Skeptic vs. believer's forums

[CFLarsen]

The fact is that a great deal of skeptics will grow haughty at their greater knowledgeability as opposed to believers.

It's hard to be humble, when you know you are right!

I find it very interesting that it is the Superstitious ones who claim greater knowledgeability. They like to think that they have achieved some sort of "higher" knowledge, that invariably puts them above those who do not possess this illuminated state.

What they find extremely annoying is, when they come up with what they consider one "overwhelming fact" after another (and you can literally see the condescending glee in their eyes), only to have the skeptic shoot it down in seconds, because the skeptic has heard it all before, many times, and knows exactly how to counter it.

Nobody likes to have their "deep thinking" exposed as manure.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Yes, I am sure you hate it, Claus. Maybe that is why you are so bitter? Even fellow skeptics have to point out your errors and correct you these days. I know you don't see it, but you have become the mirror image of everything you rail against.

 

[Hellbound]

Luci, don't you have a terrorist attack to foil or a book to remote view somewhere? I bet you could sell your services to libraries to track down overdue books!

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I am sure you hate it, Claus. Maybe that is why you are so bitter? Even fellow skeptics have to point out your errors and correct you these days. I know you don't see it, but you have become the mirror image of everything you rail against.

Fellow skeptics are welcome to point out where I make errors. Heck, even you, even though you are no skeptic in any meaning of the word. That's how we learn. It is not surprising that you use this basic concept in skepticism as a way to attack me: You think that criticism is necessarily bad. It isn't, if one is interested in truth.

I am sorry to disappoint you, though: I am not bitter or hateful at all. I am disappointed that some people, such as yourself, find it necessary to lie, cheat and deceive other people. I don't understand this need, but I would like to.

Why is it necessary for you to present yourself as something you clearly are not?

That is just one of the questions I would like to know the answer to.

 

[Garvarn]

Lucianarchy and CFLarsen, although I haven't been that active in this forum, it's been hard not to notice that you two have a rather aggressive personal battle against each other. It also seems that this battle will go on forever and ever, so what's the point? Do ya'll just hate each other, plain and simple?

I do respect your vast knowledge and dedication, CDLarsen, and I do think that most of your posts are utter rubbish, Lucianarchy, but I fail to see the meaning in going on like you two do. Why?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy and CFLarsen, although I haven't been that active in this forum, it's been hard not to notice that you two have a rather aggressive personal battle against each other. It also seems that this battle will go on forever and ever, so what's the point? Do ya'll just hate each other, plain and simple?

I do respect your vast knowledge and dedication, CDLarsen, and I do think that most of your posts are utter rubbish, Lucianarchy, but I fail to see the meaning in going on like you two do. Why?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

I don't hate Lucianarchy. But I will not stop pointing out where he, or other people, deceives.

A lie unchallenged has a nasty habit of becoming truth.

"D"?

 

[Garvarn]

Fair enough, CF, but do you really think that lucianarchy's claims are held in high regard in this forum? But never mind, I see your point and I agree in principle.

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[Lucianarchy]

I do respect your vast knowledge and dedication, CDLarsen, and I do think that most of your posts are utter rubbish, Lucianarchy, but I fail to see the meaning in going on like you two do. Why?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

I am happy for you to have your opinion, Chat, really I am. As I am with everyone else. The difference with Larsen and to be honest, only a few others here, is that he flouts the rules by outright calling me a liar and a cheat, etc,. Now, I am happy if that is his opinion, you understand, but I am not happy for him to make those statements and flout the rules withg such disregard. I do take it up with the mods, but they are in a difficult position, mainly because I am simply unpopular here, and to take any action against larsen would be seen as 'siding with Lucianarchy'.

It is Larsen who "cheats" by breaking the rules. There is no proff at all that I am either a cheat or a liar. And believe it or not, I resent people like Larsen who abuse the rules in such a way.

Yes, this has been going on for some time, but I certainly did not 'start' this thing, and when we have had 'fresh starts', or breaks, Larsen immediately starts his claims about 'lies" etc.,

Now, I now I am not popular. Fine. No problem for me.

But all this does is show Larsen as pseudo-skepticism gone rampant with his personal attacks, and abusing the position he puts the mods in each time. Each time he does so, further he drags the image and credibility of the JREF into the mud. You may be happy with that, a few others may too. But you can be sure that the majority of skeptics are pissed off with what Larsen gets away with here. It will lead to the sort of place where no one but a bully or a fanatic is welcome.

Why now? Because he has been at it again for no reason in the PK Party thread. I have taken it to admin of course, but again the reaction is that it will be deferred until a later date. Yet we all know what would happen if it was the other way around.

Sure, I'll cool off again no doubt. Just thought this is the appropriate thread to raise the issue.

 

[Garvarn]

OK, lucianarchy, I think I can see why you think he's doing wrong. However, I've been called much, much worse things than that in other forums -- I don't go running to admin or mods and cry about it, I just ignore it. Why don't you?

This is the most open forum I've ever visited, i.e. skeptics are not being slandered to pieces just for asking fully legitimate questions and more importantly, you, a "believer", are able to post your claims, views or whatever, in a skeptic's forum, without being lynched by everybody -- although you feel you've been mistreated by some -- which is a benefit not given me or any skeptic in a "believer" forum. Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? I would suggest that you by know what's coming when you post here, so why let it bother you?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[Lucianarchy]

OK, lucianarchy, I think I can see why you think he's doing wrong. However, I've been called much, much worse things than that in other forums -- I don't go running to admin or mods and cry about it, I just ignore it. Why don't you?

This is the most open forum I've ever visited, i.e. skeptics are not being slandered to pieces just for asking fully legitimate questions and more importantly, you, a "believer", are able to post your claims, views or whatever, in a skeptic's forum, without being lynched by everybody -- although you feel you've been mistreated by some -- which is a benefit not given me or any skeptic in a "believer" forum. Don't you think you're over-reacting a bit? I would suggest that you by know what's coming when you post here, so why let it bother you?

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

Reasonable comments, Chat. And if you care to notice, whatever your opinion of me or my beliefs, I am always respectful and as co-operative as I can be to skeptics who display a like-minded level of reason.

When I come here I expected to be treated with equality and expect to play on a level playing field. Don't you want that on a skeptic forum if you genuinely want to attract debate with 'believers'? Otherwise, what's the point of having a discussion forum on the paranormal?

On another point, I do present evidence for my claims. I am quite happy for people to reject them or otherwise. What Larsen has done here is quite different.

Like I said, with that sort of thing going on, how can you expect any genuine believer who comes here to test their claims to stay or take the place seriously?

 

[CFLarsen]

I am happy for you to have your opinion, Chat, really I am. As I am with everyone else. The difference with Larsen and to be honest, only a few others here, is that he flouts the rules by outright calling me a liar and a cheat, etc,.

But you are a liar and a cheat. That is not against the rules to tell the truth.

Now, I am happy if that is his opinion, you understand

It's not my opinion. It's a proven fact.

but I am not happy for him to make those statements and flout the rules withg such disregard. I do take it up with the mods, but they are in a difficult position, mainly because I am simply unpopular here, and to take any action against larsen would be seen as 'siding with Lucianarchy'. It is Larsen who "cheats" by breaking the rules. There is no proff at all that I am either a cheat or a liar. And believe it or not, I resent people like Larsen who abuse the rules in such a way.

What rules have I violated, then?

Yes, this has been going on for some time, but I certainly did not 'start' this thing, and when we have had 'fresh starts', or breaks, Larsen immediately starts his claims about 'lies" etc.,

No. I show that you lie and cheat. If you don't like to be called on it, perhaps you should simply stop doing it?

Now, I now I am not popular. Fine. No problem for me.

Popularity has nothing to do with anything.

But all this does is show Larsen as pseudo-skepticism gone rampant with his personal attacks, and abusing the position he puts the mods in each time. Each time he does so, further he drags the image and credibility of the JREF into the mud. You may be happy with that, a few others may too. But you can be sure that the majority of skeptics are pissed off with what Larsen gets away with here. It will lead to the sort of place where no one but a bully or a fanatic is welcome.

Interesting: Now you speak for the "majority of skeptics"...

Why now? Because he has been at it again for no reason in the PK Party thread. I have taken it to admin of course, but again the reaction is that it will be deferred until a later date. Yet we all know what would happen if it was the other way around.

What rules have I violated in the PK Party thread? You can take it up in the said thread.

Sure, I'll cool off again no doubt. Just thought this is the appropriate thread to raise the issue.

Anytime.

 

[CFLarsen]

Reasonable comments, Chat. And if you care to notice, whatever your opinion of me or my beliefs, I am always respectful and as co-operative as I can be to skeptics who display a like-minded level of reason.

No, you are not. You try to jerk skeptics around with your phony claims.

When I come here I expected to be treated with equality and expect to play on a level playing field. Don't you want that on a skeptic forum if you genuinely want to attract debate with 'believers'? Otherwise, what's the point of having a discussion forum on the paranormal?

You are treated with equality: Everyone is required to provide evidence for their claims.

On another point, I do present evidence for my claims. I am quite happy for people to reject them or otherwise. What Larsen has done here is quite different.

No, you do not present evidence for your claims.

Like I said, with that sort of thing going on, how can you expect any genuine believer who comes here to test their claims to stay or take the place seriously?

If their claims have any validity (yes, there's that "evidence" thingie again!), then they are most certainly taken seriously. But when someone - like yourself - keeps going on and on about his purported paranormal feats, and is soundly trounced again and again with facts and evidence that no such paranormal feats were achieved, then you cannot really expect anyone to take that person seriously.

 

[Garvarn]

Ooops, I kinda guessed I was stepping in a turd. So, here we go again...

Good luck, both of you!

Best regards,
Chateaubriand

 

[Anders]

[snip]
It is Larsen who "cheats" by breaking the rules. There is no proff at all that I am either a cheat or a liar. And believe it or not, I resent people like Larsen who abuse the rules in such a way.

NO, he doesn't. He's sometimes very firm about what is to be regarded as evidence. And that is not violating he forum rules. Calling people idiots is a forum rule violation.

[snip]
Now, I now I am not popular. Fine. No problem for me.

No no Luci, we love you as we do everybody else here on the forum! It's your poor evidence that we hate.

But all this does is show Larsen as pseudo-skepticism...[snip}

Nope, he is not a pseudo-skeptic, he's just skeptic.

Why now? Because he has been at it again for no reason in the PK Party thread. I have taken it to admin of course, but again the reaction is that it will be deferred until a later date. Yet we all know what would happen if it was the other way around.

Yeah, that thread is just full of very creadible evidence.

 

[Anders]

This is probably off the subject, but since we're on the topic of skeptics -- what is your opinion of the official skeptic organization in your country (provided there is one). Personally, I find the Swedish VoF a bit boring and they could do with a bit of training in public relations. I know 'truth' shouldn't need nice packaging but living in the world we do... What's the situation in your country?

/Chateaubriand

Also being a member of VoF I do agree that VoF does not take that much part in media or anything else for that matter. For instance I haven't seen any rebuttal to the awful articles in SvD on alternative health, a couple of months ago. Most of the skeptic work in media seem to be done by Robert Ashberg.

 

[Lucianarchy]

NO, he doesn't. He's sometimes very firm about what is to be regarded as evidence. And that is not violating he forum rules.

Anders, I am talking about Larsen's use of libelous, personal remarks. That is, clearly, breaking the forum rules, and if a 'believer' did that, well, you know the rest... It all adds up to unfair playing field. Now I don't have a problem if that's what you want, but bear in mind this thread by Chat brings up the issue of skeptic/believer forums and the prejudiced treatment of posters. Skeptics can hardly be critical of other forums if such clear prejudice occurs here, quite openly.

Chat, you are free to respond to reasoned remarks by saying you 'trod in a turd'. I am disapointed that is how you chose to respond after starting so positively in dialogue. It makes my point though about how some skeptics behave in this forum.

 

[CFLarsen]

Also being a member of VoF I do agree that VoF does not take that much part in media or anything else for that matter. For instance I haven't seen any rebuttal to the awful articles in SvD on alternative health, a couple of months ago. Most of the skeptic work in media seem to be done by Robert Ashberg.

Now you have.

 

[Ashles]

That is, clearly, breaking the forum rules, and if a 'believer' did that, well, you know the rest... It all adds up to unfair playing field. Now I don't have a problem if that's what you want, but bear in mind this thread by Chat brings up the issue of skeptic/believer forums and the prejudiced treatment of posters. Skeptics can hardly be critical of other forums if such clear prejudice occurs here, quite openly.

Please show where this has happened.

The only person I have seen get any form of ban in the months I have been posting here is Interesting Ian after consistently calling a wide number of people stupid, idiots, a##holes etc. and after repeated warnings. And that was only for 2 weeks.

Where has any form of forum prejudice or bias happened against 'believers'? Or are you telling blatant lies?
If not, where is your evidence of this happening.
If you are telling blatant lies, you are giving Larsen's claims more weight every second.

 

[CFLarsen]

Anders, I am talking about Larsen's use of libelous, personal remarks.

It isn't libel if it is true. Which it is.

That is, clearly, breaking the forum rules, and if a 'believer' did that, well, you know the rest... It all adds up to unfair playing field. Now I don't have a problem if that's what you want, but bear in mind this thread by Chat brings up the issue of skeptic/believer forums and the prejudiced treatment of posters. Skeptics can hardly be critical of other forums if such clear prejudice occurs here, quite openly.

Then, your problem lies not with me, but with the administration of this board.

Chat, you are free to respond to reasoned remarks by saying you 'trod in a turd'. I am disapointed that is how you chose to respond after starting so positively in dialogue. It makes my point though about how some skeptics behave in this forum.

It seems you are starting to imagine that everyone is out to get you. He clearly meant "stirring things up". He wasn't referring to you as excrement.

 

[Stitch]

Chat, you are free to respond to reasoned remarks by saying you 'trod in a turd'. I am disapointed that is how you chose to respond after starting so positively in dialogue. It makes my point though about how some skeptics behave in this forum.

Luci - substitute "trod in a turd" with "stirred up a hornets' nest"

It wasn't a personal attack!