• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

First Impressions are everything...

T.A.M.

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
20,795
Lately I have noticed alot of complaints from new members, albeit mostly from those leaning to the "Woo" side of things, that we are so antagonistic as to be prohibitive in starting a rational debate with them.

Now I know many of you are thinking...

"Rational Debate? For most of them this is not possible."

...and for some, you may be correct. I think the days of having a rational discussion with Christophera, for instance, are long gone, and it is getting close for ACE Baker as well. However, if we are inclined to beat the "Bejesus" out of a member the minute the "Mark of Woo" presents itself, what are we really accomplishing?

I know many of you, the more senior members here, are tired of it, annoyed with it, but is it not better just to ignore the "woo" component, if it comes out in a member, than to verbally assault them. If their woo is rediculous, the fence sitters will see. If it is subtle, than we can bring it out for all to see in a more civil fashion.

Gravy, for the most part, seems to practice in this fashion. He presents the evidence, and if the member calls it bogus, or starts to "Woo" out, he usually ignores them. Of course there are exceptions, and even Gravy can get riled up with them when they are repeatedly immune to logic and rational thought. I guess I am calling on the JREF CT subgroup to reflect on whether we need to tone things down a bit?

Am I wrong here, should I just shut up?

Any thoughts?

TAM:)
 
It's the age old issue. Heck, look at the last big evolution conference; some people were highly critical of Dawkin's approach to religion and religious people; others were not. Honestly, I think things we have been a lot better if we hadn't had the run of 6+ pdoh socks. There's been a fair amount of us becoming the people that heard the boy cry, "Wolf!" too many times.

All we can try to do is treat each new face as a blank slate with which to converse and try to recognize when we are getting too frustrated and step back for a bit.
 
I've felt like bringing this up before, TAM, so, no, I don't think you are out of line.

I understand that many of the CT subforum regulars suffer from CT Fatigue Syndrome, but if that leads to them constantly refering to other people as idiots, morons, etc. and constantly mangling their screen names as some sort of put-down, then maybe it's time for them to take a break from the forum.

Some days when I read this sub-forum I get the feeling I'm back on a grade school playground given the behavior of a few people. It makes me cringe.

Frankly, I'm suprised the mods haven't stepped in a put a stop to it. Maybe that's why I'm not a mod. :)
 
I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

I know there are some hardcore troofers out there that do derserve to be instantly repelled like this, but what about the curious souls? If someone heard about the 9/11 'debate' the first thing they do is google it. After sifting thru mabye 50 or so pro CT sites they stumble across here, only to be berated instead of convinced.

I do think though, that everyone does a good job first directing people to the information they need (i.e Gravy's papers, Everyone's relevant posts, etc.) but if someone comes back and needs convincing still, give it to them.

Just because someone isn't totally convinced at first doesn't mean they won't be with the proper teachings...a lot of people come in here with 'common sense' but little idea of critical thinking methods.

The group is defineatly battle hardened, dealing with nutjobs daily, and I give mad props for that, because I would in no way be able to take it or have the patience that you guys do! I don't really swing by here too often, and when I do it is to reference a fact or two, and usally throw a couple of jabs at troofers in the process, but you can almost sense the strain this is causing on a lot of your posts. You guys have even made a 'troofer stamp' and can predict how the person will post??? What if you are wrong?

I just know about 10 years ago in life and in thought processes this could have easily been me popping in here to learn, and I would have been probably tilting the other way simply from mass exposure.

Arken posted about the fallacy of the middle 'you are either with us or against us'......

Just continue to have patience all, Logic will win out in this fight eventually, but you will never be able to convince eyes closed believers.

Much love and peace,

Overman
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
It's the age old issue. Heck, look at the last big evolution conference; some people were highly critical of Dawkin's approach to religion and religious people; others were not. Honestly, I think things we have been a lot better if we hadn't had the run of 6+ pdoh socks. There's been a fair amount of us becoming the people that heard the boy cry, "Wolf!" too many times.

All we can try to do is treat each new face as a blank slate with which to converse and try to recognize when we are getting too frustrated and step back for a bit.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, and unfortunately, given the way he tends to think and act, we have probably given him some small victory in the way we respond to all newcomers now.

I hope some of us are able to see this and perhaps go back to "Pre Doh" times.

TAM:)
 
Overman said:
I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

I know there are some hardcore troofers out there that do derserve to be instantly repelled like this, but what about the curious souls? If someone heard about the 9/11 'debate' the first thing they do is google it. After sifting thru mabye 50 or so pro CT sites they stumble across here, only to be berated instead of convinced.

I do think though, that everyone does a good job first directing people to the information they need (i.e Gravy's papers, Everyone's relevant posts, etc.) but if someone comes back and needs convincing still, give it to them.

Just because someone isn't totally convinced at first doesn't mean they won't be with the proper teachings...a lot of people come in here with 'common sense' but little idea of critical thinking methods.

The group is defineatly battle hardened, dealing with nutjobs daily, and I give mad props for that, because I would in no way be able to take it or have the patience that you guys do! I don't really swing by here too often, and when I do it is to reference a fact or two, and usally throw a couple of jabs at troofers in the process, but you can almost sense the strain this is causing on a lot of your posts. You guys have even made a 'troofer stamp' and can predict how the person will post??? What if you are wrong?

I just know about 10 years ago in life and in thought processes this could have easily been me popping in here to learn, and I would have been probably tilting the other way simply from mass exposure.

Arken posted about the fallacy of the middle 'you are either with us or against us'......

Just continue to have patience all, Logic will win out in this fight eventually, but you will never be able to convince eyes closed believers.

Much love and peace,

Overman
Click to expand...


The sad fact, is I, of all people, was the one (best I can recall) who coined the "Mark of Woo". While I do believe it exists, It does send me in with a certain mindset. I have, over the last few weeks considered taking an extended break from all this, but something keeps bringing me back...I think it is the fencesitters...

I just keep thinking of how easily my baby sister was taken in by the Woo until I set her straight. Now she too sees it for what it really is, but what about all the others...

TAM:)
 
Overman said:
I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.

I know there are some hardcore troofers out there that do derserve to be instantly repelled like this, but what about the curious souls? If someone heard about the 9/11 'debate' the first thing they do is google it. After sifting thru mabye 50 or so pro CT sites they stumble across here, only to be berated instead of convinced.

I do think though, that everyone does a good job first directing people to the information they need (i.e Gravy's papers, Everyone's relevant posts, etc.) but if someone comes back and needs convincing still, give it to them.

Just because someone isn't totally convinced at first doesn't mean they won't be with the proper teachings...a lot of people come in here with 'common sense' but little idea of critical thinking methods.

The group is defineatly battle hardened, dealing with nutjobs daily, and I give mad props for that, because I would in no way be able to take it or have the patience that you guys do! I don't really swing by here too often, and when I do it is to reference a fact or two, and usally throw a couple of jabs at troofers in the process, but you can almost sense the strain this is causing on a lot of your posts. You guys have even made a 'troofer stamp' and can predict how the person will post??? What if you are wrong?

I just know about 10 years ago in life and in thought processes this could have easily been me popping in here to learn, and I would have been probably tilting the other way simply from mass exposure.

Arken posted about the fallacy of the middle 'you are either with us or against us'......

Just continue to have patience all, Logic will win out in this fight eventually, but you will never be able to convince eyes closed believers.

Much love and peace,

Overman
Click to expand...

Overman, i dont feel i have went on any kind of rants at all. Could you please point me to where specifically i have ranted?

I have joined as a new member and naturally people are curious as to why i hold my beliefs. I have merely answered these questions, i havent tried to coax people into following what i believe. Certainly not ranting.
 
Hypervoilet,

I believe Overman means the number of posts in response to yours, with you not necessarily being the ranter.
 
Hyperviolet said:
Overman, i dont feel i have went on any kind of rants at all. Could you please point me to where specifically i have ranted?

I have joined as a new member and naturally people are curious as to why i hold my beliefs. I have merely answered these questions, i havent tried to coax people into following what i believe. Certainly not ranting.
Click to expand...
I agree, Hyperviolet. I don't think Overman was referring to you, but to those who responded negatively to you.
 
Yes, this is another pattern that does little to help, we could call it the "JREF" bomb. When a new person comes aboard, we tend to flock, like bees to honey. Now this is ok, I guess, if it is to observe, to take note, but often it ends up in a gang beating of said user...

Fortunately, in Hyperviolet's case, he/she has remained civil, and so have our guys.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Yes, this is another pattern that does little to help, we could call it the "JREF" bomb. When a new person comes aboard, we tend to flock, like bees to honey. Now this is ok, I guess, if it is to observe, to take note, but often it ends up in a gang beating of said user...

Fortunately, in Hyperviolet's case, he/she has remained civil, and so have our guys.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

He
:)

Yes, you all have been welcoming and civil. I must say it only helps your cause, too
 
When is the last time someone has come as a CTer and said I read Gravy's repost and have a problem with the following specific points?

No, they show up lazy to read and start to talk woo. Pagan, not one fact. Scooby, not one fact. SCG, not one fact. They all seem to be happy as bad actors trying to compete for the top high school drop out award, proud to be super ignorant on facts and oblivious to the facts presented because they just know 9/11 was an inside job. They have lost the competition to Charlie Sheen who is the most challenged truther and they think competition is still open.

You have not said much yet and I would expect someone really interested in the truth to read for days or weeks to learn the so called official story and why the truth movement is full of lies.
 
Last edited:
Hyperviolet:

I agree, it is a positive thing, and I think every now and then we need someone to hold up their hand for a moment and say,

"hold on...I know it makes us upset, and angry, but lets take a moment to reflect on why we are doing this, and what is the best way to accomplish it."

I have been guilty from time to time, of beating up on some posters here, figuratively, so I can relate. However, I trust my gut, and my gut is telling me now, that we may be moving to easily to antagonism, mockery, and general name calling, and that it is starting to effect the fence sitters, perhaps, in a negative way.

TAM:)
 
Last edited:
Overman said:
I don't consider myself part of the debunking sub group that exists, I am happy to be on your side though, and I was very surprised that midday, in a fashion of 5 hours, Hypervoilets post went 60+ and had all kinds of rants in it.
Click to expand...

Hyperviolet said:
Yes, you all have been welcoming and civil. I must say it only helps your cause, too
Click to expand...


I think part of the problem is also perceptions of what a "Rant" is. Overman mentions "all kinds of rants" in Hyperviolet's thread, yet Hyperviolet seems to disagree with this assesment. Perhaps Overman could link to a few of what he considers to be rants, so we'll know what he's talking about. One man's "Rant" may be another man's "forceful opinion".

There were a couple of posts I thought verged on impolite, but they were in reaction to other CT posters, not Hyperviolet. Same old arguments, new threads. I certainly wouldn't characterize that thread as having "all kinds of rants in it".

However, I do worry that some of us may be becoming inured to "rants" and may not notice them, while others may be overly sensitive. So examples are in order, I think.
 
beachnut said:
When is the last time someone has come as a CTer and said I read Gravy's repost and have a problem with the following specific points?

No, they show up lazy to read and start to talk woo. Pagan, not one fact. Scooby, not one fact. SCG, not one fact. They all seem to be happy as bad actors trying to compete for the top high school drop out award, proud to be super ignorant on facts and oblivious to the facts presented because they just know 9/11 was an inside job. They have lost the competition to Charlie Sheen who is the most challenged truther and they think competition is still open.

You have not said much yet and I would expect someone really interested in the truth to read for days or weeks to learn the so called official story and why the truth movement is full of lies.
Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, and I have felt this way alot. I guess feeling this way is only human, and as I have said before, it is part of the fatigue we go through with deaing with this day in, day out.

I am just not sure it is productive...but that depends on the reasons why a given idividual comes here for in the first place.

Also, as I have said, PDoh and his dozen socks, have been a large part of why we have come to feel as you do on this...and unfortunately, in a not so obvious way, this is a victory for him.

TAM:)
 
All kinds of rants was strong verbage, it probably wasn't that...I haven't reread the thread since...I'll check it out when I get some time...
 
One of the rules from a different board I hang out at:

If you intend to start a debate, search the forum and the associated websites first, to see if your arguments have been raised before. If you are too lazy to search the forum and the associated websites before launching what you no doubt believe to be an innovative and original argument, then do not complain if you are flamed to a crisp.
Click to expand...

If some one comes in with the same old woo and is too lazy to see that is has been debunked several times over, well I hope they have their asbestoses undies on.
 
azazal said:
One of the rules from a different board I hang out at:



If some one comes in with the same old woo and is too lazy to see that is has been debunked several times over, well I hope they have their asbestoses undies on.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If someone comes in here, and immediately begins to "spread the Woo", than they are fair game for flaming.

However, my point in the OP, is that I think we have gotten to the point where we often jump to quick. I also think we tend to gang up on said people. Yes I am sure it is no different at CTists forums, for debunkers that show up, but as someone who post here often says, why get down in the mud and wrestle with the swine...let us try to carry ourselves above this...is all I am saying. I am not telling people to stop, it is a free forum, a free world. I am merely saying, that if our objective is to convince or help out the fence sitters, than let us not make them fearful to join here and ask questions...or we are defeating our own purpose.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom