stryder hates us
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
Gustav said:
That was my point I'm not saying that two "crackpots" as you term it can't make a home for themselves somewhere and "discuss" things with themselve or others. I was mearly pointing out how can you discuss something if you don't want to hear what the other person is saying?
Afterall if you are going to monologue at least do it after you've caught the good spy, and talk about what evil things you are going to do to them.
(sorry, comedic value addressed.)
Seriously, Discussion isn't monologue.
Stryder said:
no stryder
i can hear them out an yet refuse to accept their viewpoint simply because it does not convince me.
a "pasture" was a reference to another thread. one that would satisfy your scientific sensibilties
tell me stryder. if you want a frikkin scientific discussion, why do you come to a forum titled pseudoscience?
your peers are elsewhere on sci. find them and leave the nutters to their own devices.
leopold99 said:
That made me crack a smile. Alright, alright, I'm actually laughing out loud.
Gustav said:
How about you earn some respect.
For instance you've obviously proven that you aren't hear to suggest that "aliens are real" or that "UFO's are nothing more than clouds". If this was the case you would either debate a FOR or AGAINST argument without the need for trivial firefights.
For instance if you are of the "FOR" camp, why would you refer to yourself and others in your category as "Nutters", "Nutjobs" or "Crackpots".
Afterall these derived words that are usually used by people that are just fed up with some peoples ignorance or sociopathic tendencies and sometimes term them incorrectly. (Which in turn causes such people to be offended at being called "Nutter")
Obviously to me it proves that the "FOR" camp is not made up of your peers, and since your arguements are never about supporting evidence in either Defense or Offense of threads, it suggests that your peers aren't made up of the scholarly "AGAINST".
It leaves only two area's, the "ARBITRARY" middleground where neither arguement is considered strong enough to make a decision and the "FLAMETARD" the people that just dwell on these forums to upset everyone, with no concern for discussion just boodlust.
Since Gustav you seem to lack the Arbitrary nature of being "unbiased" it can rule that out as being where you dwell, leaving you to be just a "FLAMETARD".
Anomalous said:
You blown the world up yet, alien?
stryder
How about you earn some respect.
silly mod. what makes you think the request was for me? think hypothetical scenarios
For instance you've obviously proven that you aren't hear to suggest that "aliens are real" or that "UFO's are nothing more than clouds". If this was the case you would either debate a FOR or AGAINST argument without the need for trivial firefights.
sorry, i am a bit more sophisticated than that. in my ufology there are only assumptions and probabilities. case xyz might find me with an "against" argument. case fgs, a "for."
there is no either/or
For instance if you are of the "FOR" camp, why would you refer to yourself and others in your category as "Nutters", "Nutjobs" or "Crackpots".
why stryder, i thought i was speaking in a language that you would understand
Since Gustav you seem to lack the Arbitrary nature of being "unbiased"
excellent. i am sure you will demonstrate my bias, yes? in a scientific and methodiacal manner, ja?
i am stupid like that. i need evidence
How about you earn some respect.
silly mod. what makes you think the request was for me? think hypothetical scenarios
For instance you've obviously proven that you aren't hear to suggest that "aliens are real" or that "UFO's are nothing more than clouds". If this was the case you would either debate a FOR or AGAINST argument without the need for trivial firefights.
sorry, i am a bit more sophisticated than that. in my ufology there are only assumptions and probabilities. case xyz might find me with an "against" argument. case fgs, a "for."
there is no either/or
For instance if you are of the "FOR" camp, why would you refer to yourself and others in your category as "Nutters", "Nutjobs" or "Crackpots".
why stryder, i thought i was speaking in a language that you would understand
Since Gustav you seem to lack the Arbitrary nature of being "unbiased"
excellent. i am sure you will demonstrate my bias, yes? in a scientific and methodiacal manner, ja?
i am stupid like that. i need evidence
Anomalous said:
I do not suggest you run around slaughtering each other over pseudoscience or any other rediculous conspiracies (be they created by delusional thinking or delusional teaching)
I am not an American. Although perhaps if placed in the shoes of an American I would see the world a different place (or the shoes of many other cultures from around the globe)
If you feel you need the need to unwind, then I suggest using the search engine (pick any in particular I'm not "Brandist") and find a Flame forums (like: brawl-hall.com) Those forums are meant for attempted discussion to break down into literally strangling each other.
From what I am aware, Scientists are rarely seen entering the WWE ring to prove their hypothesises, although the Theatricts in this forum can to some be seen as entertain, to the common scientist they will probably switch over to watch something more "Intellectually stimulating".
Another way of putting it, why have violence when you can just "read the funnies" out of your local rag (newspaper).
Gustav said:
What did I suggest about Monologue? How can someone supply evidence if the person thats asking for it to be supplied created the evidence in the first place? wouldn't that mean the evidence would obviously be seen with some form of bias?
I took Gustav off of ignore long enough to see what the hype is about; read his posts in this thread; and looked at what he's posted in other threads. All in an attempt to give him a fair shake and see if he's lived up to his title of "new and improved." I'm left with the satisfaction that I made a wise choice in placing him on 'ignore' and wondering what his definition of "improved" is.
Personally, I think resurrecting threads is a great idea. If the resurrection is accompanied by commentary or new information. But simply to resurrect with the word "bump" has a different meaning. To arrive at that meaning, one would need to look at the threads themselves and then their topics as well as the recent posts of the member bumping the thread.
It would seem to me that Stryder was right for moderating the threads, since much of the exchanges were reduced to bickering and insults rather than discussion. Moreover, it would seem that Gustav is still more interested in underhanded debate tactics of baiting negative responses from those from whom he disagrees rather than actually discussing the topic at hand.
Its a shame, however, that entire threads must be closed in order to prevent such detractive behavior. Deleting off-topic posts that are baiting or trolling would be a better method, though it would very likely draw the immediate criticism from the deleted poster that 'censorship' is at work, which of course would be true. Another method would be to split the detracting posts with baiting/trolling remarks to a separate thread then dump it in the Cesspool, leaving the original thread with a brief moderator post of what happened, why, and where the missing posts can be found. This type of moderation, I think, can be fair and should be done without regard to whether or not the moderator agrees with one side or the other of a given topic, but with the intent to keep the topic integrity.
One has every right to be as biased and one-sided as one wishes to be, but one shouldn't expect to have the right to belittle, goad, troll, and spam a sub-forum where others want to have reasoned discussions.
With regard to Gustav's remark that Stryder doesn't want pseudoscience discussed in a pseudoscience forum I have two things to say:
1) Stryder doesn't appear to be moderating or censoring content and opinion with regard to pseudoscience. He does, however, appear to be moderating and managing the negative interactions of trolling, baiting, and bickering that have been occurring. Sure, he made his opinion known about "charlitan scam-mongers" but I've only seen him close or moderate threads in which someone was trying to sell a product.
2) There are those on sciforums (I'm one) that want to discuss pseudoscience as a topic and a problem and don't view the pseudoscience sub-forum as a place where 'anything goes' in false/fake-sciences. This is a science forum and the Pseudoscience section is a sub-forum of it. There are a myriad of places where proponents of pseudoscientific beliefs can go and pat each other on the back about their fake-science (atlantisrising, thothnet, ufoevidence, etc). But on a science forum, there are many who are concerned and bothered by the prevalence of pseudoscience and paranormal in society and want a place to discuss and perhaps even ridicule it. To me, that's what this forum is: that place.
I think Porfiry and the Moderation Team as well as the SF membership should clarify this point. Is the Pseudoscience section going to be a place to dump topics started by "nutters" in the hard-sciences forums? A place where the "nutters" and "woo-woos" will come and announce their fake-science opinions as they look for peer-affirmation and acceptance for their irrational beliefs? Or will it be a sub-forum of a science board (one of the most widely known on the internet) where the topic of pseudoscience will be discussed and debated as a real problem for science? A board where the scientific-method is meaningful and acknowledged?
What sort of Pseudoscience section do we prefer?
Personally, I think resurrecting threads is a great idea. If the resurrection is accompanied by commentary or new information. But simply to resurrect with the word "bump" has a different meaning. To arrive at that meaning, one would need to look at the threads themselves and then their topics as well as the recent posts of the member bumping the thread.
It would seem to me that Stryder was right for moderating the threads, since much of the exchanges were reduced to bickering and insults rather than discussion. Moreover, it would seem that Gustav is still more interested in underhanded debate tactics of baiting negative responses from those from whom he disagrees rather than actually discussing the topic at hand.
Its a shame, however, that entire threads must be closed in order to prevent such detractive behavior. Deleting off-topic posts that are baiting or trolling would be a better method, though it would very likely draw the immediate criticism from the deleted poster that 'censorship' is at work, which of course would be true. Another method would be to split the detracting posts with baiting/trolling remarks to a separate thread then dump it in the Cesspool, leaving the original thread with a brief moderator post of what happened, why, and where the missing posts can be found. This type of moderation, I think, can be fair and should be done without regard to whether or not the moderator agrees with one side or the other of a given topic, but with the intent to keep the topic integrity.
One has every right to be as biased and one-sided as one wishes to be, but one shouldn't expect to have the right to belittle, goad, troll, and spam a sub-forum where others want to have reasoned discussions.
With regard to Gustav's remark that Stryder doesn't want pseudoscience discussed in a pseudoscience forum I have two things to say:
1) Stryder doesn't appear to be moderating or censoring content and opinion with regard to pseudoscience. He does, however, appear to be moderating and managing the negative interactions of trolling, baiting, and bickering that have been occurring. Sure, he made his opinion known about "charlitan scam-mongers" but I've only seen him close or moderate threads in which someone was trying to sell a product.
2) There are those on sciforums (I'm one) that want to discuss pseudoscience as a topic and a problem and don't view the pseudoscience sub-forum as a place where 'anything goes' in false/fake-sciences. This is a science forum and the Pseudoscience section is a sub-forum of it. There are a myriad of places where proponents of pseudoscientific beliefs can go and pat each other on the back about their fake-science (atlantisrising, thothnet, ufoevidence, etc). But on a science forum, there are many who are concerned and bothered by the prevalence of pseudoscience and paranormal in society and want a place to discuss and perhaps even ridicule it. To me, that's what this forum is: that place.
I think Porfiry and the Moderation Team as well as the SF membership should clarify this point. Is the Pseudoscience section going to be a place to dump topics started by "nutters" in the hard-sciences forums? A place where the "nutters" and "woo-woos" will come and announce their fake-science opinions as they look for peer-affirmation and acceptance for their irrational beliefs? Or will it be a sub-forum of a science board (one of the most widely known on the internet) where the topic of pseudoscience will be discussed and debated as a real problem for science? A board where the scientific-method is meaningful and acknowledged?
What sort of Pseudoscience section do we prefer?
Last edited:
Anomalous said:
If you want freedom of expression, Go paint a portrait, write a fictional novel perhaps even a film, write poetry. Don't suggest that post flaming and degenerative antisocial atrophy is freedom of expression.
Freedom of Expression should not involve the Conflictive statement of what Freedom is, by having something forced down your neck with the words "It's Freedom of Expression". If this was the way of the world then "Freedom" has a cost, and that involves people giving up their "Freedoms".