• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Skeptic vs. believer's forums

Yes, I'm sorry if anyone took my response as a personal attack, that was not the intention. The language, I guess -- thanks, Stitch.

Best regards,
Chateaubriand
 
Stitch, I know it wasn't a personal attack, I was referring to the crass way in which he referred to the serious and reasonable issues raised in the otherwise cordial dialogue between us.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Stitch, I know it wasn't a personal attack, I was referring to the crass way in which he referred to the serious and reasonable issues raised in the otherwise cordial dialogue between us.
Click to expand...

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Stitch, I know it wasn't a personal attack, I was referring to the crass way in which he referred to the serious and reasonable issues raised in the otherwise cordial dialogue between us.
Click to expand...

No, I referred to the fact that I brought the battle between you and CF to this thread. That was stupid of me -- sorry...

I'm beginning to think that you consider yourself a victim regardless of the way you are treated.

Best regards,
Chateaubriand
 
I don't know much about what the battle bewteen Luci and Claus, but I do remember one thread where Luci tried to insinuate that Claus was into child porn. The accusation was completely unjustified and despicable, and have comvinced me that Luci certainly isn't an innocent victim, but a deceitful and unethical person.
 
plindboe said:
I don't know much about what the battle bewteen Luci and Claus, but I do remember one thread where Luci tried to insinuate that Claus was into child porn. The accusation was completely unjustified and despicable, and have comvinced me that Luci certainly isn't an innocent victim, but a deceitful and unethical person.
Click to expand...

You see what you want to see. What you have not mentioned, is what happened before that, and maybe you would then understand the context and the ironic toungue in cheek nature of making a clearly ridiculous unsubstantiated claim about Larsen.

Because, and I wonder how many people are even aware of this. Claus made a direct, completely unproven and unevidenced, libelous claim, namely that it was "highly likely" that I was responsible for writing a disgusting, anti-Randi attack which he found from elsewhere on the net, written under the name 'lucianarchy'. He claimed the liklihood was due to the fact that I had "similar IP" data to the personwho wrote the libel. Claus was asked, repeatedly to present that data as evidence. To date, he refused, yet still makes the claim that it is "highly likely" because I have "similar IP" data.

That, is what 'started' this, and Claus, to this day has been allowed to maintain such phenomenaly hypocritical, serious libel against me.

But, Blindboe, you failed to mention that.

I wonder why?
Maybe Claus's campaign to libel and discredit has worked.
 
Nothing justifies such a false accusation. You are not a nice person, and certainly shouldn't play the victim in all this.
 
re. JREF Forum

My reasons for reading and occasionally posting:

*I'm busy and only get a chance to "unwind" online a couple of times a week.

*I check the Randi newsletter, look at the boards, and sometimes find the topics and numbers of postings overwhelming.

*When I read a post/reply/thread that makes me wiggle a bit inside, sometimes I post. Not done this much, but it's OK sometimes.

*I'm a real, unique poster who for whatever reason is here. I'm not so sure that a lot of these identities aren't the same person sometimes. Some I can guess are unique.

*I have some specialist training and intellecutal interests that are more pertinent to some issues than others. So when someone brings up recycling, naturally I go into a mini-dissertation about rare tropical wood and violin bows.

*I'm a big fan of James Randi, Penn and Teller, and Carl Sagan. I want to keep up with the times. I think there may be a lot of people like that on this forum, and I enjoy reading what you all write.

So if I am part of a skeptical mob, it's not because I have it out for anyone that has different ideas. I have decided that the tone of the thread matters, I don't want to be dragged into anything unpleasant. So Chateubriand's initiation of this thread gets a good review from this reader.
 
Chateaubriand,
I get the sense that you feel you have in some way pitted Luci V. CFL. This is not the case. I've been a member of this board for about 6 months and still consider myself a fairly new member. They were at each others throats long before I joined up, and haven't let up yet. So don't blame yourself for instigating them. This is just the natural state of their relationship.
 
Lucianarchy, I have to say that for someone with the suffix "anarchy" in your handle, you seem awfully sensitive.

Perhaps it might be instructive, and rather funny, to watch someone calling themselves "Lucianarchy" get banned from the Forean Times Message board after saying,
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The trouble is, the few frogs here who're comfortable in their little 'wibble and stroke' group don't represent the thousands of readers who evidently vote with their feet by actively viewing.

What I've brought is personal experiences and real events which people have been able to get involved in.

People like Kath here just snipe little sycophantic croaks to their mod hero's, because they simply can't deal with a digital transmission which forms into a series of shaded pixels before their eyes.

Spellbound.
Click to expand...
Hmm, sounds like the real deal to me. The response, among others,
Choo-choo! Welcome to ban-ville, population... you
Click to expand...

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=14116&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

True, it might be someone else using the same handle. I bet we could get the IP from the Fortean Times and compare...
 
As to the idea that skeptics' message boards are more open-minded than believers'-- I think that really depends on where you go. Some fora have a very staunch party-line feel, others allow some challenge and critique. To generalize or stereotype any of them doesn't seem very fair, anyway. :D

Skep said:
http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=14116&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
Click to expand...
I don't want to jump on the dogpile, but from that same thread...

Originally posted by FT mod stu neville
As has been pointed out by other posters, this restriction is due to your track record of posting inflammatory material, then rapidly editing it to make it appear as if others are being pre-emptively inflammatory towards you.
Click to expand...
Hmm.

You know, the Lucianarchy at Fortean Times has a strikingly similar posting style as the one here. Coincidence? It could be-- there's not a lot I can find there, but what posts there are look very similar indeed to what Lucianarchy has posted here, concerning punctuation and grammar style mainly.

And this is coming from a newbie who has no vested interest in the ongoing feud...

Sorry Lucianarchy. I really think you need to take a hard look at why you're behaving the way you are, both here and elsewhere. The answer lies within you.
 
CFLarsen said:
It's the same Lucianarchy.
Click to expand...

I kind of gathered that... I was just being facetious. Sometimes I forget that tone of voice doesn't exactly translate into text well. ;)

However, my last statement in that post was a sincere one.
 
Nex said:



I don't want to jump on the dogpile...
Click to expand...

No, of course not. What a thing to suggest! : rolleyes: FYI, since you are 'new', I am more than happy for people to read by posting history over there or here. In fact, I implore them to do so. I have nothing to hide. Neville's statement is bizarre in the extreme. He is outright lying, either that or repeating a lie he has been fed without bothering to check the evidence. I do not have a history of doing such a thing, far from it. My comments to the 'frogs' should show that I do not remove such 'flames' ( and let's be honest, they are pretty far and few between, and mild as milk compared to what you usually see - particularly in the forum in question - FT ). Neville was charged with his dishonesty and was given the opportunity to present the "inflammatory" things I had supposedly edited. Of course, he refused and quickly bolted the door. :rolleyes: Neville, it should be known has shut down each and every attempt I have made to return. God knows what evil I must present his forum for him to act in such a hysterical manner! Well, apart from the fact that he would have to stand up for himself and face a reasoned dialogue which he can't 'control'.

Victim? Lol! Not at all. I am a fighter of prejudice, bigotry, inequality, misplaced information and misplaced authority.
 
Lucianarchy said:
...Victim? Lol! Not at all. I am a fighter of prejudice, bigotry, inequality, misplaced information and misplaced authority.
Click to expand...
What about Truth, Justice and the, erm, British Way of Life?
 
Lucianarchy said:
Victim? Lol! Not at all. I am a fighter of prejudice, bigotry, inequality, misplaced information and misplaced authority.
Click to expand...

You can claim to be anything -- it's what you prove to be that matters...

Best regards,
Chateaubriand
 
The Delicious Opportunity to be Right

CFLarsen said:
It's hard to be humble, when you know you are right! ;)
Click to expand...

It's hard to ignore "the delicious opportunity to be right" (Getting Through to People, Jesse S. Nirenberg, Ph.D.) -- but it's hard to get through to people when you don't do something better than that.

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.
Click to expand...

That's right - nobody likes that -- it only produces resistance to them taking on your position to find out how it feels to them.

Believers value emotion - the feelings their beliefs bring them. How can anyone effectively counter feelings with unemotional logicalisms? -- the sort of thoughtforms skeptics value.

If we're honest with ourselves, we recognize that part of the reason skeptics debate IS that "delicious opportunity to be right" -- to feel right.

That's what drives both the average believer and the average skeptic -- good feelings about oneself. How much farther can we get when we keep this in mind?
 
Lucianarchy said:
Neville's statement is bizarre in the extreme. He is outright lying, either that or repeating a lie he has been fed without bothering to check the evidence. I do not have a history of doing such a thing, far from it. My comments to the 'frogs' should show that I do not remove such 'flames' ).
Click to expand...

Actually, earlier in the thread where you made the statement about people being "frogs" and such you were complaining that your editing privileges had been revoked! Thus you couldn't remove your later comments, so your claim that their existence proves something in your favor is false.

Now, if I may point out the obvious. If you are going to go by a handle which is a contraction of "Lucifer" and "Anarchy" and you are not trying to be ironic, then complaining to the mods that people are arguing with you is in contradiction with what your handle stands for. An anarchy isn't required to be in your favor, it can go against you, too.

PS,
For a new article that focuses on believers vs. skeptics, check out the New York Times. The article "Without a Doubt" at the NYTtimes delves into the frightening reality of a president who is increasingly divorced from reality and makes his most important decisions based on faith alone, facts be damned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login
 
Skep said:
For a new article that focuses on believers vs. skeptics, check out the New York Times. The article "Without a Doubt" at the NYTtimes delves into the frightening reality of a president who is increasingly divorced from reality and makes his most important decisions based on faith alone, facts be damned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login
Click to expand...

That makes me want to cry... that man frightens me.

Is it really so much of a stretch to think that we may end up with an unofficial theocracy if this man is re-elected? The line between church and state is so blurred now, with "Faith-Based" initatives and other such programs.

:nope:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom