stryder hates us
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
Q
Qorl
Guest
People STOP, its all my fault.
But, as I recall, and I was quite impressed when I first spotted this, Stryder has, on occasion, written, with gusto and marvel was my impression, about certain things, certain positions, should I wonder perhaps, certain beliefs? hardly in sync with the sceptic trolls' common sense for "reality". His speculative multi-dimensions, multi-realities, multi-universes, multi-timeframes, multi-existences? Hmmm? I know, because I replied to several of those posts of his. But what impressed me even more, and I recall specifically looking out for this, was that there were never any boos or foul cries fizzling out of the sceptic trolls! They just let him have the floor!
Perhaps because there are no "sceptic trolls." Although, I recall disagreeing fervently (and still do) with Stryder on the mind-control issue. I believe Phlog also disagreed with him on one or more issues. But our disagreement with Stryder doesn't negate our respect for his ability to moderate this forum.
Qorl,
This isn't your fault.
Anomolous was upset about me deleting some of his anti-personal posts in the Comp Sci forum ontop of that the thread locking wasn't down to your posts, many others had entered flaming far before your posts.
Meanwhile,
... And there I was thinking people ignored those posts.
I still don't suggest I was wrong in the contents of any of those posts, I did however rattle on about them a little too much, many trying to iron out the kinks and perhaps get some discussion to help unravel what there is available as evidence to support or argue against those possibilities. Notibly one main factor for writing was to try and be more astute about how to discuss them so it didn't overwhelm the reader. (most of the time I thought it did.)
Perhaps in the future I'll open up another thread on it, however it's not something you'll find under "Easy reading".
This isn't your fault.
Anomolous was upset about me deleting some of his anti-personal posts in the Comp Sci forum ontop of that the thread locking wasn't down to your posts, many others had entered flaming far before your posts.
Meanwhile,
... And there I was thinking people ignored those posts.
I still don't suggest I was wrong in the contents of any of those posts, I did however rattle on about them a little too much, many trying to iron out the kinks and perhaps get some discussion to help unravel what there is available as evidence to support or argue against those possibilities. Notibly one main factor for writing was to try and be more astute about how to discuss them so it didn't overwhelm the reader. (most of the time I thought it did.)
Perhaps in the future I'll open up another thread on it, however it's not something you'll find under "Easy reading".
SkinWalker said:
I know you guys disagree with me on "Mindcontrol" and the capacity that we (the humanrace) are capable of creating remote viewage/control to an every unwary public, in fact if I didn't know of it through personal events I would probably have the same personal conclusions.
If I had the money, the time and the energy (I suppose you could call it my folley for "if I was a rich man") I would prove to both of you without shadow of a doubt that thoughts can be inserted into or received from "either" of you. Such folley wouldn't be quick, afterall I would have to maintain something that some budding scientists neglect... Safety. I wouldn't want to give either of you guys an uneven tan now would I?
Admittedly on the paranoid side just stating that will probably have government services catalogue me, statement: "Hi Mom".
i find it outrageous that someone can control my mindSkinWalker said:
or plant thoughts in my brain
if something like that was possible you can take it to the bank that the cia has looked at it all squinty eyed. if there is an organization on this planet that scares me it's the cia
Well, I was never quite sure how to respond 'cuz I was never quite sure about your level of, ah, personal involvement. Theory bores me unless it involves a participation of my being, including experiences. And perhaps that's why you were seldom, if not ever, attacked by the sceptic square heads: one could never quite decipher your true dimension. Lol.
Anyway, the point is that there is preferential treatment here; it's not all about freaks.
Anyway, the point is that there is preferential treatment here; it's not all about freaks.
The preference, in my opinion, is in favor of science. Irrational and pseudoscientific thought should have an automatic bias against them in a science forum. Those that dare to venture to the pseudoscience section of a science board should expect disagreement from the beginning. Many should expect out-right ridicule of their ideas.
But notice I'm saying "their ideas" and not them in particular. I think many of those that take the skeptical high-road are often guilty of ridiculing the person, but out-right insult and ad hominem comments is something that must be curtailed on both sides. I don't exclude myself from that criticism.
But notice I'm saying "their ideas" and not them in particular. I think many of those that take the skeptical high-road are often guilty of ridiculing the person, but out-right insult and ad hominem comments is something that must be curtailed on both sides. I don't exclude myself from that criticism.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Of course there is. Some of us prefer to deal with well structured arguments, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. It is sloppy construction, poor grammar, persistent typographical mistakes, loose thinking, faulty logic, stubborn ignorance and other examples of bad manners that are treated with short, contemptuous thrift.Meanwhile said:
Skinwalker: I recall disagreeing fervently (and still do) with Stryder on the mind-control issue.
Mind-control hardly seems like a hairy topic. Anyway, just a single pebble in the bucket. But there were instances when Stryder's views were definitely on a par with the more outlandish claims, especially by your standards, of UFOs and ETI. But did you ever call him a woo-woo for them?
Mind-control hardly seems like a hairy topic. Anyway, just a single pebble in the bucket. But there were instances when Stryder's views were definitely on a par with the more outlandish claims, especially by your standards, of UFOs and ETI. But did you ever call him a woo-woo for them?
I don't generally refer to specific people, especially sciforums members, as "woo-woo" (though I have and I remember the instances). So it wouldn't be out of character for me to not refer to him as a "woo-woo."
But I see your point. I think it boils down to earned respect. Stryder has earned the respect of most people in sciforums and was the reason why he was 'elected' to the moderator position. The runner up was a skeptic as I recall, but Stryder earned votes from both the skeptical and the non-skeptical members.
My hypothesis, therefore, is that the bias that exists for Stryder is because of his rationalism where it matters for his position and his personality. Though I may disagree with him about UFOs and ETI (I honestly don't recall his position or the threads), I am in total agreement with his competence as a moderator. And I'm glad to see him back.
Likewise, I think the skeptical runner up would have made a fair moderator. Though I would imagine that runner up would have drove the fanatically non-skeptical mad just for being listed as the "moderator" of the pseudoscience forum. As if it would be part of the scientific establishments grand plan to silence the alternative (aka 'fake') science out there.
But I see your point. I think it boils down to earned respect. Stryder has earned the respect of most people in sciforums and was the reason why he was 'elected' to the moderator position. The runner up was a skeptic as I recall, but Stryder earned votes from both the skeptical and the non-skeptical members.
My hypothesis, therefore, is that the bias that exists for Stryder is because of his rationalism where it matters for his position and his personality. Though I may disagree with him about UFOs and ETI (I honestly don't recall his position or the threads), I am in total agreement with his competence as a moderator. And I'm glad to see him back.
Likewise, I think the skeptical runner up would have made a fair moderator. Though I would imagine that runner up would have drove the fanatically non-skeptical mad just for being listed as the "moderator" of the pseudoscience forum. As if it would be part of the scientific establishments grand plan to silence the alternative (aka 'fake') science out there.
Woo-woo. It's been spun. Now others use it as a call to arms and a war cry. The moment "woo-woo" is inserted in a post, the flamewars begin, and a thread is already dead.
But, ever notice that being called a sceptic, or whatever form of it, is not nearly as ad hominem as discounting, entirely, another's being!
But, ever notice that being called a sceptic, or whatever form of it, is not nearly as ad hominem as discounting, entirely, another's being!
I fail to see why that expectation shouldn't stand. This is a science board where the scientific method should have validity. One should therefore infer that pseudo-science (fake-science), would be far less accepted as a valid position. Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.
Of course, the real purpose was probably a dumping-ground for the moderators when the forum was created so they could move threads of nonsense and irrational thought from the hard-sciences sections.
Like I said in an earlier post, surely the so-called "woo-woos" -the non-skeptical- who come here realize that there are many, many places to go on the net where nonsense and irrational belief are heralded as automatic truth. Therefore, coming here is probably: a way to gain peer acceptance or positive affirmation; or simply the need to find an argument or debate.
I don't mind either of these reasons as long as they come here with the understanding that THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD and fake-science gets ridiculed or at least heavily criticized. Debating irrational claims is a useful mechanism for educating oneself and others. The so-called "woo-woo" doesn't usually change his or her mind, but those that wander the internet, searching for terms in google, will stumble across information and, if presented well, the rational position may influence their critical thinking.
I'm not saying that the non-skeptical or the proponents of pseudoscience shouldn't come here. I'm just saying that they have no right to act affronted or shocked when criticized.
And do take note that I've put "woo-woo" in quotes. I've also attempted to use the term non-skeptical, but how does one refer to the pseudoscience proponent?
Of course, the real purpose was probably a dumping-ground for the moderators when the forum was created so they could move threads of nonsense and irrational thought from the hard-sciences sections.
Like I said in an earlier post, surely the so-called "woo-woos" -the non-skeptical- who come here realize that there are many, many places to go on the net where nonsense and irrational belief are heralded as automatic truth. Therefore, coming here is probably: a way to gain peer acceptance or positive affirmation; or simply the need to find an argument or debate.
I don't mind either of these reasons as long as they come here with the understanding that THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD and fake-science gets ridiculed or at least heavily criticized. Debating irrational claims is a useful mechanism for educating oneself and others. The so-called "woo-woo" doesn't usually change his or her mind, but those that wander the internet, searching for terms in google, will stumble across information and, if presented well, the rational position may influence their critical thinking.
I'm not saying that the non-skeptical or the proponents of pseudoscience shouldn't come here. I'm just saying that they have no right to act affronted or shocked when criticized.
And do take note that I've put "woo-woo" in quotes. I've also attempted to use the term non-skeptical, but how does one refer to the pseudoscience proponent?
That's because in science, skepticism is necessary. Skepticism is a rational point of view. It implies that assertions are questioned, particularly with regard to evidence. The non-skeptical or the "woo-woo" position is taken without question and without objective, rational thought. Attention is drawn to a phenomenon like a train whistle to a rail-road crossing (woo-woo!). The term is perjorative, I agree. But accurate nonetheless. Still, it's a label I'm not trying to apply to an individual but to a position.
Last edited:
Skinwalker: I fail to see why that expectation shouldn't stand. This is a science board where the scientific method should have validity.
Take a quick look at the board. Is it not also, more or less, all-inclusive? There are more non-scientific forums here than science forums. And, how do you suppose I found this board? I entered 'UFO-discussion-aliens' in Google, 2002! I mean, life is like that -- it diverges and diversifies; many of these subforums were added later on; by popular demand, no doubt. Life is like that -- it can't be controlled through the scientific method alone! Just as anomalous occurrences and borderline experiences can't be predicted, they just happen! But why censor that which will never occur or never be experienced by you?
-
Skinwalker: Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.
Wrong precept. Are you proposing that "pseudo" topics should only be initiated and discussed by non-empirical positions? In other words, this subforum is your territory. And this whole forum is your territory. So much for empirical methods!
-
Skinwalker: Like I said in an earlier post, surely the so-called "woo-woos" -the non-skeptical- who come here realize that there are many, many places to go on the net where nonsense and irrational belief are heralded as automatic truth. Therefore, coming here is probably: a way to gain peer acceptance or positive affirmation; or simply the need to find an argument or debate.
Incredible. Conform to your etiquette, or else!
-
Skinwalker: THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD
Only when it suits you to call it that. Show me your resolve then to enforce that discipline throughout the board! Not just in here, lecturing us, like at the <strike>principle's</strike> principal's office!
-
Skinwalker: [...] but how does one refer to the pseudoscience proponent?
I have no idea for it is you who calls me that!
Take a quick look at the board. Is it not also, more or less, all-inclusive? There are more non-scientific forums here than science forums. And, how do you suppose I found this board? I entered 'UFO-discussion-aliens' in Google, 2002! I mean, life is like that -- it diverges and diversifies; many of these subforums were added later on; by popular demand, no doubt. Life is like that -- it can't be controlled through the scientific method alone! Just as anomalous occurrences and borderline experiences can't be predicted, they just happen! But why censor that which will never occur or never be experienced by you?
-
Skinwalker: Therefore, the purpose of such a section on a science board would be to discuss the problem of pseudoscience and expose pseudoscience rather than to promote or worship a fake-scientific principle.
Wrong precept. Are you proposing that "pseudo" topics should only be initiated and discussed by non-empirical positions? In other words, this subforum is your territory. And this whole forum is your territory. So much for empirical methods!
-
Skinwalker: Like I said in an earlier post, surely the so-called "woo-woos" -the non-skeptical- who come here realize that there are many, many places to go on the net where nonsense and irrational belief are heralded as automatic truth. Therefore, coming here is probably: a way to gain peer acceptance or positive affirmation; or simply the need to find an argument or debate.
Incredible. Conform to your etiquette, or else!
-
Skinwalker: THIS IS A SCIENCE BOARD
Only when it suits you to call it that. Show me your resolve then to enforce that discipline throughout the board! Not just in here, lecturing us, like at the <strike>principle's</strike> principal's office!
-
Skinwalker: [...] but how does one refer to the pseudoscience proponent?
I have no idea for it is you who calls me that!
Last edited:
Skinwalker: That's because in science, skepticism is necessary. Skepticism is a rational point of view. It implies that assertions are questioned, particularly with regard to evidence.
And what makes you think that I am not full of scepticism and caution and attention when experiencing the un-ordinary??? Should I just keep my Goddamn mouth screwed SHUT and BEAR IT!
And what makes you think that I am not full of scepticism and caution and attention when experiencing the un-ordinary??? Should I just keep my Goddamn mouth screwed SHUT and BEAR IT!
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Oh, could you, really?! It'd be thoroughly super if y'could....
Very clearly you are not actually reading or comprehending what it is I have written. Indeed, I have stated on several occasions within this very thread that I was giving my opinion and have implied very clearly that it it is my point of view. In fact, I even started a thread in SF Open Government on the subject in which I echoed those sentiments.
I have also very clearly indicated that I understood what the purpose of those with a pseudoscientific agenda is: they are looking for peer acceptance and satisfaction or perhaps a good debate. Those are all well and good. I've no problem with it. If there are other reasons, I'm open-minded enough to revise with good reason.
Moreover, I've never referred to you as a "woo-woo," and this is very clearly something that is in your head if you believe I did. Indeed, I've never implied that you aren't a skeptic. Quite frankly, I've never noticed you until this thread, so I don't know what your "beliefs" are.
Lastly, I've argued for anything but censorship. I'm asserting that those with unreasoned and non-scientific claims who come to a science board (it really is, regardless of what you want it to be) should not come here with the expectation that the skeptics will passively allow their nonsense to go unchecked. Your principals office argument is not only misspelled but miss-applied.
I have also very clearly indicated that I understood what the purpose of those with a pseudoscientific agenda is: they are looking for peer acceptance and satisfaction or perhaps a good debate. Those are all well and good. I've no problem with it. If there are other reasons, I'm open-minded enough to revise with good reason.
Moreover, I've never referred to you as a "woo-woo," and this is very clearly something that is in your head if you believe I did. Indeed, I've never implied that you aren't a skeptic. Quite frankly, I've never noticed you until this thread, so I don't know what your "beliefs" are.
Lastly, I've argued for anything but censorship. I'm asserting that those with unreasoned and non-scientific claims who come to a science board (it really is, regardless of what you want it to be) should not come here with the expectation that the skeptics will passively allow their nonsense to go unchecked. Your principals office argument is not only misspelled but miss-applied.