Jump to content
norseman

Dont feed the trolls!

Recommended Posts

Starling

Then we're entering a much wider debate then aren't we, hiflier? The current broad social debate that concerns whether or not 'correctness' in our dealings with each other sets the tone of civility we use in the conduct of communication and whether those communications can be positive. It's a debate that is really out with the parameters of the board.

 

I will agree, however, wholeheartedly with your admission that you yourself do not adhere to the strict guidelines of the forum and respectfully suggest then that yourself and others here as much to blame for any erosion of respect. It's always the other guy who is to blame.

 

The real problem is having no wiggle room at all makes for a very humourless and sterile discussion, and simply suggesting people just toughen up a bit princess might be seen as a bridge too far, no?

 

If one can't use words like 'mythical' on a bigfoot forum (and even this is seen as provocation despite the fact that for the vast majority bigfoot is INARGUABLY a myth) how thin-skinned are you and how weak your position? Where would you suggest the word police draw the line?

 

This cuts both ways. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as extreme scepticism. There is only scepticism. If I choose to wield it in a manner that is thorough and exacting and accepts no hypocrisy and no porous, shabby thinking as I see every day here by those who claim they and only they are touched by the light of insight and knowledge and wisdom then as far as I'm concerned I am merely using the tool precisely and correctly. There are plenty of proponents who are members here happy to declare the opposition trolls whilst exhibiting all the hallmarks they use to diagnose the condition. 

 

As I said earlier, I have read-read the forum rules. I suggest others do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigfoothunter
7 hours ago, hiflier said:

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.

 

What you are talking about is the use of a metaphor to express an observation you have made. You can attack the message - just not the messenger. There is a clear difference in a skeptic and a scoffer that we must keep reminding ourselves of.

Edited by Bigfoothunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
5 hours ago, Starling said:

Then we're entering a much wider debate then aren't we, hiflier? The current broad social debate that concerns whether or not 'correctness' in our dealings with each other sets the tone of civility we use in the conduct of communication and whether those communications can be positive. It's a debate that is really out with the parameters of the board.

 

I will agree, however, wholeheartedly with your admission that you yourself do not adhere to the strict guidelines of the forum and respectfully suggest then that yourself and others here as much to blame for any erosion of respect. It's always the other guy who is to blame.

 

The real problem is having no wiggle room at all makes for a very humourless and sterile discussion, and simply suggesting people just toughen up a bit princess might be seen as a bridge too far, no?

 

If one can't use words like 'mythical' on a bigfoot forum (and even this is seen as provocation despite the fact that for the vast majority bigfoot is INARGUABLY a myth) how thin-skinned are you and how weak your position? Where would you suggest the word police draw the line?

 

This cuts both ways. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as extreme scepticism. There is only scepticism. If I choose to wield it in a manner that is thorough and exacting and accepts no hypocrisy and no porous, shabby thinking as I see every day here by those who claim they and only they are touched by the light of insight and knowledge and wisdom then as far as I'm concerned I am merely using the tool precisely and correctly. There are plenty of proponents who are members here happy to declare the opposition trolls whilst exhibiting all the hallmarks they use to diagnose the condition. 

 

As I said earlier, I have read-read the forum rules. I suggest others do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparing Hiflier with some of our worst offenders here is a joke IMO. 

 

Either you have not spent much time posting around him. Or your just anxious to show the other side posts "personal attacks" too.

 

How thin skinned do you need to be to be offended by the term "Pumpkin patch"?

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker

Your example is interesting, WSA. It is clearly offered because in that example you were convinced of your position and your position was the correct one. You were trying to help that person to reach the correct conclusion. This precise point is where things fall apart here. If I point out an alternative explanation for some alleged bigfoot evidence, I am vilified. Skeptical input is rarely seen as helpful in fact or intent. Both sides are convinced of their position, so in each mind their approach and intentions are genuine. This sets up the inevitable clash.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Starling

What's the point of WSA's post if not to highlight his superior wisdom? He casts himself in the role of the wise elder, patiently enduring the ignorance and stupidity of the less enlightened. Why not show true wisdom and tell a story where you were big enough to admit you'd been wrong about something? While your expertise and experience may have proved correct in that instance do you have the wisdom to admit this may not always be the case?

 

Captain Smith was a highly experienced sailor who'd never had a serious incident at sea,  but all that experience worked against him the night he allowed the Titanic plough into an iceberg. 

 

This board is full of the hypocritical stance...footers charging dishonesty and evasion and yet practising it all the time themselves.  So certain of their position, refusing to budget inch, never listening to valid objections.

 

Captain Smiths to a tee. Absolutely right...right up the point their massive ship sinks to the bottom if the sea.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Or my pointing out a Chicago clump of sticks shouldn't become by default a bigfoot structure, for which I was labeled "troll."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Or my pointing out a Chicago clump of sticks shouldn't become by default a bigfoot structure, for which I was labeled "troll."

 

Yes but to be fair, alot of proponents came to your defense and utterly agreed with your conclusion. 

 

What you did wasnt trolling, it was an honest logical opinion IMO.

 

If the stick structure (playing devils advocate) was in a remote Canadian forest with tracks associated with it? While inconclusive it is at least plausible, then I feel if made fun of as ludicrous that would be trolling.

 

This paragraph isnt aimed at you Inc. But what many hardcore skeptics fail to realize is that specialized subject forums such as the BFF live or die on content. And peoples willingness to share that content. And while much of what is shared may be ludicrous, some of it is very interesting and gives the forum life. If your only goal is to bash ANY content shared and demand proof in every post? Then maybe you would be happier if the forum did not exist and you could move on to a UFO forum or a Nessie forum, etc? This is not pointed at anyone. Im just trying to point out that we cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. 

 

1 hour ago, dmaker said:

Your example is interesting, WSA. It is clearly offered because in that example you were convinced of your position and your position was the correct one. You were trying to help that person to reach the correct conclusion. This precise point is where things fall apart here. If I point out an alternative explanation for some alleged bigfoot evidence, I am vilified. Skeptical input is rarely seen as helpful in fact or intent. Both sides are convinced of their position, so in each mind their approach and intentions are genuine. This sets up the inevitable clash.

 

 

Plussed. My only problem is that some alternative explanations are very dogmatic in approach.

 

Case in point lets take Cervelo as an example. I posted up a picture of a green alpine fir sapling twisted off near the top in the Selkirk mtns. I made sure that there wasnt any deadfall close by that could be the culprit. Im 100% sure that it was caused by some animal. A moose or some other tall animal (griz?) or animal that stood on snow pack to do it like a woodland caribou. But there are reports of Sasquatch twisting saplings, so I took a picture and marked the location. No biggie. I dont mince words with what is and is not proof.

 

Cervelo kinda makes fun of my pic and that it could be attributed to Sasquatch and then proceeds to post up volumes of long dead broken hardwoods along his bike path in Virginia. As if that is some sort of comparison? I can post up volumes of broken long dead trees too.... my green sapling was way different and not caused by a natural occurance. If it had been I wouldnt post it.

 

Its stuff like that that makes me want to run my head into the keyboard! And I can see why people just dont share online. For Cervelo it was like he was playing a game of bonk the gopher on the head. As long as he could counter what you shared with anything. He could check his box and tally the score.

 

 

Edited by norseman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
3 hours ago, WSA said:

 The seduction lies in thinking persuasion and appeal to reason will ever turn the trick when your opposition is really only talking to hear their own head roar. Once you grasp the fundamental futility of thinking persuasion will work on this type of advocate, you are going to have to be strong to not just join in the verbal donnybrook, and just instead fold up your brief and walk away.   

 

 

This series of sentences here are Genius.   This will serve me well in life as I go forward when I weigh out the intent of others.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
1 hour ago, Starling said:

What's the point of WSA's post if not to highlight his superior wisdom? He casts himself in the role of the wise elder, patiently enduring the ignorance and stupidity of the less enlightened. 

 

 

 

This sentence really makes me wonder what kind of life experiences some posters have.  I am not talking skeptics and believers.  For instance, Cops, nurses, and so on have a better understanding of what someone may claim having interviewed and interacted with 1,000s of people in the public.  They are not perfect but they get a better read on people or things than someone who works in the basement of an insurance office by themselves for 30 years.

 

To me the issue posted by WSA (which is posted by a learned and real life example kind of person) is illustrating a reality of dealing with certain types of people in certain situations.  The issue as I read it is:

 

1- WSA is a lawyer defending a client with all the duties which go with that

2-  The factual issue did not at all involve WSA client.  Easier to point that out to the other guy and that way we nip this in the bud.   If he later wishes to serve his client by going after the responsible party fine but WSA and his client have no interest to allow the situation to persist.

3-  The guy was blinded by his own position forcing WSA to defend something.  This cost time, effort and money.  

4- In the end the other guy was proven wrong and as a side note, lost the opportunity for his client to recover from the actual party liable for his clients grief.

 

 

To have Starling tell it, Starling seems to have some need to just jumps and chooses to label the learned man offering an example to say he is full of himself.   Starling-missing the larger point- apparently would have the attorney spend clients time and money by not communicating the obvious to the other side. 

 

I hate to say it Starling but to me it seems you either:

 

1- are upset a smart person accomplished in the world and in the area of professional expertise is clear, smart, and concise, in making a point.  Yet that person does not come to the same Bigfoot conclusion as you so they must be attacked as someone coming across as 'wise elder...."    You spend so much time trying to be a skeptic you cant just take a comment about some real world common sense, agree and understand it, and then move on still believing that Bigfoot does not exist.   

2- it is possible you lack the life experiences or work in a career where you are possibly not required to have certain realities, responsibilities and so on as a high level professional dealing in multiple things.  I may be conficts, regulations, interviewing or interacting with people 100s of times a month, and so on.  Most professional deal in various conflicts on a regular basis.

 

Most accountants, nurses, lawyers, plumbers, or whatever would clearly understand what WSA is saying here in his example.  They experience things like this all the time while some others will go their whole career never having experiences like that but only a few times their entire life.   These are the interactions of many professionals from many walks of life have in the day to day world.   

 

I am not trying to pick a fight or anything.  It just seems to me this is such an obvious thing not worth looking to make it anything more that it is. --->   Wise elder basically looking down on others.  I don't think so.  

 

 

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


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

Then we're entering a much wider debate then aren't we, hiflier?

 

Not really, Starling. You are intelligent and smart as your recent posts here have demonstrated- better by far than what you post elsewhere in tone as well as in your attempts to reason with others. You mentioned this:

 

10 hours ago, Starling said:

If one can't use words like 'mythical' on a bigfoot forum (and even this is seen as provocation despite the fact that for the vast majority bigfoot is INARGUABLY a myth) how thin-skinned are you and how weak your position?

 

Whether I'm thin skinned or not- and folks in the Tar Pit will tell you- I can hold my own, as you know from our own exchanges. And so can you, but you and I getting into a pissing contest every time we engage is pointless. WRT the use of the word 'mythical, there are subtleties that intelligent people are aware of here on both sides of a debate.  Just calling something mythical instead of saying "I think it's mythical" places the barb that I am somehow following some fantasy. And even if the 'vast majority' thinks Sasquatch IS a myth then anyone comeing here to engage someone might do better by saying, "Look I think Sasquatch is a myth". And once people see where one stands then let it go. I have read the word 'mythical' coming from skeptics many, many times. But mostly the overuse of the word is purposefully employed to send the 'you believe in a fantasy' message.

 

I really don't think I need to spell this kind of methodology out for you do I? You are already keenly aware of these kinds of mechanisms in debate situations. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have thick or thin skin. And it really has nothing to do with whether or not Sasquatch is a myth. It goes far beyond that.The use of such triggers as 'mythical' does pretty well for setting the tone and the stage for head butting. It sends a message that one is looking for a fight. Subtle? Sure it is- but then that's the game isn't it? Oh, and I have not put you on ignore, Starling ;) I read your real post not the fully quoted one. Debate is cool. I'm 68 years old and still appreciate a good healthy one in which questions from both sides get asked and good logical reasons for why something is or isn't gets explained. That's the best game in town as far as I'm concerned.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dmaker
1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

  Wise elder basically looking down on others.  I don't think so.

 

Then you need to read more posts by WSA. Pedantry and finger waving are constant themes in his rhetoric.

 

Edited by dmaker
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TritonTr196

When a forum is ran like facebook, you're gonna have a lot of problems like this. People come on here and talk a kinds of nonsense. Well, you can't call people out on it because it's against the rules. So this is why no good stuff is posted on here anymore. I mean when the only ongoing topics are utterly useless in the real Bigfoot research world, why bother.  I log on here every day just hoping there might be a new thread about "actual" field research but no, it's all talking about Patty, telepathy, and stuff like cavemen, it's not even like it's a "Bigfoot" forum anymore. Anytime a good subject is brought up it dies out within a page or two. Everything else is mostly people bickering back and forth with no substantial matter coming of it. If most of the people on this forum actually went out and did field research for more than an hour in their backyards, then there would be some good stuff talked about. I don't do the politically correct joke thing and don't plan on starting. But I'm man enough to follow the rules if I want to be here no matter how much I want to troll some of these threads. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
8 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Then you need to read more posts by WSA. Pedantry and finger waving are constant themes in his rhetoric.

 

 

Known associate of the previous Foghorn Leghorn character, lately absent from the forum.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×