Jump to content
norseman

Dont feed the trolls!

Recommended Posts

Starling

If you'd read my post you'll see that at no point did I state bigfoot could not exist.

 

Also, I'm not interested in what makes anyone tick. My interest is in the nature of belief and how it shapes our view of nature. You don't like that? You don't understand? My response is, so what?

 

I engage with exactly same evidence you and everyone else here does. I have been insulted, belittled and my character called into question but I haven't yet put anyone on ignore because I'm a grown up and understand real debate invites rough and tumble. You only want to engage with those who tow the party line? You want to crush anyone who is as passionate about keeping you honest as you are about your big monkey?

 

 

Go ahead. I'd defend anyone's right to hit the ignore button. 

 

But let's be clear here. Pounding your chest and sneering that those who disagree are all ignorant and misinformed sounds kind of trolly to me Norseman. And I've seen enough logical fallacies from footers here to sink a ship. I could write an equally valid missive as the one you linked to, arguing that people who casually brand others who challenge their 'facts' and their beliefs, who attempt to tar them all with same brush are as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as any Troll.

And one final thing...the poster who stated that the subject In the PGF has been proven genuine. You better contact the scientific community right away. Because if what you're saying is factually correct...the debate is over.

 

And that statement WAS factually correct?

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

What? Please clarify as I am the OP?

 

Sorry Norse, I was not clear. I meant the OP of the posting in the General forum, where he contends the clutter of sticks was created by bigfoot, in Chicago. I became a "troll" for casting doubt the stick thing was, by default, a sasquatch creation.

Edited by Incorrigible1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
7 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

Sorry Norse, I was not clear. I meant the OP of the posting in the General forum, where he contends the clutter of sticks was created by bigfoot, in Chicago. I became a "troll" for casting doubt the stick thing was, by default, a sasquatch creation.

 

I knew I wasnt reading that right! Thanks bud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NathanFooter

There is a few key points in a conversation to point out when someone is trolling simply to exemplify that they are no longer part of a conversation but now part of a game.

 

The best way to deal with trolls is to pretend they don't exist.       They want a reaction or a chance to ,,educate you ,, on what ( they think ) is wrong with your opinion and why.

 

 Any way you cut that deck of cards it all boils down to self importance.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
26 minutes ago, Starling said:

If you'd read my post you'll see that at no point did I state bigfoot could not exist.

 

Also, I'm not interested in what makes anyone tick. My interest is in the nature of belief and how it shapes our view of nature. You don't like that? You don't understand? My response is, so what?

 

I engage with exactly same evidence you and everyone else here does. I have been insulted, belittled and my character called into question but I haven't yet put anyone on ignore because I'm a grown up and understand real debate invites rough and tumble. You only want to engage with those who tow the party line? You want to crush anyone who is as passionate about keeping you honest as you are about your big monkey?

 

 

Go ahead. I'd defend anyone's right to hit the ignore button. 

 

But let's be clear here. Pounding your chest and sneering that those who disagree are all ignorant and misinformed sounds kind of trolly to me Norseman. And I've seen enough logical fallacies from footers here to sink a ship. I could write an equally valid missive as the one you linked to, arguing that people who casually brand others who challenge their 'facts' and their beliefs, who attempt to tar them all with same brush are as guilty of intellectual dishonesty as any Troll.

And one final thing...the poster who stated that the subject In the PGF has been proven genuine. You better contact the scientific community right away. Because if what you're saying is factually correct...the debate is over.

 

And that statement WAS factually correct?

Right?

 

No. Wrong. Science needs physical evidence. The PGF will never fill that void. I would argue that I am one of the most vocal forumites for physical evidence. No matter how compelling I find the PGF? Its not proof.

 

And Im not beating my chest or trolling you. But Im not so sure your not "monkey" trolling me.....

 

But if you defend people's right to hit the "ignore" button? You are in agreement with the basic tenet of this thread and why I posted it. 

 

Cheers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

This is an interesting statement, of Starling's...

 

Quote

 I think the talk above about how the PGF has essentially been proven shows the extremes of cultish investment some here have made in the myth of Bigfoot being real.

 

Interesting to me, because it sounds just like kitakaze talking.  

 

Aside from that, though....it's also interesting because that statement makes a great case for why some extremist skeptics...(like Starling).....have no place on a Bigfoot Discussion Board. Starling reacts with hostility towards someone claiming the evidence contained within the PGF is extremely strong, and effectively proves the film subject is a real creature. 

 

If pro-Bigfoot evidence, presented on a Bigfoot forum....causes someone to react with hostility towards others....then that person is posting on the wrong forum.   

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
21 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

This is an interesting statement, of Starling's...

 

 

Interesting to me, because it sounds just like kitakaze talking.  

 

Aside from that, though....it's also interesting because that statement makes a great case for why some extremist skeptics...(like Starling).....have no place on a Bigfoot Discussion Board. Starling reacts with hostility towards someone claiming the evidence contained within the PGF is extremely strong, and effectively proves the film subject is a real creature. 

 

If pro-Bigfoot evidence, presented on a Bigfoot forum....causes someone to react with hostility towards others....then that person is posting on the wrong forum.   

 

 

That is unequivocally wrong IMO.  If they are not breaking the rules of the forum to the extent of getting banned then they should be welcome to post here, this forum does not discourage debate.   IMO, if the mods and admins allow them to exist here then they have a place here simple as that. 

 

What is also a right for an individual is to ignore someone and even when coming across their posts in a quote by someone else, thats right, just skip that post as well.   

 

Edit: I am differentiating between Starling as an extremist skeptic in SY post vs an all out troll.  

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
20 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

That is unequivocally wrong IMO.  If they are not breaking the rules of the forum to the extent of getting banned then they should be welcome to post here, this forum does not discourage debate.   IMO, if the mods and admins allow them to exist here then they have a place here simple as that. 

 

 

First off, Twist.....using a word such as "cult" or "cultish" is a violation of this Forum's rules.

 

It characterizes a member's ability to think, or their manner of thinking, as being inferior, or exceptionally limited. It's a personal attack.....as opposed to an attack on the truthfulness or accuracy of one's proposals

 

Secondly, as I explained in my post....an attitude of hostility towards other members of a Bigfoot Discussion Board...simply because they claim there is "proof" that the PGF shows a real, live Bigfoot....is most assuredly, and without question, a sign that you are not on the right Forum....for you.....or for anyone else's sake/benefit.

 

Quote

....this forum does not discourage debate. 

 

 

'Personal attacks' do not qualify as "debate".

 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
14 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

That is unequivocally wrong IMO.  If they are not breaking the rules of the forum to the extent of getting banned then they should be welcome to post here, this forum does not discourage debate.   IMO, if the mods and admins allow them to exist here then they have a place here simple as that. 

 

What is also a right for an individual is to ignore someone and even when coming across their posts in a quote by someone else, thats right, just skip that post as well.   

 

Edit: I am differentiating between Starling as an extremist skeptic in SY post vs an all out troll.  

 

I dont think its completely wrong.

 

A member of PETA being hostile on a hunting forum is a predictable outcome. 

 

I dont really understand the draw to join a forum that fundamentally your opposed to.

 

But this forum does allow for hard skeptics so long as they follow the rules. And its peoples right to place others on ignore they so not want to engage.

 

I have people who i would call friends here who are skeptics. They also treat the subject with respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
9 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

First off, Twist.....using a word such as "cult" or "cultish" is a violation of this Forum's rules.

 

It characterizes a member's ability to think, or their manner of thinking, as being inferior, or exceptionally limited. It's a personal attack.....as opposed to an attack on the truthfulness or accuracy of one's proposals

 

Secondly, as I explained in my post....an attitude of hostility towards other members of a Bigfoot Discussion Board...simply because they claim there is "proof" that the PGF shows a real, live Bigfoot....is most assuredly, and without question, a sign that you are not on the right Forum....for you.....or for anyone else's sake/benefit.

 

 

 

'Personal attacks' do not qualify as "debate", or as "discussion". 

 

 

 

 

The forum admins and mods are the judge, jury, and executioners.  Who they allow here is who has a place here.  They have banned both skeptics and proponents just in the last year for what they determined was detrimental and against the forum rules. 

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

I dont think its completely wrong.

 

A member of PETA being hostile on a hunting forum is a predictable outcome. 

 

I dont really understand the draw to join a forum that fundamentally your opposed to.

 

But this forum does allow for hard skeptics so long as they follow the rules. And its peoples right to place others on ignore they so not want to engage.

 

I have people who i would call friends here who are skeptics. They also treat the subject with respect.

 

 

Bold:  I agree the outcome is predictable and I would expect admins/mods to control the situation once elevated beyond forum rules.  Same as here. 

 

Italicized:  I dont understand it either if your only goal/reason to be here is trolling but different strokes for different folks is the best I got for "why"

 

I agree with the rest.   

 

 

EDIT:  For the record, I have no issues with the BFF forums or admin team, I visit a vast number of forums for various reasons and find this one to be well run in regards to a potentially controversial topic.  Just putting that out there lol  

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
8 minutes ago, Twist said:

 

The forum admins and mods are the judge, jury, and executioners.  Who they allow here is who has a place here. 

 

 

I am talking about a principle, Twist....not how the BFF is currently being run. 

 

I think that the principle I described....if followed....would lead to a better Bigfoot discussion board....for those who truly love the subject of Bigfoot....(and other Bigfooters).....and give the subject/mystery of Bigfoot some level of credence

 

Edited to add:

 

Btw, Twist....you're starting to sound like a skeptic, again. ;) 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist
5 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

I am talking about a principle, Twist....not how the BFF is currently being run. 

 

I think that the principle I described....if followed....would lead to a better Bigfoot discussion board....for those who truly love the subject of Bigfoot....(and other Bigfooters).....and give the subject/mystery of Bigfoot some level of credence

 

I can respect that and have no argument that for proponents it would be more conducive to sharing information with no static by skeptics / skoftics.  

 

My argument has been about this board and how it is currently ran.   

Edited by Twist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
11 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

I dont think its completely wrong.

 

A member of PETA being hostile on a hunting forum is a predictable outcome. 

 

I dont really understand the draw to join a forum that fundamentally your opposed to.

 

But this forum does allow for hard skeptics so long as they follow the rules. And its peoples right to place others on ignore they so not want to engage.

 

I have people who i would call friends here who are skeptics. They also treat the subject with respect.

 

 

I have no problem, or objection, to talking with moderate skeptics, norse.  It is the extremist skeptics...(which, from what I have seen over the years....comprises a majority of the skeptics on the forum)....that I take issue with.  

 

I have explained my thinking, regarding those "fine folk".  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I do not have any problem with any skeptic that has weighed the evidence carefully and politely says "I dont think so". And argues why.

 

Thats different than someone simply interested in whacking the hornets nest out of boredom or ego or lack of decency. Or making you feel like a kook because you might think there is something out there.

 

Intent is important for me.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
4 hours ago, Starling said:

You want to crush anyone who is as passionate about keeping you honest as you are about your big monkey?

 

4 hours ago, Starling said:

Pounding your chest and sneering..........

 

Some folks just cannot stop or even attempt to tone things down. It's just not going to happen. Start a decent post and then toss this kind of garbage in tells me there's no interest is dialoguing with respect. And respect is the chief principle is it not? For the record I too have not, and never have, put anyone on ignore because I think everyone has something to say And I should be at least respectful enough to SEE what people have to say. But if what they are saying, and this goes both ways, is spilling over into taking pot shots at someone's character then no one benefits. This PGF board is loaded with nastiness on nearly every thread. Totally unnecessary. Proponents and opponents alike understand fully how little it takes to create head butting slams which are usually pointless for advancing any common ground or civil debate. Keeping to the subject without including an opinion of the person is, in a perfect world, the way to go. Maybe it's time to give that a serious try and stay awake to that methodology when typing a post.    

 

Look, I've just as guilty in my treatment of skeptics as they have been of me. I've called them the Pumpkin Patch. It's probably inflammatory and is not a good way to lead to any meeting of the minds or sensible respectful discussion. However, I have also commented that I have even enjoyed light engagement with a couple of them which has yet to be acknowledged.  When dialogue gets tainted with subtle to obvious barbs and jabs where people are called ignorant or clueless or using a word as seemingly innocuous as 'mythical' then it starts saying things in subtle ways that if allowed to accumulate unmet gets worse. But meeting such digs will inevitably escalate the situation as each stand their ground and give back what's dished out. We as adults and can, and should, do much better.

 

Tell you one thing, if a skeptic strays from the principle of respect, and starts off like the two quotes above? Then as mild as they seem to be, compared to the usual MO, I will mention why I took issue with such a dialogue.    

Edited by hiflier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×