mods have the technical tools to ban a member from a specific thread. It's not an all or nothing situation.

 

[Rockape]

Hello Rockape,

THANK YOU! I'm one of those followers that just keeps mindlessly hanging on for no good reason, following the crowd, until someone gives me permission to quit

WHEW! I'm going to take a nap now

 

Yeah, me too. I'm so glad Crowlogic finally relieved us of our burden. All this time I though Bigfoot was a scientific fact. I thought I had seen one at the zoo. Must have been a bear instead. Imagine all the time we can save now since there is no more need for this forum. Enjoy your nap.

[Terry]

Terry,

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

Thanks!  I didn't notice.  Apologies Norseman and dmaker!  Thanks again Bonehead!

 

t,

[Guest Crowlogic]

 

I'm not sure whether the opponent positioning and it's input has any material effect on the matter.  It may ruffle feathers and it might make some uncomfortable but has it ever stopped anyone from pursuing the issue?  

 

The bigfoot question is not unlike the old argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Consider we have pin heads and we have historical accounts and renditions of angels.  There must be something to it.  Why would all of those artists over the past 2000 years draw and paint angels if there wasn't some base of reality to it.  The renditions are consistent too.  Why would people deny the issue of angles there's a lot of historical data to back it up?  A lot of people claim to encounter angels can they all be lying, mistaken or making it up?  Therein lies the core of the proponent/antagonist argument points.  As far as I know nobody has ever collect a feather from the wing of and angel so there isn't any hard proof.  It seems to be about the same situation for bigfoot belief.

 

I'm just glad someone here has finally spoken up and told us there is no evidence that bigfoot exists, that it is nothing more than fanciful imagination, that believing bigfoot exists is the same as thinking angels exist.

 

No one has ever told us that before. It must have took a lot of courage for you to speak up like this.

 

I guess we can close the forum now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

 

Woah Rockape I have relieved myself of the burden, although I sense the burden is still being carried about by many folks.  I have presented a parallel that echos  many of the bigfoot arguments.  Indeed a belief in bigfoot based on stories and descriptions alone is no different from a belief in angels.  Now there are folks who swear they have had encounters with angels.  Right now we don't have that long awaited  piece of evidence that nails bigfoot to the catalog of known and confirmed species.  .

Actually since angels are not considered a corporeal beings they have a bit of a leg up on bigfoot.  However Dr. Mathew  is doing a bang up job of getting biggie out of the material world proper and then the good times will roll again.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Crowlogic

[hiflier]

Hello Rockape,

I will but before I do I know I'll sleep better after I sell my trail cam, NV gear, bug spray, bear spray, spotting scope, recorder........

@ Crowlogic,

I'm just teasing here of course. Personally I'm glad you're a member as when I read your posts it helps keep me honest by keeping me focused on things that hopefully better help any progress on the BF issue. The goal for me is to rule it in, or rule it out. If it exists great, if it doesn't great. This middle of the road stuff gets pretty tedious. Just saying it's good to have you. In truth if were to come to pass that BF was proved to be real I don't think you'd be all that surprised. At least not as surprised as some.

OK, maybe I'll hang onto my gear for a while longer, can't hurt- it's paid for after all. And now......a nap; and dream of big gnarly 18" footprints......YAWN....

Edited August 24, 2015 by hiflier

[Rockape]

Woah Rockape I have relieved myself of the burden, although I sense the burden is still being carried about by many folks.  I have presented a parallel that echos  many of the bigfoot arguments.  Indeed a belief in bigfoot based on stories and descriptions alone is no different from a belief in angels.  Now there are folks who swear they have had encounters with angels.  Right now we don't have that long awaited  piece of evidence that nails bigfoot to the catalog of known and confirmed species.  .

 

 

Yes, and we again thank for bringing that to our attention. No one has ever came here before and said bigfoot doesn't exist. You're breaking new ground. You are a trailblazer. You are our hero. You are the wind beneath our wings.

[norseman]

I'm not sure whether the opponent positioning and it's input has any material effect on the matter.  It may ruffle feathers and it might make some uncomfortable but has it ever stopped anyone from pursuing the issue?  

 

The bigfoot question is not unlike the old argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Consider we have pin heads and we have historical accounts and renditions of angels.  There must be something to it.  Why would all of those artists over the past 2000 years draw and paint angels if there wasn't some base of reality to it.  The renditions are consistent too.  Why would people deny the issue of angles there's a lot of historical data to back it up?  A lot of people claim to encounter angels can they all be lying, mistaken or making it up?  Therein lies the core of the proponent/antagonist argument points.  As far as I know nobody has ever collect a feather from the wing of and angel so there isn't any hard proof.  It seems to be about the same situation for bigfoot belief.

 

I'm just glad someone here has finally spoken up and told us there is no evidence that bigfoot exists, that it is nothing more than fanciful imagination, that believing bigfoot exists is the same as thinking angels exist.

 

No one has ever told us that before. It must have took a lot of courage for you to speak up like this.

 

I guess we can close the forum now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

Woah Rockape I have relieved myself of the burden, although I sense the burden is still being carried about by many folks.  I have presented a parallel that echos  many of the bigfoot arguments.  Indeed a belief in bigfoot based on stories and descriptions alone is no different from a belief in angels.  Now there are folks who swear they have had encounters with angels.  Right now we don't have that long awaited  piece of evidence that nails bigfoot to the catalog of known and confirmed species.  .

Actually since angels are not considered a corporeal beings they have a bit of a leg up on bigfoot.  However Dr. Mathew  is doing a bang up job of getting biggie out of the material world proper and then the good times will roll again.

Is there ANY subject on the BFF that you are not willing to twist into a debate about existence.

I know what your going to say before you even say it!!!

[Guest]

I have not been here very long but have discovered that skeptics are treated like blasphemers even by members of the steering committee.

 

 

excuse my temerity by asking for "plausible" explanations instead of crackpot theories