What's A Skeptic?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Ace ~ i really don't think with the currant atmosphere within the forum we are going to get any new reports or research info, thats something i have been speaking about since the last version of this forum, it is only worse now so don't hold ya breath waiting for new reports of any kind.

[Guest]

That would be too bad, because then there would be much less left to talk about. The way to sway a skeptic is to present strong evidence. I hope that happens.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

The best reports are the sightings i think but it is just impossible to convey any evidence of that to folks that want DNA samples or solid pictures, there has to be some trust or faith given to the person that had the sighting and all talk should be respectful toward the person giving the report, no attitudes or demands just sitting at the bar face to face type talk, no one on wants to be taken as a fool so the best way is to talk and listen ask questions that can be answered according to the persons report, if some one sees a BF run across the road and disappear into the forest asking that person what he was doing an hour before the sighting is pretty much just a smack in the mouth in my book cause it is insinuating you think the person was high or something and thats the attitude that just turns folks off. we have a few really good skeptic's here that ask the good questions and then we have some that just like to be smart *****, you mods got to sort threw that and straighten this mess out.

Edited October 4, 2010 by RedRatSnake

[kbhunter]

Ace ~ i really don't think with the currant atmosphere within the forum we are going to get any new reports or research info, thats something i have been speaking about since the last version of this forum, it is only worse now so don't hold ya breath waiting for new reports of any kind.

I agree RRS. Folks that come wanting to share their experiences many times don't because of the way some here are treated. I know many that has happened to. I think there needs to be place just to post reports period, without any debates.

[Guest]

RRS, likewise, we have some believers here that just like to be smart *****. Do you also suggest that we MODS sort through that and straighten that mess out, too.

kbhunter, we have a thread in the Sightings section for members to post their reports, it is a debate free thread.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Yes everyone needs to cooperate in order to get the forum to work and be a place that is fun to log into, if folks are getting crap there not going to come here and participate or will come here with an attitude and thats not what the forum needs ~

Edit : i ain't no different i got a warning cause i came out too strong and got on folks that pestered me in the past, i talk from experience and see a need for everyone to help this work.

Edited October 4, 2010 by RedRatSnake

[Guest]

if folks are getting crap there not going to come here

Is there any recourse to call people out who are giving crap?

A lot of people come to a site like this to learn about bigfoot. They might want to figure out if there is anything to all this bigfoot stuff. If all they read is uncritical claims about "bigfoots do this" or "bigfoot hair looks like this" then this site could be spreading a lot of mis-information. In other words, those newbies aren't actually learning anything about bigfoot by coming here. They could glean the same unfiltered claims from any number of sites, even (gasp!) the BFRO.

But the BFF is different, because a different view - the view of mainstream science - is tolerated here. Of course no thread is perfect, but a newbie could check into a thread in which, for example, Huntster and I are slugging it out. Any masochist willing to wade through a few pages of our barbs will - even if he completely sides with Huntster's arguments - at least come to appreciate that some of those arguments are hotly contested. If that newbie thought my comments made more sense, at least he would also understand that there are those will will stand toe to toe and occasionally raise some really important questions about what we know and what we only think we know. (Nobody tell Huntster I wrote that, OK? He'll think I'm getting soft.)

So I see benefit in having both views presented in out General Discussion threads, and I generally take pride in my input there. When someone makes an uncritical claim like "the DNA came back as unknown primate therefore confirming the existence of bigfoot" then I will continue to raise the coaches' challenge. But I certainly do not go trolling for eyewitnesses in the Sightings threads just so I can tell witness that I don't buy their stories.

If anyone is feeling that the skeptics/skoftics/denialists are taking over the BFF then maybe it has something to do with the fact that the believers/proponents/knowers keep starting threads about what skeptics really are and why they are here and all that silliness. We're here and we're interested in bigfoot, even though we're not convinced by the evidence some people claim. Deal with it. If you don't want skeptics/skoftics/denialists to chime in on your post, then use some care in what you write to make sure you're not claiming as an absolute something not at all supported by the evidence offered.

[Incorrigible1]

RRS, likewise, we have some believers here that just like to be smart *****. Do you also suggest that we MODS sort through that and straighten that mess out, too.

I suggest you MODS pull something from your nether regions. That is unless you're comfortable with The Bigfoot Forums being a doubters refuge. Those of us that honestly are non-committal lack the refuge of a fall back area to rally our forces.

Lord knows this (the Bigfoot Forums) lacks that distinction. But hey, you Mods are so set upon, what with what, pray tell? Dissing good posters?

[Guest]

Is there any recourse to call people out who are giving crap?

A lot of people come to a site like this to learn about bigfoot. They might want to figure out if there is anything to all this bigfoot stuff. If all they read is uncritical claims about "bigfoots do this" or "bigfoot hair looks like this" then this site could be spreading a lot of mis-information. In other words, those newbies aren't actually learning anything about bigfoot by coming here. They could glean the same unfiltered claims from any number of sites, even (gasp!) the BFRO.

But the BFF is different, because a different view - the view of mainstream science - is tolerated here. Of course no thread is perfect, but a newbie could check into a thread in which, for example, Huntster and I are slugging it out. Any masochist willing to wade through a few pages of our barbs will - even if he completely sides with Huntster's arguments - at least come to appreciate that some of those arguments are hotly contested. If that newbie thought my comments made more sense, at least he would also understand that there are those will will stand toe to toe and occasionally raise some really important questions about what we know and what we only think we know. (Nobody tell Huntster I wrote that, OK? He'll think I'm getting soft.)

So I see benefit in having both views presented in out General Discussion threads, and I generally take pride in my input there. When someone makes an uncritical claim like "the DNA came back as unknown primate therefore confirming the existence of bigfoot" then I will continue to raise the coaches' challenge. But I certainly do not go trolling for eyewitnesses in the Sightings threads just so I can tell witness that I don't buy their stories.

If anyone is feeling that the skeptics/skoftics/denialists are taking over the BFF then maybe it has something to do with the fact that the believers/proponents/knowers keep starting threads about what skeptics really are and why they are here and all that silliness. We're here and we're interested in bigfoot, even though we're not convinced by the evidence some people claim. Deal with it. If you don't want skeptics/skoftics/denialists to chime in on your post, then use some care in what you write to make sure you're not claiming as an absolute something not at all supported by the evidence offered.

Sas, that has to be one of the best posts I've read here yet

Kudus Bro!

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Is there any recourse to call people out who are giving crap?

A lot of people come to a site like this to learn about bigfoot. They might want to figure out if there is anything to all this bigfoot stuff. If all they read is uncritical claims about "bigfoots do this" or "bigfoot hair looks like this" then this site could be spreading a lot of mis-information. In other words, those newbies aren't actually learning anything about bigfoot by coming here. They could glean the same unfiltered claims from any number of sites, even (gasp!) the BFRO.

But the BFF is different, because a different view - the view of mainstream science - is tolerated here. Of course no thread is perfect, but a newbie could check into a thread in which, for example, Huntster and I are slugging it out. Any masochist willing to wade through a few pages of our barbs will - even if he completely sides with Huntster's arguments - at least come to appreciate that some of those arguments are hotly contested. If that newbie thought my comments made more sense, at least he would also understand that there are those will will stand toe to toe and occasionally raise some really important questions about what we know and what we only think we know. (Nobody tell Huntster I wrote that, OK? He'll think I'm getting soft.)

So I see benefit in having both views presented in out General Discussion threads, and I generally take pride in my input there. When someone makes an uncritical claim like "the DNA came back as unknown primate therefore confirming the existence of bigfoot" then I will continue to raise the coaches' challenge. But I certainly do not go trolling for eyewitnesses in the Sightings threads just so I can tell witness that I don't buy their stories.

If anyone is feeling that the skeptics/skoftics/denialists are taking over the BFF then maybe it has something to do with the fact that the believers/proponents/knowers keep starting threads about what skeptics really are and why they are here and all that silliness. We're here and we're interested in bigfoot, even though we're not convinced by the evidence some people claim. Deal with it. If you don't want skeptics/skoftics/denialists to chime in on your post, then use some care in what you write to make sure you're not claiming as an absolute something not at all supported by the evidence offered.

Tell me this, what are you going to have to talk about when no one is posting a sighting or encounter any longer ? i am not trying to say we don't need some good questions on what folks see or post but there is room for some understanding and leeway when questioning a person that might be just be a regular Joe fisherman that had a sighting, sometimes folks here seem to think everyone is a biology major and have answers to the many questions that are shot at them.

[Incorrigible1]

We're here and we're interested in bigfoot, even though we're not convinced by the evidence some people claim. Deal with it. If you don't want skeptics/skoftics/denialists to chime in on your post, then use some care in what you write to make sure you're not claiming as an absolute something not at all supported by the evidence offered.

I tend to believe that about you, Saskeptic. I believe you're interested in bigfoot. I also believe some of the contrarian folks here (I can name names) aren't. I really have no time for evangelists, and in fact rather take umbrage with them. I don't need converted, and Mr. Saskeptic doesn't delve into the conversion business.

It's the fact that I can't really name a thread upon the BFF that doesn't devolve into bickering over whether the creature actually exists. This, upon the BFF, for Pete's sake (whomever the hell Pete is). I don't "believe" one way or the other, but for those that profess to have witnessed the creature to be continually besieged with doubt and questions, here upon BFF, is ludicrous.

So again, in my respect for the Saskeptic, I question whether many are here from wont of "interest in bigfoot," or if they're here upon an misbegotten quest to "convert" us differing from their beliefs.

[Guest]

Tell me this, what are you going to have to talk about when no one is posting a sighting or encounter any longer ?

As explained, I don't even visit the "Sightings" subforum. In fact, I generally avoid that subforum precisely so that it can be a place where people can report their encounters without getting the 9th degree from me.

That said, I don't have much sympathy for this "sasquatch witness victim schtick." If you're going to claim you encountered a bigfoot, then you should be prepared to be questioned about it. If someone sees a bigfoot run across a lonely road one night, all you can really do is ask for as many details as the person can remember about appearance, behavior, location, etc. These are the same questions a fellow believer would want to ask. No big deal. Anyone who would complain about such simple questions starts planting red flags.

I always reserve my sharpest barbs for the folks who make far more fantastic claims such as "bigfoot's been raiding my chicken coop for the past 7 years" or "I've seen them 5 or 6 times." Every encounter claimed makes the witness more suspect, both in terms of the lack of physical evidence to support the claim and the likelihood that the person has something else going on.

Even still, I don't seek these people out in the Sightings subforum. But if I read comments like that in the General Discussion subforum then I will respond with an "Oh really?" and so should every other person reading such comments, no matter what their level of belief in the reality of bigfoot.

[Huntster]

Ace ~ i really don't think with the currant atmosphere within the forum we are going to get any new reports or research info, thats something i have been speaking about since the last version of this forum, it is only worse now so don't hold ya breath waiting for new reports of any kind.

That would be too bad, because then there would be much less left to talk about. The way to sway a skeptic is to present strong evidence. I hope that happens.

It won't. First, there is precious little evidence to contribute. Secondly, doing so will result in ridicule.

Killing the message can be accomplished by killing the messenger.

[Huntster]

RRS, likewise, we have some believers here that just like to be smart *****. Do you also suggest that we MODS sort through that and straighten that mess out, too.

Rule violations are rule violations. That is different than ideological sabotage.

Both are threats. I type that as one regularly pointed at as a rule violator. If that is true, I accept my punishment each and every time. Even if it's not true (in my opinion), I accept my punishment.

What else am I going to do?

Why isn't ideological warfare part of the rules? Is this a biological issue, or an ideological issue?

If both, how much of it is ideological, and how much biological?

[Huntster]

RedRatSnake, on 03 October 2010 - 05:00 PM, said:

if folks are getting crap there not going to come here

Is there any recourse to call people out who are giving crap?

I don't know. There certainly is on the individual basis if allowed by the facilitator.

A lot of people come to a site like this to learn about bigfoot. They might want to figure out if there is anything to all this bigfoot stuff. If all they read is uncritical claims about "bigfoots do this" or "bigfoot hair looks like this" then this site could be spreading a lot of mis-information. In other words, those newbies aren't actually learning anything about bigfoot by coming here. They could glean the same unfiltered claims from any number of sites, even (gasp!) the BFRO.

All true. Thus the need for both a reporting site (where a Glickman's theory, or something like it {like BFRO}) can be used to gather data to be analyzed.

But the BFF is different, because a different view - the view of mainstream science - is tolerated here. Of course no thread is perfect, but a newbie could check into a thread in which, for example, Huntster and I are slugging it out. Any masochist willing to wade through a few pages of our barbs will - even if he completely sides with Huntster's arguments - at least come to appreciate that some of those arguments are hotly contested. If that newbie thought my comments made more sense, at least he would also understand that there are those will will stand toe to toe and occasionally raise some really important questions about what we know and what we only think we know. (Nobody tell Huntster I wrote that, OK? He'll think I'm getting soft.)

Soft!? You're getting "harder" by the post!

So I see benefit in having both views presented in out General Discussion threads, and I generally take pride in my input there.

You should. Frankly, you and Ray appear to be the last true skeptics around, even though you both dabbled in denialism.

The rest appear to be denialists, dyed in wool.

When someone makes an uncritical claim like "the DNA came back as unknown primate therefore confirming the existence of bigfoot" then I will continue to raise the coaches' challenge.

That's fine. I suspect you also realize the validity of the argument that "the DNA came back as not matching anything in the aboriginal record."

That's a wash.

But I certainly do not go trolling for eyewitnesses in the Sightings threads just so I can tell witness that I don't buy their stories.

Nor do I, Professor. But there sure are some who do.

And there are some who don't; who have "risen" above that. Their opposition is ideological. They feel that they have a "Get-out-of-Jail" card with their "proof" game".

They aren't much to admire, either.

If anyone is feeling that the skeptics/skoftics/denialists are taking over the BFF then maybe it has something to do with the fact that the believers/proponents/knowers keep starting threads about what skeptics really are and why they are here and all that silliness. We're here and we're interested in bigfoot....

I can understand why skeptics are here and interested. Hell, I'm skeptical of 95%+ of the reports, but I'm a full and cocky "believer".

But why the denialists? What do they want? How do they get satisfaction?

If you don't want skeptics/skoftics/denialists to chime in on your post, then use some care in what you write to make sure you're not claiming as an absolute something not at all supported by the evidence offered.

Professor, it appears that you have a problem with the language. A skeptic and a believer don't have any problems.

Denialists, on the other hand, are a problem. They claim that, "bigfoot does not exist!"

That is an absolute. Any absolutes with regard to this subject at this point is incorrect.

Period.