JREF (the board) is not a cult

[CFLarsen]

The only "cult like" behavior I could see being a possibility would be an obsession with the forum.

More like an addiction....Jeff the Monkeyboy (He Who Presses The Buttons Behind The Scenes) can tell you about frantic emails, whenever the board is down....

 

[Interesting Ian]

More like an addiction....Jeff the Monkeyboy (He Who Presses The Buttons Behind The Scenes) can tell you about frantic emails, whenever the board is down....

Yes, probably a lot of people are addicted to this board. I certainly am. But not many of us are addicted to following another poster wherever they go. Especially when the poster being followed around has the follower on ignore!

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, probably a lot of people are addicted to this board. I certainly am. But not many of us are addicted to following another poster wherever they go. Especially when the poster being followed around has the follower on ignore!

Who are you talking about, Ian?

It can't be me who is following Clancie around "wherever" she goes. I don't.

It can't be Clancie who has me on ignore. She doesn't.

You do remember that I showed you evidence, just a few days ago, that Clancie does not have me on ignore, don't you?

 

[Cleopatra]

Actually, I do hold skeptics to a higher standard. Maybe you think this is unfair, but I am consistant about it. I am an atheist and it irks me much more to see other atheists being abusive or bullying to Christians. I'm a liberal and I expect more out of liberals than I do conservatives.

Unfair? No, I am not getting into the procedure of thinking about the fairness of this opinion I think that it's just inconsistent with the ideas you expressed in this very thread about the topic.

You said and I agree with you that non skeptics shouldn't be treated as second rate members and yet you claim that you expect more from skeptics.

Why is that? Are skeptics more intelligent? Are they super human? I am sure that you agree that none of the above stands but this is how your opinion is translated.

There is also the minority viewpoint to consider. There are many, many more skeptics on this board than believers so that makes it much more prone to the "tyranny of the majority".

This argument doesn't stand in our case. Everybody who registers in this forum knows after lurking or following the discussions for a while where the majority comes from.

You cannot appeal to the argument of "the tyranny of the majority" because the majority doesn't decide about anything that dictates changes to individuals' lives. It's a discussion board.

Clancie, at least in the forums that I follow, has handled herself in a pretty good manner. I don't like to see her or anyone else for that matter bullied.

This sentence is the reason why I didn't reply to your message immediately. I wanted to think about it.

The behavior of a member in a forum must be judged in two levels: The "external characteristics",I mean the language he or she uses, whether he/she resorts to flaming or ad hominem attacks and how well he interacts with other members when he/she doesn't debate.

The second level of a good forum behavior is judged by the debating tactics in their essence. Since here we debate, members are expected to debate, they are expected to present proofs of their claims and they are expected to give answers that clarify their views.Also, intellectual honesty is important.

I cannot come here and be respected in discussions about Middle East because I am moderate and I provide proofs to my claims and go to another place that JREF members attend as well and present a different image of myself.

I cannot come here and hit those who expose my beliefs by insignuating that they are womenizers or what ever.

Can I? If yes, why? Because I am not a skeptic and therefore, I am inferior?

"Intellectual terrorism" still cracks me up, though!

Yeah I guess that we cannot agree on everything!!

 

[Clancie]

Just curious, Cleopatra, since this seems to be about me. What do you mean?

I cannot come here and be respected in discussions about Middle East because I am moderate and I provide proofs to my claims and go to another place that JREF members attend as well and present a different image of myself.

Well, I have an "opinion" about mediumship (not a "claim") which is somewhat in flux, but basically boils down to, "there might be something to it." I don't think people here (other than Claus) who know me from other boards see any big differences between my position here and elsewhere. Sometimes the emphasis goes one way, sometimes the other; after all, my main point in posting -anywhere- isn't to convince anyone else of something. Its to try to figure it out, based on continuing dialogue...experience...information, what -I- think about it.

But, as to your basic point, no, I actually don't think its relevant at all how you post elsewhere. For example, I would be unlikely to know (and therefore its rather unfair if I try to use it against you) how you present your arguments about the Middle East at, say, a Palestinian dominated board vs. a strongly pro-Sharon one. Similarly, I would not be able to (nor is it relevant) judge the consistency of your posts here based on what you say about the Middle East in your real life at lunch today, even if those comments might differ somewhat from something you posted here about the Middle East a month ago.

On a message board, what you see should, for all of us, pretty much be what we get--not taken from other themed boards, or mu.nu, or...wherever. Just my opinion though (and as I say, I don't think anyone else who's posted with me elsewher, other than Claus, sees any big "disconnect" between my posts here and elsewhere anyway).

And I'm always reevaluating what I think and testing out the arguments pro and con. And, I'm influenced by experience...by reading...by discussion. I vacillate in what I think of mediumship and that's pretty much consistent -everywhere (although I haven't changed much in the basic idea "there might be something to it". Sometimes I strongly lean one way; sometimes the other. Sometimes I argue one way; sometimes the other as I try to figure it out. The issue is not black and white to me at all yet, not at all like it is to some people.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Since here we debate, members are expected to debate, they are expected to present proofs of their claims

Yeah, and proof of their opinions.

 

[Cleopatra]

I am not 15 years old to address my post with a silly rolleye smile and yet you are doing it. Anyway.

I am embarassed when I have to reply to the evident but it's ok.

Ian yes, you must explain why you have an opinion, even when your opinion is not based on logical proofs you must have the honesty to declare that you have an opinion just because, without any reason and without any proof.

 

[fishbob]

Claiming that people here do not debate with arguments most of the times, it is like you question our ability in reading comprehension, it is as if you call us idiots.

/ Drive By / Wait a minute, Ian calls us idiots all the time. / Drive By /

 

[Beanbag]

OK, after wading through four pages of posts, I'm reasonably certain that Claus and Clancie don't like each other. There are certain other clues as to interpersonal relationships concerning other posters as well, though not nearly as easily discernable.

Did I miss something? I thought this had something to do with JREF cult status?

Regards;
Beanbag

 

[CFLarsen]

But, as to your basic point, no, I actually don't think its relevant at all how you post elsewhere.

So why aren't you speaking up against neofight, when she - here - refers to what I post at TVTalkshows?

OK, after wading through four pages of posts, I'm reasonably certain that Claus and Clancie don't like each other.

I have no opinion of Clancie's person. I do question her claims from time to time, as well as point out when she lies or misrepresents things, or simply exhibit double-standards.

Like above.

I do this whenever I spot it, no matter who it is. Steve Grenard can testify to this. As well as a few others.

 

[Beanbag]

I have no opinion of Clancie's person. I do question her claims from time to time, as well as point out when she lies or misrepresents things, or simply exhibit double-standards.

Like above.

I do this whenever I spot it, no matter who it is. Steve Grenard can testify to this. As well as a few others.

As a relative newcomer, there is a lot going on that doesn't make itself readily apparent to me. Like any community, the long-time members have a rich and varied relationship with each other, which makes it a community worth becoming a part of.

Regards;
Beanbag

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Beanbag

Like any community, the long-time members have a rich and varied relationship with each other

Uh, well, that's certainly a nice way to put it.

...which makes it a community worth becoming a part of.

Welcome, Beanbag. I hope you'll enjoy being part of the JREF community.

 

[CFLarsen]

Beanbag,

Yes, welcome! You will find this a forum where nobody is banned for their views. Just be prepared to be questioned, when you make claims. Some don't like that, but - hey - that's the way it is here.

 

[hammegk]

Beanbag

Yes, welcome! You will find this a forum where nobody is banned for their views.

Well, actually there have been a couple of exceptions -- posters who were banned for their views. We also have a perfectly subjective "don't be a jerk" rule that has been invoked by Admin a time or two.

Just be prepared to be questioned, when you make claims.

Only if you are a f*cking retard. That is a person who does not agree with the statement: it is 100% certain that Science requires -- as a necessary condition-- the axiom "objective physical reality exists".

Some don't like that, but - hey - that's the way it is here.

If you are not a f*cking retard (as defined above), questioning of your position will not be necessary and the "jerk" rule will not apply.

 

[Garrette]

Yes, beanbag, what hammegk says is true, though he was not supposed to reveal it to you until you reach the 5th Level (Acolyte) status in the Sooper Sekrit Skeptic Society.

At the 6th Level (P Zombie) you will have to choose which Conspiracy you wish to join. You can be like most fools and join the original but now wishy-washy EAC (Evil Atheist Conspiracy) or the splinter-group ECA (Evil Conspiracy of Atheists) who are much more militant and write better limericks. I am the Sekrit Poobah of the ECA but nobody knows about this so please keep it quiet; some others here have denied my Poobahsity but they are dead now; please keep that quiet, too.

The only rule is that you may never ever whatsoever anytime at all not even once criticise another skeptic. Unless of course he or she or it is in the EAC (or the ECA if you join the EAC which you know by now is not a wise choice). Oh, yes, you may also criticize your fellow ECAers if and only if you disagree with them, but this is a very radical step and never ever happens not even once ever at all in the EAC/ECA camps especially since I will be sending you periodic newsletters (as soon as I finish processing your ECA application) which will tell you what opinions to hold.

I hope that helps.

Robes and face masks are down the hall to the left.


Edited for reasons I cannot reveal; after all, it is a conspiracy

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, actually there have been a couple of exceptions -- posters who were banned for their views.

Who?

We also have a perfectly subjective "don't be a jerk" rule that has been invoked by Admin a time or two.

Behavior is not the same as views.

Only if you are a f*cking retard. That is a person who does not agree with the statement: it is 100% certain that Science requires -- as a necessary condition-- the axiom "objective physical reality exists".

Thanks for your input. I fail to see why people making claims are "f*cking retards". Perhaps you could elaborate (while keeping your Tourette's Syndrome in check)?

If you are not a f*cking retard (as defined above), questioning of your position will not be necessary and the "jerk" rule will not apply.

You are still confusing behavior with views.

 

[hammegk]

Who?



Behavior is not the same as views.



Thanks for your input. I fail to see why people making claims are "f*cking retards". Perhaps you could elaborate (while keeping your Tourette's Syndrome in check)?



You are still confusing behavior with views.

Are you as clueless as you let on above? I really don't think so.



Garrette forgot to mention the blood-brothers part of their ritual. Seems like a big chance to take, betting on no STDs in that bunch. Each to his own, of course.

 

[CFLarsen]

hammegk,

I asked you a simple question:

Who were banned for their views?

 

[hammegk]

Do what you do best -- so far as I've seen the only thing of value you are capable of -- and Start a List.

 

[Luciana]

The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

I'll answer to this paragraph later, let me devolop my thoughts first.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

I'm old at this message-board exchange things. A long time ago, in a BBS, in the very first week I arrived I had some friction with a female veteran. I think she was just jealous of the attention I was getting. She was intelligent, I'll grant her that, but she was also bitter about her being obese and her husband gay (sorry but that was true!). All that to say that, aside from that - and being a newbie, I tried to downplay her attacks on me for harmony's sake - there was no other reason why she was being confrontation against me. One day we went into open flame, and, even though my arguments were way stronger, she couldn't concede deceit and went straight to ad hominens.

She was a well-liked member of the community. They knew she had a temper, but they accepted that. They couldn't understand why we disliked each other and well, I was too polite to give them the reasons as I stated above, as that would seem petty and would offend other people. To others, it could be a silly catfight. To me, her meanness towards me was unnaceptable. I would not allow myself to be chased away by somebody else, because I liked the place. I was also in the comfortable position of winning all arguments against her - not that intelligent, plus her hatred of me clouded her thinking - and yet others were saying that I was baiting her on purpose (on the contrary, I was avoiding her, but still).

Well, well, it reached a point where my position would never be understood. And I was tired of her. Call it arrogance, but I decided she wasn't worthy of my time. I'd rather be watching a rerun of Dumb & Dumber and call it more productive than arguing with her. And who cares about the audience! The community would always think whatever they wanted to think, but they were not in my shoes and didn't know what it was like.

So I announced that from that point on I would ignore her completely. And guess what, I kept my word. She went in a frenzy trying to bait me. To the point that, in a meeting, she told everybody I was flirting with her husband. Can you see how low she could go? Don't you think I felt like screaming "hello-o, your husband is flirting with the waiter! Second, he's not my type and third I wouldn't want your leftover!!"

I'm sure some people believed her. Some didn't. Most couldn't care less. More importantly, her true character slowly revealed itself and she left the community with fewer friends. I, for one, I'm still part of it 8 years later. Her accusation of my having flirted with her husband didn't go too far because lies never go.

The example I'm giving is an extreme one and surely doesn't reflect the present situation well. I just wanted to tell how much I had to put up with once I decided to ignore her. She was in my twit list but I could see her badmouthing through other person's quote. I bit my tongue more than once. But I'm sure I did the right thing.

Please, Clancie, don't worry about what the community will think if you stop answering Claus for good. People will always think whatever they want to think! And if you're feeling badgered, then you don't owe an explanation to anyone, you don't owe evidence, you shouldn't expect to be even believed. If somebody think you're wuss - fine! But you wouldn't believe how relieved I felt once I put that woman out of my life. It only did me good. The freedom of it made me enjoy the place much more.

Hey, something similar, in a different scale, just happened recently to me, here. I decided to ignore a user who repeatedly called me a liar. I didn't even announce that, I just shut up. I let him have the last word, no prob. I realized there was no room in my life for people like him and end of story. Oh, the peace!

So, in relation to your first paragraph... there's *nothing* you can't ignore. You can, Clancie. Hypothetically speaking that's what I advise everybody to do once they're feeling harrassed.