First Impressions are everything...

[RAMS]

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

You are correct to a 'T'.

From what I have observed, for the most part, there seems to be an overabundance of extremely well thought out responses across the whole spectrum.

The one glaring error in many post replies is the vitriol, not humorous, that is laced in so many replies.

Example to Scooby, say, for the 'angle cut beam issue' elsewhere.

He is mistaken in his claim. Okay, fine. But I fail to see the point of responding to him with some sort of comment like this:

"like all you nutters, you post some unsubstantiated nonsense. You are a bunch of cowards too......."

Vs. this response:

"You are in error." (and then state why, with fact.) Nothing more or less.

That is the only issue I see in any of the post replies by so many here.

Great posts by so many. Leave out the vitriol.

RAMS

 

[Overman]

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.

Went it over comb and tooth, and found none. You guys actually all did a great job on this one, and I am not sure what I was reading into at first...Mabye a couple of words in quotation marks? Not sure.

Def. Not Rants, my bad.

 

[Horatius]

Went it over comb and tooth, and found none. You guys actually all did a great job on this one, and I am not sure what I was reading into at first...Mabye a couple of words in quotation marks? Not sure.

Def. Not Rants, my bad.

Oh, good. I was afraid it was me going nuts, when it was actually you


But the point remains, it is all too tempting to just flame away at some people, so we must be constantly vigilant. Stop and ask yourself if you're really making a worthwhile point before hitting "submit reply".

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I guess I am calling on the JREF CT subgroup to reflect on whether we need to tone things down a bit?

But . . . wouldn't that interfere with the government checks paying us as disinfo agents?

 

[LashL]

Great points, TAM (and others), and they needed to be said. It's easy to get wrapped up in things here, especially after the pdoh multi-sock debacle, so this thread is a timely, and appropriate, reminder.

 

[Garrette]

But . . . wouldn't that interfere with the government checks paying us as disinfo agents?

Serves 'em right. My last one bounced.

 

[Brainster]

This is what I was getting at in a roundabout way a couple months ago when I suggested that we specialize. New Deniers show up and are hit with 25-30 different JREFers. I am sure it is intimidating and at times ineffective.

 

[Minadin]

I apologize for relating my initial suspicion. There was just something about Hyperviolet's post that struck me as similar to how some of the old arguments with the old started out; I'm not even sure what it was. From here on in I'll do my best to give new posters the benefit of the doubt and keep my "gut feelings" in check.

 

[William Rea]

I suppose it was inevitable that I would post in here and somehow it now seems cliched for me to do so.

You guys have a problem don't you.

1. The CT forum is under observation from the owners because it generates bad post reports way above the level of any other forum. It's general level of behaviour has obviously become an embarrassment. I'm not in the least surprised.

2. A high percentage of posts are now just plain abusive and you have an embarrassment of so called "skeptic" posters who make it impossible for sensible "skeptic" posters to debate. In addition even some of the seemingly highly regarded "skeptic" posters are not averse to the sort of tactics TAM describes.

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

I don't suppose you noticed in the wording that this forum was not intended to be a home base for "skeptics".

You moderate posters have allowed this to go on for so long now that I don't know if this can be turned around.​

 

[T.A.M.]

Minadin:

I don't think you need to apologize. The heightened suspicion is warranted, given the rash of PDoh puppets. I think it is in how we respond, how we react, that needs some "tuning". Like I said, if they begin to show the second sign of the "Mark of Woo", as we have labeled it, than we call them on it, make then prove their case. If however, they cannot, I am seeing that name calling and gang beating them is not effective. Not only does it get you nowhere with the poster in question, but the fear will mount in any fence sitters, who were perhaps contemplating joining to ask a few questions themselves.

TAM

 

[hellaeon]

Man, I hate being nice for the sake of it. Im not tolerant of their rubbish. If they want to be stupid fine, dont infect this place with it. This place is to learn, not to spread spam.

If someone comes along and says I dont like this aspect of blah, thats cool, it it highly likely to have a better explanantion weighing in reality then the CT counterpart. Its the next step of that person understanding their error and learning which gets me annoyed. Humility. The spooge of this kind of idiot still hangs from the forum walls - 28th, pdumb, killtown, docker....to the current horde of pdumb socks.

My thoughts

 

[T.A.M.]

I suppose it was inevitable that I would post in here and somehow it now seems cliched for me to do so.

You guys have a problem don't you.

1. The CT forum is under observation from the owners because it generates bad post reports way above the level of any other forum. It's general level of behaviour has obviously become an embarrassment. I'm not in the least surprised.

My posting of this thread has nothing to do with the owners. I have not been contacted by them or warned by them. I posted this out of personal observation of some of the reactions from newcomers, and my own personal reflections.

2. A high percentage of posts are now just plain abusive and you have an embarrassment of so called "skeptic" posters who make it impossible for sensible "skeptic" posters to debate. In addition even some of the seemingly highly regarded "skeptic" posters are not averse to the sort of tactics TAM describes.

I would say a higher percentage than one would like to see, but not neccesarily a high percentage as a percentage of the total. I would agree that some people have a more abrasive attitude toward the truthers than others, but it may, or may not be justified.

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

I admit, that my role as a debunker is defined by what I debunk, namely the 9/11 "truth" movement, more specifically the MIHOPs. I am for the honest truth as proven by SOLID EVIDENCE AND FACTS, not opinion and speculation,

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

I use the term "Twoofer" or "Woo" when I am refering to someone who is making a rediculous claim or accusation. I rarely, if ever use it on someone just asking questions. As a matter of fact, 99% of the time I am not using it on an individual, but in describing the movement itself.

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."​

Intelligence does not negate or exclude descriptives, even if of a more malignant or humorous nature.

I don't suppose you noticed in the wording that this forum was not intended to be a home base for "skeptics".

You moderate posters have allowed this to go on for so long now that I don't know if this can be turned around.

What this place, this SUBFORUM, has become, is similar to all subforums...it is a product of the people who contribute to it. As a result, this has become a place for truth movement skeptics/debunkers to gather. Similar to 9/11blogger, which has become a place for the truthers to gather.

I am sure, given the intelligence and civility of the vast majority of people who post here, that we can save it...if it needs "saving".

Thanks for your input William.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

Er this entire forum is pretty much define by what it is up against. Which is woo. Woo isn't just used here. Paranormal belief. That sort of thing. That's why the JREF exists - to combat pseudoscience, and people believing in nonsense like predicting the future and reading minds. All that is woo.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

Man, I hate being nice for the sake of it. Im not tolerant of their rubbish. If they want to be stupid fine, dont infect this place with it. This place is to learn, not to spread spam.

If someone comes along and says I dont like this aspect of blah, thats cool, it it highly likely to have a better explanantion weighing in reality then the CT counterpart. Its the next step of that person understanding their error and learning which gets me annoyed. Humility. The spooge of this kind of idiot still hangs from the forum walls - 28th, pdumb, killtown, docker....to the current horde of pdumb socks.

My thoughts

Not for the sake of it, but (1) to not lower ourselves to that type of behaviour that we detest ourselves, and (2) to be more productive in convincing those who watchthat we are not the silly ones, but rather the mature rational ones, with the rational arguements.

Don't forget, when PDoh was here, I was often the direct target of his slander and insults, so I for one lose no sleep over people berating him and his socks...

TAM

 

[William Rea]

My posting of this thread has nothing to do with the owners. I have not been contacted by them or warned by them. I posted this out of personal observation of some of the reactions from newcomers, and my own personal reflections.

Thank you for your measured response.

I didn't mean to imply that you were acting on behalf of the owners. I know from posts in other forums that the CT forum is definitely under observation though.

Though of course you understand I don't agree with you completely on the other points.

 

[hellaeon]

TAM - totally fair call and pretty much sums up what most people think.

I struggle to deal with stupidity I attribute to people doing on purpose, or to take a short cut, or save time etc.

Example. Taxi driver. Pulls up to the taxi loading bit next to the pavement but straddles the taxi across the traffic lights before the zone blocking the walk way for pedestrians. He knew he would block it. The line of taxis was already long and he can see no passengers waiting. OK fine, wait for the lights to change. Lights change allowing people to walk. He don't move, or tries to, he sits their blocking the walkway and pedestrians being able to walk across (including wheelchairs).

Do I just shake my head and accept this? No I naturally say 'What are you doing you idiot?' and get that look from him that acknowledges the potatoes growing from his ears.

This is how I approach people here and in general day to day activities. If you don't know better fine, once you do and then should, your an idiot.

Common sense prevails.

 

[Minadin]

Minadin:

I don't think you need to apologize. The heightened suspicion is warranted, given the rash of PDoh puppets.

Thanks TAM, however, just to clarify though, I was apologizing for relaying it, not for my own suspicion.

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM - totally fair call and pretty much sums up what most people think.

I struggle to deal with stupidity I attribute to people doing on purpose, or to take a short cut, or save time etc.

Example. Taxi driver. Pulls up to the taxi loading bit next to the pavement but straddles the taxi across the traffic lights before the zone blocking the walk way for pedestrians. He knew he would block it. The line of taxis was already long and he can see no passengers waiting. OK fine, wait for the lights to change. Lights change allowing people to walk. He don't move, or tries to, he sits their blocking the walkway and pedestrians being able to walk across (including wheelchairs).

Do I just shake my head and accept this? No I naturally say 'What are you doing you idiot?' and get that look from him that acknowledges the potatoes growing from his ears.

This is how I approach people here and in general day to day activities. If you don't know better fine, once you do and then should, your an idiot.

Common sense prevails.

That is a natural human response, and I would not deny you it. I my self am guilty of it here and elsewhere on more than one occasion. In reflection, however, taking out the "knee jerk" factor, I am able to see that for my own objective, to persuade the fence sitters, it can be counter productive, if they see this forum as a place to get ridiculed and lambasted if you ask questions.

"bombing" someone who comes here with the sole purpose of "spueing Woo" is not necessarily uncalled for, as they likely deserve a round of ridicule, but lately I have seen a pattern here where we are jumping the gun to early, and just venting our fatigue with dealing with this shaite.

my 2 cents in reply.

TAM

 

[hellaeon]

That is a natural human response, and I would not deny you it. I my self am guilty of it here and elsewhere on more than one occasion. In reflection, however, taking out the "knee jerk" factor, I am able to see that for my own objective, to persuade the fence sitters, it can be counter productive, if they see this forum as a place to get ridiculed and lambasted if you ask questions.

"bombing" someone who comes here with the sole purpose of "spueing Woo" is not necessarily uncalled for, as they likely deserve a round of ridicule, but lately I have seen a pattern here where we are jumping the gun to early, and just venting our fatigue with dealing with this shaite.

my 2 cents in reply.

TAM

Very good points, agree on the knee jerk, its harder to place what I said in a discussion medium like a forum, as that observation of mine is based on behaviour, the forum is based on what is said, and there it is, in print. Its going to always be an issue where everyone has a slightly different slant. Heh, should I say, less a factual based discussion, more so opinion? This may belong in general skep forum.

Cheers TAM.

 

[tonicblue]

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

I would like to thank TAM for starting this thread. I have lurked here since becoming disillusioned with the Loose Change forum after it's self-destruct last year.

I was reluctant to join up and post because of the feeding frenzy I observe when new members on the conspiracy side of the debate start to post. I decided to join up as a result of this thread, so thank you TAM.