Split from: First Impressions are everything...

[hellaeon]

I suppose it was inevitable that I would post in here and somehow it now seems cliched for me to do so.

You guys have a problem don't you.

1. The CT forum is under observation from the owners because it generates bad post reports way above the level of any other forum. It's general level of behaviour has obviously become an embarrassment. I'm not in the least surprised.

2. A high percentage of posts are now just plain abusive and you have an embarrassment of so called "skeptic" posters who make it impossible for sensible "skeptic" posters to debate. In addition even some of the seemingly highly regarded "skeptic" posters are not averse to the sort of tactics TAM describes.

3. You define yourself by what you are against (Loose Change) instead of defining what you are for.

4. Derisive terms such as "Twoofer" and "woo" are tolerated totally against the wording that appears on the Home page of JREF...

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

I don't suppose you noticed in the wording that this forum was not intended to be a home base for "skeptics".

You moderate posters have allowed this to go on for so long now that I don't know if this can be turned around.​

1) You obviously dont visit any part of the forum other then this.

2) Yeah you big ol fact finder - PROVE IT. Abuse to you is a general arguement to another.

3) Im about the facts about all things. Just because the main topic is 9/11 conspiracies dont mean its the only one. You wonder why people rile up and talk about it? Thing is, it has a ripple effect worldwide in terrorism and the way western societies have changed their own social laws and how those societies react towards middle eastern cultures and religion - now - by default. Denying 9/11 is to deny a lot of things. Its a vast complex result of terrorism, forever changing the worlds landscape for better and worse. You wonder why people get emotional about it?

4) Woo is used consistantly, I aint seen the twoofer word. Just because Randi dont say it, dont mean other are not allowed. We dont have a 'leader' in the skeptic 'movement'. Your the guys who prefer the cult ethics, not us.

The last sentences just reek of your inadequacy on how things work in the big world out there. Get a job. Try and get along spotless in the average workplace. People agree and disagree all the time. People get fired up and sort out random issues.

This forum is excellent for its policing with a common sense democratic stick.

I cant help but think of the word - idiot.


Cheers

 

[William Rea]

1) You obviously dont visit any part of the forum other then this.

2) Yeah you big ol fact finder - PROVE IT. Abuse to you is a general arguement to another.

3) Im about the facts about all things. Just because the main topic is 9/11 conspiracies dont mean its the only one. You wonder why people rile up and talk about it? Thing is, it has a ripple effect worldwide in terrorism and the way western societies have changed their own social laws and how those societies react towards middle eastern cultures and religion - now - by default. Denying 9/11 is to deny a lot of things. Its a vast complex result of terrorism, forever changing the worlds landscape for better and worse. You wonder why people get emotional about it?

4) Woo is used consistantly, I aint seen the twoofer word. Just because Randi dont say it, dont mean other are not allowed. We dont have a 'leader' in the skeptic 'movement'. Your the guys who prefer the cult ethics, not us.

The last sentences just reek of your inadequacy on how things work in the big world out there. Get a job. Try and get along spotless in the average workplace. People agree and disagree all the time. People get fired up and sort out random issues.

This forum is excellent for its policing with a common sense democratic stick.

I cant help but think of the word - idiot.


Cheers

Thanks for making my point for me hellaeon.

 

[hellaeon]

Thanks for making my point for me hellaeon.

Oh you wise philosopher, I bow before your words!

Abuse to you is a general arguement to another.

 

[William Rea]

Oh you wise philosopher, I bow before your words!

And so you should.

You have turned what was a neutral debate about standards into a baseless personal attack on me. Demonstrating precisely my point. I don't want to dwell on it any further after this post because the Cricket World Cup highlights are on and the thread is NOT about me. However, since you have now personalised it I will answer your points one by one.

1. I visit the Politics and Science boards regularly which you can discover by using the find all posts by function. They are generally extremely well mannered.
2. I can prove it fairly simply by again pointing you towards the find all posts by function again.
3. Clearly you are not about facts because you didn't try to dicsover any facts about me before your personal assassination attempt.
4. "Twoofer" and other derivatives are used so often I cannot understand how you have missed it.
5. As I have stated several times for the record. I don't have a leader and I am not of the "Truth Movement".

If any of my work colleaugues or friends or family spoke in that way to me in this so called real world you mentioned then they would not be speaking to me much longer.

If you're communicating with the world in the way you say you are then you might find some anger management courses useful.

 

[hellaeon]

And so you should.

You have turned what was a neutral debate about standards into a baseless personal attack on me. Demonstrating precisely my point. I don't want to dwell on it any further after this post because the Cricket World Cup highlights are on and the thread is NOT about me. However, since you have now personalized it I will answer your points one by one.

1. I visit the Politics and Science boards regularly which you can discover by using the find all posts by function. They are generally extremely well mannered.
2. I can prove it fairly simply by again pointing you towards the find all posts by function again.
3. Clearly you are not about facts because you didn't try to dicsover any facts about me before your personal assassination attempt.
4. "Twoofer" and other derivatives are used so often I cannot understand how you have missed it.
5. As I have stated several times for the record. I don't have a leader and I am not of the "Truth Movement".

If any of my work colleaugues or friends or family spoke in that way to me in this so called real world you mentioned then they would not be speaking to me much longer.

If you're communicating with the world in the way you say you are then you might find some anger management courses useful.

So because I disagree with you with some additional sternness makes me someone who attacks? I did not attack, I just don't get too politically correct. If its too hot don't play with matches.

1) Fair enough, apologies - I seriously do not visit that forum so it was a bad assumption. I presume you see similar and 'as vicious' arguments in other forums? I certainly do

2) Without numbers I cant be bothered trying to find out whether a forum has a high majority of abusers or not, if that makes me 'lose' on this point, care factor. I think there is as much attacking or abuse or whatever you see it as when people claim to do something in the Million Dollar Prize discussions and when topics on Evolution come up. In a short time this JREF-CT forum I imagine has had a fair share of attacks. With 9/11, your dealing with an incredibly intense issue. How should people react in your ideal world scenario? Thats a question and said as one, not a little jibe, so I do (believe it or not) appreciate you answering later.

3) Do I take that as an attack using your standards ??? Yes your correct, I did not bother to look to see if you posted anywhere else no but are we not talking about the Conspiracy theories forum? My reply was why it seems this part of the entire JREF seems largely about loose change and so back onto that I think its more to do with 9/11 in general, loose change just got the ball rolling. Blame Delphi ote.

4) I read this incorrect - sorry mate. Twoofer is used very much on the forum. I had potatoes growing in my eyes and read it as 'words that are used on the homepage'

5) Fair enough.

If any of my work colleaugues or friends or family spoke in that way to me in this so called real world you mentioned then they would not be speaking to me much longer.

Gawd how pompous. Man, there are people starving in the world. Grow some hair. Man up.

If you're communicating with the world in the way you say you are then you might find some anger management courses useful.

Hahaha little attacking jibe to finish hey?

Go you Aussies.

 

[beachnut]

And so you should.

You have turned what was a neutral debate about standards into a baseless personal attack on me. Demonstrating precisely my point. I don't want to dwell on it any further after this post because the Cricket World Cup highlights are on and the thread is NOT about me. However, since you have now personalised it I will answer your points one by one.

3. Clearly you are not about facts because you didn't try to dicsover any facts about me before your personal assassination attempt.
4. "Twoofer" and other derivatives are used so often I cannot understand how you have missed it.
5. As I have stated several times for the record. I don't have a leader and I am not of the "Truth Movement".

If any of my work colleaugues or friends or family spoke in that way to me in this so called real world you mentioned then they would not be speaking to me much longer.

If you're communicating with the world in the way you say you are then you might find some anger management courses useful.

If I went to work and spewed lies continuouly about 9/11 and how it was an inside job with no facts, I would not be surprised if I was punched out for being an idiot! You should just stick with the be polite and stick to the facts advice...

I think your post may be extraneous, and if you can't see why then you need to mature.

 

[William Rea]

If I went to work and spewed lies continuouly about 9/11 and how it was an inside job with no facts, I would not be surprised if I was punched out for being an idiot! You should just stick with the be polite and stick to the facts advice...

I think your post may be extraneous, and if you can't see why then you need to mature.

Like I said to hellaeon, this thread isn't about me but you persist in personalising it so I am compelled to respond.

I wouldn't go to work and discuss 911 or any other politics because my job demands professional detachment. If I was punched there would be procedures for instant dismissal of the aggressor. Which means that I am provided with a safe working environment in which disagreements are resolved in an adult manner.

If you think that debating is about who can punch the hardest then I'm afraid it's you that needs to mature.

You're right in one aspect, that post was extraneous, it shouldn't have been required to have been made. The fact that I felt compelled to make it speaks volumes about your posts amongst others.

 

[William Rea]

So because I disagree with you with some additional sternness makes me someone who attacks? I did not attack, I just don't get too politically correct. If its too hot don't play with matches.

1) Fair enough, apologies - I seriously do not visit that forum so it was a bad assumption. I presume you see similar and 'as vicious' arguments in other forums? I certainly do

2) Without numbers I cant be bothered trying to find out whether a forum has a high majority of abusers or not, if that makes me 'lose' on this point, care factor. I think there is as much attacking or abuse or whatever you see it as when people claim to do something in the Million Dollar Prize discussions and when topics on Evolution come up. In a short time this JREF-CT forum I imagine has had a fair share of attacks. With 9/11, your dealing with an incredibly intense issue. How should people react in your ideal world scenario? Thats a question and said as one, not a little jibe, so I do (believe it or not) appreciate you answering later.

3) Do I take that as an attack using your standards ??? Yes your correct, I did not bother to look to see if you posted anywhere else no but are we not talking about the Conspiracy theories forum? My reply was why it seems this part of the entire JREF seems largely about loose change and so back onto that I think its more to do with 9/11 in general, loose change just got the ball rolling. Blame Delphi ote.

4) I read this incorrect - sorry mate. Twoofer is used very much on the forum. I had potatoes growing in my eyes and read it as 'words that are used on the homepage'

5) Fair enough.

Gawd how pompous. Man, there are people starving in the world. Grow some hair. Man up.

Hahaha little attacking jibe to finish hey?

Go you Aussies.

The little attacking jibe at the end was way over the top and personalising on my part which is something I am supposed to be complaining about! I apologise for insinuating you had anger issues but it was also said with a little concern. Seriously, I have been there and it worried me to hear what you were saying. I now think you were probably just blowing off a little steam.

Pompous? Maybe but honestly, if anyone I knew spoke to me in the way that some people on here respond to my posts I would have nothing to do with them. In my workplace, speaking in that way would simply not be acceptable, either to my superiors or reports. If there is a disagreement we calmly and rationally sort it out, maybe the office I work in is somehow unique?

Again I quote from the home page that leads into this forum...

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

And from the header at the top of this page I am typing on...

"a place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly and lively way."

If that isn't pertinent then why does it appear on the forum?​

 

[beachnut]

Like I said to hellaeon, this thread isn't about me but you persist in personalising it so I am compelled to respond.

I wouldn't go to work and discuss 911 or any other politics because my job demands professional detachment. If I was punched there would be procedures for instant dismissal of the aggressor. Which means that I am provided with a safe working environment in which disagreements are resolved in an adult manner.

If you think that debating is about who can punch the hardest then I'm afraid it's you that needs to mature.

You're right in one aspect, that post was extraneous, it shouldn't have been required to have been made. The fact that I felt compelled to make it speaks volumes about your posts amongst others.

You must not have a blue collar job. Are you afraid to say what you think at work? This means someone could talk about things that tick you off but you would be silent. I like that in a oxymoron kind of way.

I suspect if you were punched at work, not one person would see it Frank. I think your fellow professionals would only be mildly surprised, your hitting the door knob had not happened sooner.

Have you ever been plastered with multiple pitchers of beer? It is an honor reserved for only the most pious egotistical elite know to man.

Let's keep this civil and impersonal, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

But this is the post I would give you based on first impressions. I am wrong, I thought you were a CTer when you first posted but I have no idea where you stand on 9/11. But that is my first impression. Your tone, as my tone, leaves tons to be desired. So how is anyone ever going to know your stand on 9/11, except we need to be more polite. But then from your tone I believe you have beat me at not being polite on every post you have made since you have posted. Why do I feel like I can not get up to the level you have reached in making a point and not meaning it?

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

Which are you? I am trying to engage you in intelligent discussion. I agree we should be more polite to CTers with no facts, who make statements which imply our government killed people on 9/11. I enjoy discussing this with you.

Are you a CTer with no facts? Or just discussing how we should talk to CTers who lie? I will work on not using woo, and other names as short cuts for those who spew lies all day about 9/11.

I asked you real questions and have got real answers. You are exceeding my expectations in answering my dumb questions. And I agree I need to tone down my use of woo, and any term describing people who mislead others, ie liars, on 9/11.

 

[William Rea]

You must not have a blue collar job. Are you afraid to say what you think at work? This means someone could talk about things that tick you off but you would be silent. I like that in a oxymoron kind of way.

I suspect if you were punched at work, not one person would see it Frank. I think your fellow professionals would only be mildly surprised, your hitting the door knob had not happened sooner.

Have you ever been plastered with multiple pitchers of beer? It is an honor reserved for only the most pious egotistical elite know to man.

No, I work in a white collar job and I say exactly what I think, I just don't have to resort to the pointless aggression when I say it. It is very possible to have a frank exchange of views without punching. It would appear that this is an approach that seems to have eluded you so far in your life, which probably explains your posting style.

The pitcher of beer thing went right over my head, must be a cultural thing.

 

[William Rea]

But this is the post I would give you based on first impressions. I am wrong, I thought you were a CTer when you first posted but I have no idea where you stand on 9/11. But that is my first impression. Your tone, as my tone, leaves tons to be desired. So how is anyone ever going to know your stand on 9/11, except we need to be more polite. But then from your tone I believe you have beat me at not being polite on every post you have made since you have posted. Why do I feel like I can not get up to the level you have reached in making a point and not meaning it?

If I am CTer shouldn't come into it, it annoys me that I have to declare I am not.

I respond as I find. I am reasonably happy to bludgeon it out up to a point and I can do sarcasm in bucket loads if necessary but, all it achieves is the thread disruption that I decry. I think you will find that I have never made a first strike, ever. Like I said before, this forum has become so skewed in its outlook that someone neutral like me most times people read my first post like you have and find the first instinct is attack.

 

[T.A.M.]

A thread about being civil has eroded into...oh well.

It was worth a shot.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

No, I work in a white collar job and I say exactly what I think, I just don't have to resort to the pointless aggression when I say it. It is very possible to have a frank exchange of views without punching. It would appear that this is an approach that seems to have eluded you so far in your life, which probably explains your posting style and your oversized machismo. Maybe something is being repressd here.

The pitcher of beer thing went right over my head, must be a cultural thing.

No you do not say what you think at work, you said;

I wouldn't go to work and discuss 911 or any other politics because my job demands professional detachment

. Which means you say what you think you should say at work.

It is good you do not get the beer thing, you may get it one day and it will still be a surprise. .

As for your implication some may not be meeting the " intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe". I am sorry my level of intelligence does not match your expectations. I will try harder.

 

[William Rea]

Are you a CTer with no facts? Or just discussing how we should talk to CTers who lie? I will work on not using woo, and other names as short cuts for those who spew lies all day about 9/11.

I asked you real questions and have got real answers. You are exceeding my expectations in answering my dumb questions. And I agree I need to tone down my use of woo, and any term describing people who mislead others, ie liars, on 9/11.

The point is I shouldn't have to declare what I am.

It happens that I am not allied to any kind of "Truth Movement" and I would rather eat my own faeces than spend an hour in a room with Dylan Avery.

This passage that I posted in another thread probably reflects how I feel about it...

"This may sound harsh but I'm indifferent to it because the actual 911 event was not really that significant. More children die from poverty in a week than died in 911. The victims had families who lost loved ones and I feel sorry for them but, it was a drop in the ocean. If it hadn't been 911 it would have been some other event that would have sparked the reaction. 911 made it easier to carry the hearts and minds of the Western Governments but the decision to carry out this realignment of global power was taken way back.
So for me whether 911 was a conspiracy is the wrong question to be asking. The right question is whether the subsequent reaction to 911 was the way forward. it seems to me that all we did was buy ourselves another 50 years of massive arms spending and global skirmishes.
At the end of the day, NIST (and anyone else) only has an educated opinion on the vast majority of what happened on 911. Their failure models and analysis are opinions, whether they are the most likely scenario is open to debate.
The only facts are that aircraft collided with the towers, they subsequently collapsed and many people lost their lives."

I find the technical side interesting and have tried to engage before giving up after being flamed out of existence (ironically it happened once even when I was agreeing with the "skeptic" side, I nearly died laughing at that one!). I am not the orthodoxy and I know that anything I post will be attacked so I have fun with it most of the time but this is a serious thread for me.

 

[beachnut]

The point is I shouldn't have to declare what I am.

It happens that I am not allied to any kind of "Truth Movement" and I would rather eat my own faeces than spend an hour in a room with Dylan Avery.

This passage that I posted in another thread probably reflects how I feel about it...

"This may sound harsh but I'm indifferent to it because the actual 911 event was not really that significant. More children die from poverty in a week than died in 911. The victims had families who lost loved ones and I feel sorry for them but, it was a drop in the ocean. If it hadn't been 911 it would have been some other event that would have sparked the reaction. 911 made it easier to carry the hearts and minds of the Western Governments but the decision to carry out this realignment of global power was taken way back.
So for me whether 911 was a conspiracy is the wrong question to be asking. The right question is whether the subsequent reaction to 911 was the way forward. it seems to me that all we did was buy ourselves another 50 years of massive arms spending and global skirmishes.
At the end of the day, NIST (and anyone else) only has an educated opinion on the vast majority of what happened on 911. Their failure models and analysis are opinions, whether they are the most likely scenario is open to debate.
The only facts are that aircraft collided with the towers, they subsequently collapsed and many people lost their lives."

I find the technical side interesting and have tried to engage before giving up after being flamed out of existence (ironically it happened once even when I was agreeing with the "skeptic" side, I nearly died laughing at that one!). I am not the orthodoxy and I know that anything I post will be attacked so I have fun with it most of the time but this is a serious thread for me.

You are in the wrong forum. You meant to post this in the political forum.

You better write NIST and tell them to stop working on their "opinions" since it does not matter if buildings are safe or not to you. And include their work is not important in making the world a safe place to live.

 

[William Rea]

You are in the wrong forum. You meant to post this in the political forum.

You better write NIST and tell them to stop working on their "opinions" since it does not matter if buildings are safe or not to you. And include their work is not important in making the world a safe place to live.

Educated Opinion, as opposed to a less informed opinion but still an opinion.

You write to NIST and ask them to give you a confidence level on how well their models and analysis work for the period after collapse initiated.

 

[beachnut]

Woo is a good term, it mean we like or seek the CTer's favor. Or we are making amorous advances towards their outstanding ideas.

So using woo is a good thing, and we have been good using woo.

Unless you are using woo, as "woo" "look at that car"! Then you are just saying woo, look at that car.

Is this a test, a woo test. Darn you got me. No idea what bunny pancake is?

Billy with his trick NIST questions! Not today billy, I am an engineer and can figure out energy problems without your help or NISTs help. I am happy NIST is doing work to make buildings safer, and sad you are not.

 

[William Rea]

Billy with his trick NIST questions! Not today billy, I am an engineer and can figure out energy problems without your help or NISTs help. I am happy NIST is doing work to make buildings safer, and sad you are not.

Sorry to break it to you Beachnut but, there aren't as many facts in the world as you might like to think. Being an Engineer I'm sure you've also used phrases like "The most likely outcome will be..." or "On balance our opinion is that the best way forward is...".

It's not like answering an Engineering exam paper where the questions all have nice discrete answers. With so much going on during the collision and collapse in such a complex building it is impossible to be certain. They have simply created a model of the collapse that fits what was observable. What was not observable?

Doesn't mean NIST is wrong, just means they could be.

 

[William Rea]

A thread about being civil has eroded into...oh well.

It was worth a shot.

TAM

I tried TAM but they can't help themselves.

 

[Pipirr]

I would like to ask 2 questions though, since we're talking about newbies and reactions.

What the h-e-double-toothpix is the origin of "woo"?

And what in the world does a bunny with a pancake mean?

the origin of woo: from "woo-woo". Try this link as it might tell you a bit more.

I like to think it goes back to the noises mediums would make during seances, to convince the punters there was a spirit in the room. But I have no evidence.

Bunnies with pancakes means that its Lent and Easter all at once. Go ahead, indulge.



T.A.M., great thread idea. Thanks for starting it. Civility is rarely unwarranted and we can all do with a reminder of its necessity, every now and then.