I found all of Ivscott's postings on Frappr (the temporary forum of the BFF). This person (I'm going to call Ivscott a "he") doesn't seem to offer much of originality or evidence that would cause skeptics to pause. Like most Bigfooters, he is hostile towards science and skeptics in general. He has that common sentiment that science and scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence that Bigfoot is real, or that it is probably real.
Where did you get that?
I don't understand how I am being illogical in my skeptical position on Bigfoot. As afar as prejudging goes; I wouldn't do it if Bigfooters weren't so damn easy to prejudge. I see that he also prejudges skeptics. I don't take much offense to that and really expect Bigfooters to mostly act just like they do. I don't really care what they might think about me.
The believers' inability to delivery any functional confirmation of the creature probably drives many of them towards a hobby of argumentative tactics and outright trickery and obfuscation when engaging skeptics. It must be frustrating. But for a skeptic, it appears to be a nauseatingly tedious exercise in nothingness. Depending on how you look at it, Bigfootery is going nowhere fast or going nowhere slowly.
Lu, you have posted things on Frappr about JREF that are revealing of your notion that the dynamics of argument are somehow important and that maybe "winning" arguments against skeptics is somehow like a worthy surrogate for that unobtainable confirmation.
You have said:
I'm going to take just one of those since quotes tend to disappear on this board.
"Y'know if a couple more of us showed up (at JREF) we'd have the scoftics outnumbered and then we could claim the majority opinion, therefore Bigfeet exist. <G> "
Please note I said "scoftics", not "sceptics". I find many of the sceptical arguments intriguing, but posts like the one about standing at the base of a mountain leave me scratching my head. Some of the posters here seem to be really young and uninformed. I have no empirical evidence to support that impression, of course. One turned out to be middle-aged and uninformed.
lvscott had commented on Thurkon's "majority rules" logic. Unfortunately there are no smilies on TBFF and no sarcasm smilies on any board I've seen. I was hoping people would at least know what a <G> means. If you'd post the link, others would be able to see the context. I've read there was a poll that shows 80% of Americans believe Sasquatches exist, so if there was anything to that logic, the "Bigfooters" would "win", assuming the poll was anywhere near accurate (I know they didn't count me). Did Thurkon even have a poll to support his contentions? These things aren't decided by majority vote, anyway, and the consensus in science can and does change.
Thurkon, you, and a few others throw out opinions as though they were facts. I object to the catagorizing that goes on here, as I've mentioned many times. Some of you seem more interested in thinking up novel insults than in discussing the issues, and I've been guilty of it, too, but it doesn't really accomplish much, does it? Well, maybe it exercises the neurons.
It was fun watching someone attack some of the logic here, whether lvscott comes aboard or not. All I can do is admit I never took Logic 101, get the opinion of a cyber friend who has and post the list of logical fallacies,again. I don't think these things can be decided by logic, as I've already stated. I totally agree hard evidence is needed, such as a large chunk of testable DNA, but until that time, what can I say? I don't even have a freezer.
BTW, Thurkon said he did 16 minutes of research. Remember that?
)) it is faulted. That means there is neither no conclusive evidence pink dragon (invisible one) do not exists. Personally I am partisan of "if it is not followed up by evidence, then I assume it does not exists". Call me a non-sceptic if you like but it make more logical sense speaking of supra/paranormal phenomenon like big foot, gods, ghost and assorted gremlin...).
