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

[Redbone]

I'd say anybody can take whatever position they believe in, as long as they can manage to do so with some amount of respect for the views of others. Labeling something as a 'crackpot theory' suggests that there is little respect for the person with the opposing view. 

[Rockape]

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

This steering committee member is a skeptic. I think you mean scofftics.

[norseman]

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

This steering committee member is a skeptic. I think you mean scofftics.

I considered Dmaker and Saskeptic friends.........

[Rockape]

Didn't know saskeptic very well but I always liked Dmaker. Never had any problem with Kit or Squatty. But then, they aren't here constantly derailing threads.

[Bonehead74]

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

The Steering Committee is comprised of regular members who have been elected to their volunteer positions. That does not preclude them from freely voicing their opinions. They have no disciplinary or moderation authority, just so you're aware.

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

One person's "plausible" is another's "not a chance". Even if the data could somehow be 100% objective, any individual's interpretation of that data, as well as any conclusions drawn from that interpretation, will always be subjective. How do you define "crackpot theories"? Is it simply any theory you disagree with or are there varying levels of "pre-crackpotism"?

[Trogluddite]

Bonehead,

 

      Very good original post and I have also been pondering “if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF.† Not because of the $$ cost but because of the tremendous amount of time spent wading through insistent factions arguing rather than discussing or debating or shedding light on any particular issue.  I certainly see no reason to fund a site just to wade through detritus piled on by those who choose to engage in flame wars that clog up every discussion thread, but don’t feel any obligation to either help shoulder the burden or to refrain from abusing something they enjoy for free.

 

 

.... Across the internet, this realization has dawned on any number of communities who started with the idea of forming a consensus through reasoned discourse. ....

 

            Even baseball blogs have ended up in bitterly divided camps of optimistic fans, pessimistic fans, and sabremetricians who can’t seem to get along. 

 

I thought I saw a post elsewhere a day or two ago by Trogluddite proposing some changes.  .....

 

I'll suggest openly here, is putting a limit of 2 posts per person per thread per 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

 

MIB, thanks – I wasn’t trying to change the Forums, just offer one possible solution to a problem that I thought was still an issue.  What you are highlighting, I believe, is the issue that posting is free except for time.  It might cost one poster an hour to put together a reasonably well-thought out and coherent post on a topic, such as the game-cam problem.  That poster is willing to spend that cost and hopes that others will respond likewise.  Instead, some posters are willing to spend little time, but to post over and over again repeating incantations that they somehow believe shows that their faction “won†the debate, which often don’t even relate to the original post.

 

I’m no expert at running blogs, but it seems that you have to impose a cost (whether through dollars or posting limits/restrictions) that force individuals to consider spending their limited capital wisely when posting.

 

I second the idea of requiring management approval on starting threads, although there could be a non-management “tier,†if I may use that word, of pre-approved members who have proven their ability to start well-reasoned and researched threads.

 

.... 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 would think that certain pro-positions would also chase away “common sense†proponents. (Which I think is what you just said in the next few lines.)

 

....

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

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

 

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

 

WSA, why wouldn’t your pledge be required for the True Believers as well?  (The Knowers need not pledge.)

 

....

 

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. ...

 

Also a good point about staying on the OP.   

[norseman]

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

And another thing that I detect in your post.

THE BFF IS NOT A RESEARCH ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!

Where does this sense of entitlement come from? I dont really care about what you "ask" for........

This forum exists as a place to discuss Bigfoot! Its not a place were proponents scurry around to collect evidence to "convince" people who dont believe the creature exists in the first place.

If you find this subject to be a "crackpot" theory? I encourage you to go join the ISF (if you are not already) and scream and shout at fellow skeptics in wonderful subjects like"Are Bigfooters delusional, liars or mistaken"?

And if you truly do find this subject interesting despite your skepticism then maybe you'll stay and become a productive member to the subject!

[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.

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!!!

 

In a curious way you arrived at a knowledge point by reading my threads and posts.  You now know something about me and my perceptions of the subject at hand.  You make a telling statement of knowing how my posts will go.  This sense of knowing before hand is exactly the same point where I arrived concerning the reality and modality of the bigfoot question.  I read and observed over the course of a number of decades plus the 8 or nine years I've been a member of this community and I too arrived at a point of knowing.  This point of knowing came like all knowledge observing patterns and the results within the patterns.  I'm glad you know me because I don't have to contend with the idea some have that I secretly hope or expect bigfoot to be real or found out to be real.   If you go back to the beginning of every thread where there was a big expectation, proof or announcement most likely you'll find that my unpopular or unflattering position was in line with the final outcome.  I knew it the same way you know me.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Crowlogic

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^

And you dont think that we were all in the boat with you??? So now your cynical, and so now we all have to listen to your cynical posts day in and out. Why? I guess I' ll never understand your motivation.

If I was in your boots where my mind had been made up for me that this subject is a bunch of horse manure? I would join a fly fishing forum or something......gee whiz.

[Faenor]

As dwa would say claiming "bigfoot does not exist" is a crackpot theory

But in my opinion anything with aliens, mind power, ir vision, government conspiracy can be lumped under the umbrella of crackpot theory

[Trogluddite]

.....

THE BFF IS NOT A RESEARCH ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!

 

Perhaps not.  Perhaps it will successfully roll along for many years operating as the best little "woo-house" in Texas.  However, there was a time when it was possible for people interested in researching Bigfoot could find information of value in the general forums.  That seems to have faded into the morass described in the OP.  While there are still members interested in having critical discussions and weighing evidence at least somewhat impartially, it feels like you have to search harder and harder to find them and you have to have your discussions quickly before a thread becomes derailed. 

 

If the BFF's goal/core mission is to be just another internet coffee chat club social gathering where people can discuss Bigfoot, perhaps it should make that clear and drop other pretensions, like the SSR, or moderating threads to ensure that discussions stay on point.

 

Just feels like trying to ride two horses going in opposite directions w/one saddle. 

[gigantor]

The SSR is not a "pretension".

[Yuchi1]

^^^  I also remember a time (BFF 1.0) when this place was a veritable box canyon where those positing things such as personal sightings/encounters would be immediately bushwhacked by the cadre of resident experts/skofftics, et. al. with a firestorm of vitriol. 

 

IMO, commercialization of the endeavor with cable TV productions and various "research" groups engaged in apparent monetary gain activities such as symposiums, field "expeditions", literary products and even some taking the non-profit(able) route pursuing the grant M.O. all while posturing as valid and credible entities and/or endeavors.  This mining of the miners has likely contributed to the current state of malaise within the BF realm as even the most ardent believers have had their faith sorely tested.

 

IMO, those lacking a FTF sighting/encounter are at a decided disadvantage when discussing a topic of which they have no practical experience thereof. This is not a condemnation of those individuals rather, an appeal that they get afield and seek out the subject matter realizing that when they aren't looking for an encounter, is when it will occur. There is a huge forest out there among all those trees.

[roguefooter]

^^^^^^^^

And you dont think that we were all in the boat with you??? So now your cynical, and so now we all have to listen to your cynical posts day in and out. Why? I guess I' ll never understand your motivation.

If I was in your boots where my mind had been made up for me that this subject is a bunch of horse manure? I would join a fly fishing forum or something......gee whiz.

 

Why not just put him on ignore? That's what it's for.

[beerhunter]

I have been posting and reading less on the BFF because of the silly argument loops that seem to go on page after page. My position verses yours. I have been as guilty as anyone in the argument loops, but then I realized it was an argument loop which was going nowhere but in circles and I jumped out of it. It seemed multiple threads went that way - page after page. I try my best to recognize argument loops and I will try to stay away from them. Argument loops derail threads and it's sad because we know each others position on the general subject of BF and still need to argue and have the last word.