Perhaps.
And perhaps you should practice what you preach, and refrain from ridiculing people, simply because they don't share your opinions.
And perhaps you should practice what you preach, and refrain from ridiculing people, simply because they don't share your opinions.
I think being rude does put people off further debate, and does not reflect well on the person involved. But I have to say, T'ai Chi, that you're behabviour in the GCP thread is pious, pompus and rude. When someone asks what you think on the matter, you should answer or admit you have no opinion, instead of saying "Why you believe I must share any opinion with you is beyond me. 
" If it had been directed at me,I would've found that response both cowardly and ill-mannered. And that refelected badly on yourself.
So, yes, I agree with you.
" If it had been directed at me,I would've found that response both cowardly and ill-mannered. And that refelected badly on yourself.So, yes, I agree with you.
Belz...
Fiend God
Thanks for sharing your beliefs. Next time, if you are calling someone ignorable, you'd probably be better to not reply in a thread that that person started. LOL!
Don't mind Complexity. He's just that way because he wants me to give him an "11" on my "most hateful of woo" scale. Unfortunately, the scale only goes up to 10, and he's already there.
Better luck next time, Complexity!
I generally attempt to be reasonably civil with everyone. But I must say that Tai's style is the most annoying and non-productive approach to discourse that I have seen here. He is like the teenager that leaves a burning bag of dog poop on a person's step and then presses the doorbell. Not having an opinion is fine. Being ignorant is fine. Attempting to engage at the adult's table without fessing up to one's ignorance or lack of opinon and provoking them to address questions is rude and childish. Fortunately I think that Tai's behavior has been completely consistant so that even newbies can see him for what he is quite quickly. I suspect that his reputation amoung regulars here is dismissable and it is solely due to his own actions.
I think that the real question (if one were honest) in the OP was "why do you all mock me". I just answered that question.
I think that the real question (if one were honest) in the OP was "why do you all mock me". I just answered that question.
I can foresee what T'ai Chi's reply will be:
"Why you believe I must share any opinion with you is beyond me."
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
And yet, you continue to post.
I think the flaming begins AFTER it becomes clear that the poster will not change his or her mind in a billion lifetimes, no matter how reasoned the argument. Why would this mysterious "skeptical movement" want to recruit such people? Why should they be treated with kid gloves when they CHOOSE to keep coming back for more punishment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy
That's all I got to say about this thread.
That's all I got to say about this thread.
It cuts both ways.
I spent some time on Iachus' board, and was courteous in the begining.
Acutally, for quite a while.
But there comes a limit. You can only go so long watching the same thing happen over and over again...
e.g.
Him
What if 'a' <some concept>were true? Then wouldn't... <rambling rant>
Me
'A' is not true. <insert links, explanations, evidence>
Him
Well then what if 'B' <some other concept> were true? Then wouldn't... <rambling rant>
Me
'B' is not true. <insert links, explanations, evidence>
Him
Hmm... okay, ..but ...what if 'a' <same concept as before>were true? Then wouldn't... <rambling rant>
You deal with that for a few weeks, and eventually, with all the patience in the world, you just friggin lose it.
No, you're wrong. They do serve a purpose, in that they alert other readers, including those new to the board, to your posting history -- and specifically to your tendency to lie, dissemble, travel under false flags, create manipulative sock puppets, and generally engage in dishonest and deceptive ways of presenting information that would not be at all credible if presented fairly and honestly.
Alternatively -- and more likely -- people new to the board might read it and wonder why I said it -- and check out your posting history.
You have no credibility.
It's fatuous -- and misleading -- for me to pretend that you suddenly gain credibility simply because you abandon one thread after having been pounded into the ground on your ill-supported and ill-thought out opinions. My responsibility, if you want to couch it in those terms, is to point out to people new to the field, the board, and the thread exactly how little credibility you have, and precisely why, so that they need not be misled into believing you have anything useful, coherent, or intellectually valid to offer. The fairest and simplest way is to point out your posting history and let them make their own judgements.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2002
- Messages
- 879
Well, I'm not a newbie, although by my post count you might think I am. And I agree with ferd, Ed, and drkitten. Tai never starts a thread without an ulterior motive, then sits back and says, "Who, me? I have no opinion on the subject."
His condescending attitude has always turned me off of any thing he might have to say, because no statement is ever backed up with facts. Years ago, when he was Win, I asked a question in a thread I had started about statistics, admitting I have no educational background in it. His reply was to tell me I had no business starting the thread and stating my opinions since he knew all about statistics and I didn't. No further clarification on the statistics question was forthcoming.
His form of rudeness ("Isn't it interesting how the little people think!") is a lot more irritating to me than those who come out and say what they are thinking. He's a hit and run poster who abandons his threads when people call him on his motives. I read the threads he starts merely to see how long it will take for someone to call him on his underhanded methods.
Oh, and by the way, hammy, that goes double for you. The only difference is you don't start any threads. You just snipe, in your own brand of condescension, from the background. Didn't want you to think that everyone was ignoring you.
Freethinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,356
I'm sure there are many who fit the mold, but let's just give this one a pseudonym, say Curious Candy.
Complexity
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,242
Don't mind Complexity. He's just that way because he wants me to give him an "11" on my "most hateful of woo" scale. Unfortunately, the scale only goes up to 10, and he's already there.
Better luck next time, Complexity!
I had such hopes, such dreams...
I feel a new thread coming on. Must sit and ponder...
Wow. Talk about a thread that backfired. But I won't gloat.
I post here, at least once in a while. As with all other posters, I have people agreeing with me, as well as people who don't. Boy, is the latter true!
But that's the way it has to be. That's the way it should be. And it is good.
Now, take RandFan. Whattamaroon. His political views are, to me, completely idiotic. I have destroyed his arguments, time and again (and I can back it up with evidence). He is dog meat, baby. He is cannon fodder. Easy prey.
But, at least, he puts himself on the line. He throws himself on the chopping block, and so do I - as most of us do. Respect, despite his idiotic arguments. Or, perhaps because of that. We both lay it down, we state what we believe in, what we feel is right, and we are prepared to present our arguments. We are prepared to fight for what we believe in. As Randi said, "Let the fur fly". The Bearded One gets it right, once again.
Personally, I would much rather have people criticizing me for what I argue, than having them criticizing me for not arguing anything at all. Taking a stand is far, far better than taking no stand at all. At least, you have some kind of identity, some kind of humanity.
T'ai Chi/Whodini/jzs/Justin/whatever-he-fancies-himself-as does not. He deliberately chooses to be a non-entity. He deliberately chooses not to take a stand, not to hold any opinion whatsoever.
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, that is so sad. So empty.
T'ai Chi is a nebbish. When T'ai Chi leaves a room, people think someone just entered.
I post here, at least once in a while. As with all other posters, I have people agreeing with me, as well as people who don't. Boy, is the latter true!
But that's the way it has to be. That's the way it should be. And it is good.
Now, take RandFan. Whattamaroon. His political views are, to me, completely idiotic. I have destroyed his arguments, time and again (and I can back it up with evidence). He is dog meat, baby. He is cannon fodder. Easy prey.
But, at least, he puts himself on the line. He throws himself on the chopping block, and so do I - as most of us do. Respect, despite his idiotic arguments. Or, perhaps because of that. We both lay it down, we state what we believe in, what we feel is right, and we are prepared to present our arguments. We are prepared to fight for what we believe in. As Randi said, "Let the fur fly". The Bearded One gets it right, once again.
Personally, I would much rather have people criticizing me for what I argue, than having them criticizing me for not arguing anything at all. Taking a stand is far, far better than taking no stand at all. At least, you have some kind of identity, some kind of humanity.
T'ai Chi/Whodini/jzs/Justin/whatever-he-fancies-himself-as does not. He deliberately chooses to be a non-entity. He deliberately chooses not to take a stand, not to hold any opinion whatsoever.
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, that is so sad. So empty.
T'ai Chi is a nebbish. When T'ai Chi leaves a room, people think someone just entered.
Last edited:
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2002
- Messages
- 879
I don't like quoting myself, but I need to correct a mistake. Claus' post has reminded me that Tai was Whodini, not Win. Totally different people.
I will.
Of course it cuts both ways- never said it didn't. But I'm talking specifically about skeptics turning others away by excessive scoffing.
You, like others, exxagerate ("never") to new depths.
This http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54161 is a thread I started. What is the ulterior motive that you imagine I have?
In this thread I started, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53863 , is my ulterior motive to share that GCP made it easy to download data?
You don't have to answer any of these. The first example is a counter-example to your "never".
Nope. Win is not me.
I see you corrected this now. If you're wrong on that, what else are you remembering incorrectly about me?I typically leave threads due to boring rants and personal attacks that are off topic.