JREF (the board) is not a cult

[CFLarsen]

Admittedly, I just threw out the "20 posts" idea, it could have been 100, it is an example not my main point. I don't read everything that Clancie or anyone else posts for that matter, but you certainly didn't "prove me wrong". You're focusing on this 20 posts thing in order to ignore my overall point (that you are behaving like a bully towards Clancie). You DID initiate the conversation on the majority of the exchanges even within those 20, correct?

Not correct. Clancie asked me questions, I replied.

I proved that your "20 posts" idea did not show that I "harrassed" Clancie. Correct?

I don't see Clancie even attempting to talk to you outside of paranormal subjects, but I do see you trying to initiate arguments with her.

Yes, Clancie talks to me, inasmuch as she asks questions e.g. about SkepticReport, which I - naturally - answers. She doesn't want to talk with me, which is rather silly, given that she is here to discuss, not find evidence. Seems her idea of debate is one-way.

You follow Clancie around because you have a specific beef (I know you like that term) with her. Do you deny that? Do you ever do a search specifically for Clancies posts? I don't visit the paranormal threads very often anymore, but I do notice that outside of there you seem to take every opportunity to fight with her. I see this as bullying.

Yes, I deny following Clancie around. I would like to see evidence of your claim.

Address the subject directly. I can't believe that you would deny that the problem you have is specifically with Clancie. Do you really believe that it just happens to be her that receives the majority of your responses? The "Passion" thread was a perfect example (which I suspect is why you avoided adressing it). Several people made the same points she did, but you sought her out to argue with.

Let me make one thing clear: I do not have a problem with Clancie. Clancie has a problem with me. I am not the one avoiding her, nor do I seek her out.

Why can't you admit that you have a problem with her instead of pretending that you are just a detached observer that "attacks points and claims"? Why Clancie specifically?

Again, I do not have a "problem" with Clancie, and there is nothing special about her.

I would not enjoy this board at all if somebody that didn't agree with my posts in, says, PCE&H so they decided to try and fight with me on every other topic. It is even worse when you do it because this is a skeptic board and you are one of the more respected skeptics here.

I do not fight with Clancie on every other topic. Please provide evidence of your claims.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am perfectly aware that there are many dialects in China. However, the two major Chinese languages are Cantonese and Mandarin.

Thanks for the clarification, but I could only have replied to what you actually said, which was: "Wrong again. I pointed out that you apparently did not know that there were two Chinese: Cantonese and Mandarin."

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanks for the clarification, but I could only have replied to what you actually said, which was: "Wrong again. I pointed out that you apparently did not know that there were two Chinese: Cantonese and Mandarin."

Fine, whatever.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I do not fight with Clancie on every other topic.

Please provide evidence of your claim.

 

[Ignatius]

Second time I have brought up the "Passion" thread as a very specific example, second time that you have conveniently ignored it and then pretended that I was not giving you "evidence". Why?

Now that we have gotten to know each other, can I start calling you "dude" now?

 

[CFLarsen]

Please provide evidence of your claim.

Do pay attention. I don't have time for your juvenile posts, T'ai Chi.

I replied to Ignatius' claim that I do fight with Clancie on every topic. Let's see his evidence first.

 

[CFLarsen]

Second time I have brought up the "Passion" thread as a very specific example, second time that you have conveniently ignored it and then pretended that I was not giving you "evidence". Why?

I have not "ignored" anything.

That is your evidence that I fight with Clancie on "every" topic?

One thread? Try again.

Now that we have gotten to know each other, can I start calling you "dude" now?

Not if you want me to respond to you.

 

[Yahweh]

Usually I try to have a sense of humor, but this is unacceptable...

They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.

Ian, if there has ever been a blatantly dishonest mischaracterization I have ever seen from this board, your comment above has to be it. If your point of your post was merely to provide an ironic example of intellectually dishonest argumentation with distortion and fabrication facts, then you've made your point quite well.

Calm yourself down, think of kittens, leave your petty little prejudices somewhere in the back of your freezer where they cant bother you (or more appropriately, where they can bother me).

 

[Ignatius]

I have not "ignored" anything.

That is your evidence that I fight with Clancie on "every" topic?

One thread? Try again.

How many topics would satisfy you if I actually spent the time to do this (or got someone else to do it)? Would you change your behavior at all if I did?

Why not start with the first one, "the Passion"?

Not if you want me to respond to you.

You used to have a sense of humor, dude.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Suezoled But my definition of cult may be rather limited. [/B]

So many cults, not enough kool-aid

 

[CFLarsen]

How many topics would satisfy you if I actually spent the time to do this (or got someone else to do it)? Would you change your behavior at all if I did?

How many? "Every" other topic that Clancie has posted on, of course. What did you mean by "every" other topic, if not "every" other topic? What does "every" mean to you?

Go make a list of "every" other topic Clancie has posted on, then point out just how often I "jump in" and "harrass" her. I did your work for you, when you claimed that I did it with her last 20 posts, I am not going to do it again.

Why not start with the first one, "the Passion"?

Because that is not evidence that I "jump in" and "harrass" her on "every" other topic she posts on.

I am waiting.

 

[Kopji]

Some discussions remind me of the Uncle Remus 'tar baby', maybe that would make a good skeptic mascot.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Usually I try to have a sense of humor, but this is unacceptable...

They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ian, if there has ever been a blatantly dishonest mischaracterization I have ever seen from this board, your comment above has to be it.

I'm afraid it's perfectly true. Extraordinary, but true I'm afraid

{shrugs}

Sorry.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Do pay attention. I don't have time for your juvenile posts, T'ai Chi.

Apparently you do.

 

[Cleopatra]

Me? Why?

Since you are so concerned about the way we behave here I was hoping that you would bring him in order. Of course you were not obliged to answer to Ian!I was hoping that in the context of the fair discussion you would make a comment about Ian's behavior and what sort of responses he triggers.Maybe you think that it's ok for somebody to behave the way Ian does, maybe not. We will never know since you never comment on this kind of behavior.

 

[asthmatic camel]

They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.

Oh boy, that's rich coming from you Ian

 

[Cleopatra]

Ignatius.

Let's say that we meet in this skeptic board and you are particularly interested in Middle Eastern politics and of course we start to discuss and get engaged in every debate that appears in this forum.

You find me posting inaccurate information, you find me posting opinions that I cannot back-up with reasonable arguments or you find me supporting my ideas based on facts that have been proven wrong or different that we have originally thought in the past.

You correct me once. I insist. You correct me twice. I insist and I start becoming irritated with you. You ask me to back-up my claims with proof. I don't and I take a break from the forum for a week and when I return I find another thread on this very topic and I post again arguments and opinion that I was asked to prove to the previous threads but I haven't.

Wouldn't you came after me in the new thread to remind me that I repeat claims that I have failed to prove in the past?

Let's say that this goes on for months.

In the mean time you discover that although here I post as a moderate Israeli and I accuse those that they don't apply skepticism in the ME Politics, in another forum, let's say "The Forum of the Fan Club of Ariel Sharon" I post different things. I jump on the neck of those who dare to question his policy and I accept a dirty war on those who apply criticism on his policy, you included. For example when somebody starts a dirty war against you I don't say anything, I don't ask the fellow posters to apply some skepticism, I support this war with my silence.

You, Ignatius who are really interested in the subject we discuss, you publish an on line issue " The Chronicles of Middle East" when you host as an editor various articles of people.

I who have been caught, lying, being double faced, supporting questionable debating tactics with my silence( don't forget!!! In the other forum people say that you left USA and you moved to Greece because here the society is more tolerant towards the pedophiles) come here and accuse you for being obsessed with me for wanting to show people that I have no arguments and that in other places I post different things.

And apart from that I try to belittle your efforts in "The Chronicles of Middle East" and upset you by posting every sort of stupidity that passes through my mind. Be careful!!! I do not start threads to discuss about the topics that you host in your magazine, I blame you and only you for the articles I find weak although you are not the one who has composed them, I wait impatiently for the first days of each month to come to start the same silly old story.

And all that for what?

Because you dared to ask me to support my claims. Because you dared to warn people that in other forums I have posted different things and I am not the skeptic I appear to be here. Because you dare to apply some skepticism.

How nice. How nice indeed.

If this is not intellectual terrorism what the hell it is?

 

[Kerberos]

They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.

You mean like attacking the same straw man 10 times, despite having it pointed out that it's a straw man 8 times. Oh wait, that wasn't a skeptic, was it?

 

[Ratman_tf]

But there again you're an idiot who can't think. What a load of cr@p people on here talk

Why are you still here Ian?

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Skeptics have good reason to dismiss lie detector tests! We’re opposed to this because skeptics with our immense intelligence are the only ones able to correctly judge what is true and false not some machine!