Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
Syd: do you know what a troll is? it's not just someone who disagrees with you you know...
Just to return yet again to one of 'Prof'Wag's completely unscientific assertions backed up by nothing, where he is still too lazy to follow a single link to the FAQ site that's been referenced three times now -- claims he won't watch youtube videos because they're not as good as text, then refuses to click through to a short text FAQ site as well -- here is a succinct good treatment of his 'mirror' objection. I only publish this in the open forum because ProfWag is too lazy to click through and read a short and pithy site elsewhere. I know, I know, the pseudoscep trolls only want to discuss 'radiation' from this point onwards as another convenient intellectually dishonest derailing technique as they are getting trounced on other points, and it's their new arbitrary 'rule', but some people think this info is important to get out to the public as widely as possible:
No, it's someone who shows the traits of the deliberately obstructive posters here. Also coincides heavily with the descriptions of pseudoscep behaviour on the home page of this site. You're one of them.
A troll is someone who posts just to piss people off. A troll doesn't really have the opinion they are putting forth - their only intent is to rile people up.
As for obstruction - you seem to confuse again someone disagreeing with your position with obstruction. You also seem to think that tangents in threads (such as this one) are obstructions. Most people are capable of following several themes at once. So just going off on a tangent is also not trolling.
The other thing is that most people come to forums because they enjoy talking about these topics. You might find that losing the attitude and the constant insults wil make for a much more pleasant environment in which to converse, and you might find yourself enjoying it a bit more.
'course I have no expectation that you will do so, so I'll just await the next rant...
It's disagreement on the basis of no thought or research, on an uninformed opinion. That's effectively trolling. 'Nuff said?
I'm not the one complaining that anyone who talks about anything other than a single topic that I've proposed halfway through a thread is now officially OT, it's a pseudoscep doing that.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 13 Dec 2012, 08:22, edited 1 time in total.
ProfWag, the difference is I have read it. You haven't. I at least provided you with sources associated with the coffin transfers, specifically the Roger Boyajian document. Yet, you take the position with Apollo that dismissing the other sides argument gives you greater understanding. Scotty, beam me up! ProfWag, I went in circles with you on the JFK assassination. I learned my lesson. The issue of radiation in all probability will be an exercise in futility.
Au contrair mon frere. Your definition does NOT describe a troll. Your definition describes the basic population of people who post on forums and blog commentary.
Around here, I use the Wikipedia definitions. I like using Wikipedia because for some reason, to which I may never figure out, using Wikipedia mildly pisses off ProfWag.
So it's just stupidity then? The pseudosceps here are just stupid and unscientific? Is that what you're saying? It appears to be what you're saying.
I would argue that there are different and more subtle ways of trolling than outlined in a short wiki attempt at a definition.
Certainly not stupidity but not the Wikipedia definition of troll either.
No need to argue this as I will agree with you completely that there are different and more subtle ways of trolling, etc. However, that is not my point. My point is that this is the definition that I use for deciding if someone is troll, and since there are only two people here with pretty red buttons that can delete members, your definition does not apply when it comes to making me want to use the pretty, pretty 'Delete' button.
I'm sure that SCEPCOP has found his finger hovering over his 'Delete' button a few times but even he chooses not to use it for his own very wise reasons.
If you find yourself going around in circles with the skeptics then feel free to label a topic 'NSA' (No Skeptics Allowed) and then I can delete any opposing views from that particular topic.
I note the CIA momentarily tried to take down the MySQL db, but we've bravely fought them off.
Is it too late to post this Monty Python sketch, anticipating pseudoscep forms of argument even in the 70s?
No, for two reasons. 1st: whether informed or not, if its their honest opinion its not trolling.
Secondly, your statement that they show no thought or research is very clearly wrong, even on a cursory reading of the various threads. I'd say you were trying to be misleading except I don't think even you would think that a lurker reading these threads would fail to see the links proferred and the thoughts behind their opinions discussed. Which would lead to the conclusion that you are the one trolling, since it is hard to believe you believe the accusations you have laid.
I don't think what you said applies to syd. He has the disposition of a creationist from what I've seen.
Have you all noticed syd made no real effort to actually review and question the validity of the the facts as known or too question the facts as he see's them provided by CT'ers. Now syd would call that good skepticism.
Naw. He's sees himself as a "true" skeptic. And in fairness, he's seems to be making an effort to apply a skeptical approach, but I think its poorly executed. In perceiving there to be a bias from others in favour of what he perceives as the "official" position, he reacts to that by assuming a bias in favour of sources that go against what he perceives as the official position.
Where he's not taking a skeptical approach is in assuming that people who disagree with him, or who is perceives as going along with what he conceives of as the "official" position are government plants, shills, etc. In his mind he thinks that the official position is so corrupt that anyone who remotely defends it is either stupid or in on the corruption. He slots people into categories without much thought, or real analysis of various motives. It's US vs. THEM with no in between. When he attacks a "pseudoskeptic" he sees himself as valiant, fighting the good fight and unmasking the evildoers for the benefit of all.
At the end of the day that attitude gets in the way of good back and forth discussion because he interrupts himself so often with the constant stream of insults that serve to distract from the discussion and becomes the focal point rather than the substantive issues behind them.
The thing is, he doesn't see a reason to change because in hi
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests