OK, an answer in two parts.
1) No, I don't remember that incident at all. It must have been so far in the past and so unimportant that it really has stayed in the forefront of my mind...not. However can you pick which one was me? It will be very difficult for you!
in itself, an unimportant example, but handy because it stands out as so ludicrous in and of itself. about 4 years ago, i would guess.
2) "Vile mouths"? Care to provide an example of this? PS. We do rather like to see evidence here, so if you wouldn't mind...
look up mousey, manon thebus, prester somebody, zookeeper, over at hpathy. personally, i don't include them in my resources files, and in fact have for some time now enjoyed blocking their access to our forums.
I'm not offended in the slightest. I don't know what gave you that idea. It's just that my usually impeccable memory has no recollection of any such activity taking place.
OK.
Certainly I agree. Skeptics DO tend to ask questions that force others to search within themselves,
ahh, now i understand. but, you see, the problem is that the present thread, for the most part, is an excellent example of an excellent discussion. sometimes a little over the top, but nothing that i would describe as vile. and oftentimes these people don't like what they are forced to see clearly.
really? now, my usually impeccable memory has not recollection of that sort of behavior going on. hmmm, d'ya think i, or perchance even vous, might be influenced in our recollections by bias? if you answer that, please address both sides, as i am interested in all the evidence, not merely that which flatters my side. Which is disturbing for their little fantasies, and so they have to blame SOMEBODY, so they turn on the skeptic who asked the question - they are an easy target. So of course they will call skeptics habitually insulting when all they are really is inquiring minds.
Manners are usually not the issue at all - more often than not
indeed at least this is the case in the present thread. if, however, you want examples of blemishes on what you appear to perceive as the pristine complexion of the totality of the skeptical communities public deportment, as i suggested, visit hpathy and search for the above names. the skeptics have been VERY polite, not even using immoderate language or "the wrong words" or mentioning taboo subjects. But when the fantasies come crashing down, someone has to get the blame, even if the reason is totally made up.
It's all about towering pride built on total ignorance, usually.
ahhh, so perceptive, so moderately couched, so well documented. you outperform yourself, don't you? You have met Joe Delivera, haven't you.
actually, no.
