¤
Ciscop showing his "intelligence:"ciscop wrote:im sure you are refering to me
Then you must be dumber than I thought if you think you are "sure" I was referring to you. I was welcoming this new person (i.e., "kungfuscience"). How on Earth can you
logically deduce from my "Good to see another open-minded skeptic" statement that I'm talking about you? Again, you are as dumb as a door nail.
¤
Ciscop showing his "true" skeptical nature:ciscop wrote:of course, i am true skeptic
A "true skeptic," really?
You don't even discuss the data, the evidence. You ignore it because 1) you are neither logical nor knowledgeable enough to discuss it, and/or 2) you don't want to discuss it because it ends up demonstrating how wrong you really are about your convictions, your preconceptions. You outright dismiss the data and evidence, even without having analyzed it critically and logically. You have a conviction, a preconception, a bias that psi does not exist, and you want to believe it no matter what the data tells you. All you do is call people names (i.e., "wackos," "quacks") and get emotional when you are wrong, which is 99% of the time. Additionally, you don't use logical reasoning, which opens you up to an ample amount of embarrassment.
¤
Ciscop showing his maturity level:Furthermore, you act like a child, which makes most people on this forum not take you seriously:
ciscop wrote:you are definetly on your way to quackness
you would fail a colesterol test
tip: stop having breakfast at mcdonalds
does that supposed to mean something to you?
im sorry, i dont talk crazy
THE STATUE AND I SHALL HAVE A FIGHT!!!
PUNCH THAT STATUE!! if the statue doesnt punch back, THEN YOU WIN BY K.O! thats a cool deal right?
go on and punch it!
those christians are a gullible bunch...
hahahaha looks who´s talking
a radin believer, cant get dumber than that
by the way i do think you are the messiah people needs
¨this isnt a fact¨ ¨this isnt real¨ ¨take the blue pill and you get out of the matrix¨... so friking boring
did you finally finished your coloring book??
remember you have to color inside the lines
¤
Ciscop showing how often he ignores and fails to discuss the data/evidence:Here's an example of you ignoring the data/evidence:EXAMPLE A:Here's me discussing your "evidence against psi" (a very long discussion on my part about this
opinion article):
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=324&p=4492&hilit=analyses#p4492QP wrote:...
I'll tell you what, I'll go ahead and let you read this published paper:
http://www.psy.unipd.it/~tressold/Meta-Analysis_of_ESP_Studies.pdfDo you agree with the study's conclusion/results (I doubt you do)? Tell me what's wrong with their analysis and/or the empirical evidence/data shown. Is is that they used an incorrect z-scoring method? Did they use selective reporting in their meta-analysis? Is the effect size too small? Did they extrapolate data, making the p-value invalid? Do you think some of the trials or experiments were methodologically flawed? If so, please state your reasons why, along with any evidence to support them.
...
Here's your response to the preceding (a typical one):
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=324&p=4492&hilit=analyses#p4493ciscop wrote:Awesome!!
see
i like you more here than discussing 911 which was idiotic
i have to confess i have to review your links yet
but pretty enlightening, cool stuff quantum! i like it!
... read more via the link above ...
EXAMPLE B:Here's my response to your "just like schwartz and the other dummies you chose to follow despise scientifical data poiting the other way" statement:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=378&start=10#p4823QP wrote:Please post here this "scientifical data pointing the other way." Thanks.
Here's your response to the preceding (a typical one):
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=378&start=10#p4826ciscop wrote:what´s the point
you have such a cog. dissonance towards psi
you wont listen
keep building up your webpage
...
See? There's no discussion from you about the data, the evidence, just more of the same: immature, emotionally charged, illogical nonsense.
¤
Funny, but relevant, intermission:Your posts are like speed bumps: they are somewhat annoying, but just drive over them and you're well on your way to your destination.¤
Ciscop showing his lies:ciscop wrote:i accept psi can exist
You've proven you can't accept psi, time and time again (would you like me to embarrass you some more by posting some examples?). Do you think that by you simply saying, "I accept psi can exist," that we are to believe you? Prove it, then we will believe you. Until then, you're just the same emotionally-inflamed liar.
Here are some examples of you "accepting psi can exist:"
ciscop wrote:radin is a quack [therefore, ...]
yes!! Chances are he might be all wrong in his theories and studies
sending thoughts thru space and time??.. is radin insane?
In other words, he expects me to read his mind, which is totally unrealistic and insane.
i like more and have learned more from richard wiseman
have a laugh with this ¨study¨ by the internationally scientific respectable magazine...¨yoga magazine¨
because he is not doing science
he is just picking up only the hits on some other parapsychology tests
and not counting the mistakes (he has done his own also)
and with that he has an army of believers that dont need facts, but a few miracles (that if you known stadistics are bound to happen)
to continue selling books and lectures.
¤
Ciscop showing his hypocrisy:ciscop wrote:but you cant deny it since is your faith based belief
Well, since my belief in psi is based on empirically obtained data/evidence, which, by the way, you refuse to discuss and can't seem to refute, my belief is based on science, not faith. Your disbelief in psi, on the other hand, is based on faith, on dogma, since you don't care about the data, the evidence. You are a true pseudo-skeptic, but a very immature, emotionally impaired, illogical one, and that's your problem. You could at least seem smart about it, but you obvious don't.
¤
Ciscop showing his use of logic, or, rather, lack thereof:ciscop wrote:CAN RADIN BE ALL WRONG?
You keep on proving how dumb you are. No, Radin cannot be "all wrong." How is it
logically possible for a person to be
all wrong or
all right? Sometimes we are wrong. Sometimes we are right.

That's one of the dumbest things you've ever said (
and yet you have that statement as your signature 
), although there are so many that it's difficult to rank them in order from the dumbest to the less-dumb.

¤
Why it's futile to engage in any debate/discussion with Ciscop:This will be the last time I spend any significant amount of writing in response to your immature, emotionally unstable, illogical self; that is, until you're ready to actually discuss the actual data/evidence involved in these debates in a critical, logical, analytical fashion.