I agree with Darat on all points. People are people. I find same tactics from all sides. And I would remind people that interactions here go back over several boards. Having been to some of these boards, I noticed that situations can be rather reversed- where believers are in charge, if you think skeptics were treated well by some of the same believers who post here complaining about JREF...well, forget it. Do I even need to mention the great Steve Grenard purge? Or the Friends of John Edward heavy hand moderation? On TvTalkshows, I have seen some venom against people who didn't even post there. And I have not seen people defending skeptics there, but perhaps I merely missed that part.
Am I saying they did it to skeptics- let's do it to them- of course not. I am just saying it is the nature of the beast. People hold on to their beliefs. There will be rancor, just like there is rancor between Democrats/Republicans, Pro Israel side/Pro-Palestinian side. Kids playing nice is for the sand box. This is a messageboard, on JREF, where debate is welcomed and claims will be challenged.
I used to defend believers in general and individually against big bad skeptics. I believed then, like I believe now that some tactics are counterproductive. I stopped my interference when I saw some of the people I was defending were merrily engaging in the very same behaviour elsewhere. At that point, too late I decided it is not my job to protect anyone. People are adults. Ignore lists are here for a reason. If people choose to engage abusive people on a message board, I cannot stop them.
However, the bigger issue is what and who is ignored. I feel sometimes the issues and questions that are ignored are not merely the Clausian ones. Yes, Claus can behave like an a$$. But many of his questions are legitimate. It is likely in all the questions he has, there are some the rest of us have also! For example, the lamp thread
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30007 Clancie made a claim about spirits communicating via electricity. About 4 skeptics responded to it (including Claus)....the thread sinks into oblivion. Well, I think it is an interesting claim with enormous implications, but as a nice person, I let it go. However, had this been something that happened repeatedly, I would have felt the urge to start a list myself
For me, the most difficult thing in arguing with believers is simply understanding what exactly is being claimed. X is talking to the dead- How? Simple words. Clear language. Spirits can communicate with electricity- How? Again, simplicity. Someone had a Near Death Experience- Evidence- Simplicity. Sometimes it feels like so much smoke and uncertainty and unnecessary complication.
But we sometimes forget this is not an merely intellectual exercise. People are bilked of a lot of money by psychic frauds. Parents of missing children are tortured by these ghouls. Remember that Elizabeth Smart's family was contacted by 600 (six
hundred) psychics. Some of them told them she was dead, and they checked out every lead, because they could not think that perhaps one they would not check would be the real one.
http://kutv.com/related/local_story_318170333.html
There actually are deaths due to paranormal beliefs. People who believed in quack healers and did not seek regular treatment, for example. Sylvia Browne gives medical advice on Montel...what happens if someone follows it? She also claims to have assisted locating missing children....but there is never any proof. And now she and JE will do a seminar together. Cut from the same rotten cloth.
So here is what I think- make a claim- be challenged. If you get offended by jerks, don't take the bait. Ignore feature is terrific. But don't excuse not answering legitimate questions by saying a bad guy asked them. And, don't take potshots if you claim the high ground. It makes it more difficult to sympathize.
