Proof of Immortality, VII

[JoeMorgue]

Jabba is constructing a fantasy world in which he's the hero.

That's been obvious for years.

What, to me at least, is still meta-fascinating is the question of why we are necessary for him to do that. The only X factor in this whole nonsense is why Jabba is willing to craft every detail of his self insert fantasy world... except for us.

It seems Jabba is willing to lie about everything except for the fact that his opponents exist.

Jabba could just... make up his opponents in his story. He could right out his whole epic yarn of him beating the skeptics with his amazing debate style... and just make up the skeptic characters in it.

I mean he's basically doing that now. He's in open admission that the characters in his story are going to be made up whole cloth. The fact that this is basically just a fantasy for Jabba is well established, that genie's not going back in the bottle.

Why is lying about his opponent's actual literal existence and token participation the one line he won't cross? Why does he have to go through the motions of pretending to have a discussion that is is openly going to misuse?

He obviously has an idea of what "a skeptic" is in his head he's arguing against. If the actors in his play aren't going to play the role he's written for them why not just... not have them?

Out of all the stuff Jabba has been wrong about, been dishonest about, and refused to answer that's the question I'd like honestly answered the most.

It's the one last thing I'm legit curious about here. What purpose, what psychological need or function do we fill in all this? When Jabba's off writing this fiction making up both sides of the argument as he's admitting he's doing... what does he get out of this? Why does he come back? Jabba's not interested in what we say or our argument but he seems to need for us to just... make noise at him.

What is it about this discussion (that stopped being about the topic and start being about the meta topic about 3 posts in) that makes Jabba's story better to Jabba? Why is just the... sound of people talking to him the one fantasy he can't self maintain? It's the only part of this from his perspective that isn't pure masturbatory wish fulfillment.

It's like his opponent's chatter, not their arguments he's openly ignoring those, but just their basic noisemaking is the one tent pole of his fantasy he can't maintain on his own. It's... bizarre.

 

[The Norseman]

That's been obvious for years.

What, to me at least, is still meta-fascinating is the question of why we are necessary for him to do that. The only X factor in this whole nonsense is why Jabba is willing to craft every detail of his self insert fantasy world... except for us.

It seems Jabba is willing to lie about everything except for the fact that his opponents exist.

Jabba could just... make up his opponents in his story. He could right out his whole epic yarn of him beating the skeptics with his amazing debate style... and just make up the skeptic characters in it.

I mean he's basically doing that now. He's in open admission that the characters in his story are going to be made up whole cloth. The fact that this is basically just a fantasy for Jabba is well established, that genie's not going back in the bottle.

Why is lying about his opponent's actual literal existence and token participation the one line he won't cross? Why does he have to go through the motions of pretending to have a discussion that is is openly going to misuse?

He obviously has an idea of what "a skeptic" is in his head he's arguing against. If the actors in his play aren't going to play the role he's written for them why not just... not have them?

Out of all the stuff Jabba has been wrong about, been dishonest about, and refused to answer that's the question I'd like honestly answered the most.

It's the one last thing I'm legit curious about here. What purpose, what psychological need or function do we fill in all this? When Jabba's off writing this fiction making up both sides of the argument as he's admitting he's doing... what does he get out of this? Why does he come back? Jabba's not interested in what we say or our argument but he seems to need for us to just... make noise at him.

What is it about this discussion (that stopped being about the topic and start being about the meta topic about 3 posts in) that makes Jabba's story better to Jabba? Why is just the... sound of people talking to him the one fantasy he can't self maintain? It's the only part of this from his perspective that isn't pure masturbatory wish fulfillment.

It's like his opponent's chatter, not their arguments he's openly ignoring those, but just their basic noisemaking is the one tent pole of his fantasy he can't maintain on his own. It's... bizarre.

Because he set out to show up those nasty, arrogant, atheistic skeptics and it's way too late to back out now once it's blatantly obvious to everyone (including himself) he's completely full of it. To help assuage his crumbling self-esteem, he must therefore try and use our own words against us; and sad thing is, even he recognizes that making up our side wouldn't pass muster with the so-called neutral audience.

I don't know if you know this or not, but when he first started in here regarding the Shroud of Turin, he got lots of off-site support, berating ISF and members here; he was egged on and probably got lots of inflation of his ego.

Unlike Shroudies, however, who will provide that sort of unthinking support, real statisticians and scientists have all roundly shot down his immortality theory which he probably found to be quite shocking. After all, some "scientists" think the Shroud is the actual burial cloth of Jesus and Jabba was right about the Shroud, so why shouldn't he be right about immortality too?

That's my 2¢.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I'd rather focus in this side of the co-dependency... it's like you all couldn't see the constant pattern in this forum of enabling people who have their bottles short of a few sips to enact here their hedonistic fantasies and beliefs.

Jabba is just the typical creation of randi/internationalskeptic forums. He couldn't have done it without the invaluable help of those who have sparred with him under the false belief that their replies were demolishing Jabba's position when in fact those replies just acted as padding material to protect Jabba from injuries while he trained.

They (Jabba & Co.) are very clear about that. Why don't you?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So this is all our fault.

 

[calebprime]

If I may repeat, or even multipeat, myself:

Jabba, you can use anything at all from any of my posts here or elsewhere, in any way you like, in any map, blog, page, or finger painting you like.

Yessir! Any goddamned thing at all!

I hearby grant Jabba the right to use any recording of mine in any way whatsoever. Just don't say it was by me. Unless there's real money in it.
Then I want 50/50. Aw who am i kidding

EVERYTHING MUST GO

 

[aleCcowaN]

So this is all our fault.

Or "all" your pleasure. Who knows? There's no accounting for taste, used to say an old woman while she ate her own snot.

Jabba is not the only person who has the ability of taking shield in some mental representation of themselves that doesn't fit into reality. It may be a human thing.

What does the foreign saying tell? It takes two to tango. I have a local one to add: "sarna con gusto no pica" (it doesn't itch the mange you have looked forward to have)

 

[JoeMorgue]

Or "all" your pleasure. Who knows? There's no accounting for taste, used to say an old woman while she ate her own snot.

Jabba is not the only person who has the ability of taking shield in some mental representation of themselves that doesn't fit into reality. It may be a human thing.

What does the foreign saying tell? It takes two to tango. I have a local one to add: "sarna con gusto no pica" (it doesn't itch the mange you have looked forward to have)

Oh for Pete's sake.

You're gonna try and play "Both sides are doing the same thing, just in different ways" card in this thread?

I am so sick of the South Park "All participants in any volatile discussion just have to equally unreasonable" nonsense.

 

[JayUtah]

Jabba is not the only person who has the ability of taking shield in some mental representation of themselves that doesn't fit into reality. It may be a human thing.

If you're insinuating that this is what Jabba's critics do, I'm going to disagree. I see a fundamental difference between Jabba and his critics. I don't dispute that people overstate themselves; after all, I read about a thousand resumes a year. But extent matters. There's a huge difference between putting one's best foot forward and the wholesale delusion Jabba has perpetrated. I don't see Jabba's critics departing from reality.

 

[Belz...]

Or "all" your pleasure. Who knows? There's no accounting for taste, used to say an old woman while she ate her own snot.

Jabba is not the only person who has the ability of taking shield in some mental representation of themselves that doesn't fit into reality. It may be a human thing.

What does the foreign saying tell? It takes two to tango. I have a local one to add: "sarna con gusto no pica" (it doesn't itch the mange you have looked forward to have)

No, I think you should read the thread since the beginning. It might take a few months, but it will beat out of you the delusion that there's some sort of equivalence in fault here.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Regular reminder that Jabba tried to claim Randi's million because people had stopped responding to,and because of, his nonsense and dishonesty

 

[aleCcowaN]

Oh for Pete's sake.

You're gonna try and play "Both sides are doing the same thing, just in different ways" card in this thread?

I am so sick of the South Park "All participants in any volatile discussion just have to equally unreasonable" nonsense.

If you're insinuating that this is what Jabba's critics do, I'm going to disagree. I see a fundamental difference between Jabba and his critics. I don't dispute that people overstate themselves; after all, I read about a thousand resumes a year. But extent matters. There's a huge difference between putting one's best foot forward and the wholesale delusion Jabba has perpetrated. I don't see Jabba's critics departing from reality.

I never suggested Jabba's critics to be delusional or even ignorant. I meant their compulsion to reply to Jabba's in spite he has snubbed them systematically through the years. It's more of a borderline OCD thing than "duh, duh".

It has been a matter of power here. Jabba is the strong one, the rest are the weak (and they take consolation in thinking Jabba is the pathetic one). Tens of thousands of messages have been posted, most of them addressed to Jabba's and he has ignored most of them. His path hasn't turned aside in five years. He's basically saying the same in the same way.

Jabba also knows his critics need him. That's why he posts some nonsensical content and he usually kind of gets five replies in the first two hours or less (check the time tags in the messages).

I don't need Jabba, and I think Jabba's in this forum is proof of its decadence. Just ignore Jabba's future posts and he'll quickly go away. You even may get some extra fun from his probable attempts of upping his bet to lure you back into the discussion.

Or you may do it the serious way. When he posts his nonsense again you may reply "you asked the same in post #666, I replied to you in post #667. Go back and answer my post". When he changes the subject, you insist "but you're yet to reply to my post #667".

 

[John Jones]

[...]

Or you may do it the serious way. When he posts his nonsense again you may reply "you asked the same in post #666, I replied to you in post #667. Go back and answer my post". When he changes the subject, you insist "but you're yet to reply to my post #667".

That's been going on for years.

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

Please tell me why, in your road map you have failed to identify clearly which words are yours and which are not?
Why have you rearranged the chronology of said posts?
Why have you editted said posts?
Why have you entirely ignored many posts?

Is that "effective debate" or subterfuge? Or are those synonyms in your idea?

 

[abaddon]

Jabba,

I also not that you have used post numbers as referents. Did you not know that those are subject to change? Or was such usage yet another attempt at obfuscation?

Also, while you intermittently provide post numbers, you do not identify which iteration of the thread whence those numbers are derived. For example, you write this...

(1463) Mojo,

– Good question. I need a nap. I’ll be back.

1463 is quite obviously a referent to some post here but which one? This thread alone has 7 iterations all of which have a post 1463. Your shroud threads also have many iterations each with their own "post 1463". How is anyone to know which post you are referring to? Compounding this issue is the fact that post numbers change all the time.

Let me take a guess and assume that you mean post 1463 of this current iteration of your thread. Well I cannot because we have not reached such a post count yet in this thread. Perhaps it was the last iteration? Maybe. And it turns out yes, it was.

What you are demanding is that everyone puts stupidly unreasonable effort into finding whatever it is to whichever post it might be that you are referencing in the vain hope that nobody will check.

 

[Belz...]

It has been a matter of power here. Jabba is the strong one, the rest are the weak

How in the blue hell do you come to this ridiculous conclusion?

Jabba also knows his critics need him.

No, there's plenty of other woo-woo pushers out there for us to chew on. It's entertainment, not need.

I don't need Jabba, and I think Jabba's in this forum is proof of its decadence.

Or you may do it the serious way. When he posts his nonsense again you may reply "you asked the same in post #666, I replied to you in post #667. Go back and answer my post". When he changes the subject, you insist "but you're yet to reply to my post #667".

We tried that before. Several times. Doesn't work.

Again, you apparently have no experience with this thread but think you are able to summarize it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It has been a matter of power here. Jabba is the strong one, the rest are the weak (and they take consolation in thinking Jabba is the pathetic one). Tens of thousands of messages have been posted, most of them addressed to Jabba's and he has ignored most of them. His path hasn't turned aside in five years. He's basically saying the same in the same way.

Oh what a load.

Or you may do it the serious way. When he posts his nonsense again you may reply "you asked the same in post #666, I replied to you in post #667. Go back and answer my post". When he changes the subject, you insist "but you're yet to reply to my post #667".

No. It's not our job to spoon feed Jabba arguments we've already made and he's ignored. Jabba can use the search function as well as we can.

And... we have. You're literally describing the entire thread. "Already been answered" is probably the most common phrase uttered in this thread.

What we aren't "doing it right" unless we put the effort into hand holding him back to something he's just going to ignore anyway?

What is it about this thread that attracts such thread nannying from random people?

 

[calebprime]

[paradox mode] one feels that the Black Knight loses the sword fight but wins the larger battle for screen dominance: You can't take your eyes off him.

One feels that to say the obvious thing would be to say the obvious thing.

This is known as a tautology, of which perhaps of the some skeletal scholars are not unaware, were their dry stock bed rustlings not to the contrary.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think a few people are under the mistaking assumption that anyone is actually arguing with Jabba.

We're not. We're arguing at Jabba because at this point it's just sort of fun and it's good practice and the whole meta-conversation around this is engaging.

Arguing against someone who is this comically bad at arguing does have some benefit. It's rare to see bad argumentatives stripped this bare. This is like compressed distilled bad argument resin. Might as well use this opportunity to run some experiments on it. It's like an anthropologist finding an uncontacted tribe in the wild he can observe without the taint of society.

 

[JayUtah]

It's more of a borderline OCD thing than "duh, duh".

I disagree with your diagnosis of me.

Jabba also knows his critics need him.

Nonsense. There are plenty of fringe claimants at this forum to satisfy people who merely want to tangle with woo. Jabba's not that special. He went away a while back and nobody cared.

Just ignore Jabba's future posts and he'll quickly go away.

He flounced a couple months ago, whereupon his thread went almost entirely silent. It was Jabba who came back to pick it up, announcing he "couldn't stay away."

Or you may do it the serious way. When...

Did you even read the thread? I mean, like all seven chapters of it? That's almost verbatim a description of what has happened.

Now shall we shift the discussion to the Thread Nanny archetype? You know, the poster who drops into a thread he hasn't largely participated in, tells everyone what they're doing wrong without really understanding the nuances of the thread dynamic.

 

[JayUtah]

What you are demanding is that everyone puts stupidly unreasonable effort into finding whatever it is to whichever post it might be that you are referencing in the vain hope that nobody will check.

Indeed, it's obviously intended to deceive the reader into thinking his excerpts are properly sourced. He provides the semblance of a citation, but it's not even remotely enough to locate the source material and investigate its context or the fidelity of the excerpting. Even if he provides a general link back to this debate (which I presume he still hasn't) the reader won't likely want to click around in all seven chapters until he homes in on the post. Someone who claims to have a PhD should know how property to cite his sources.

Prima facie evidence of intent to deceive.