Why are new members not posting?

[Killtown]

For example, the no-planer claim is that no planes hit the towers or WTC. They claim hi-tech holographic imagery was used.

What is your estimated % of no-planers who currently believe the hologram theory?

[Nostradamus]

Only idiots believe in the hologram theory

[Killtown]

Only idiots believe in the hologram theory

OK, well name one no-planer who believes the hologram theory. (and don't side-step this time)

[Nostradamus]

It's time for the moderators to get rid of the vermin.

The name is Ace the rock and roll do-do.

[Killtown]

The name is Ace

And where does Ace Baker say he believes in the hologram theory?

[Nostradamus]

Pointless.

[ciscop]

For example, the no-planer claim is that no planes hit the towers or WTC. They claim hi-tech holographic imagery was used.

What is your estimated % of no-planers who currently believe the hologram theory?

my gosh....
HOLOGRAM THEORY?!?!?!?!
i love it!!!

[Video removed by Moderator]

[NinjaPuppy]

I now see first hand that the CT topics do tend to shake things up a bit around here.

Alllllrighty thennnnn. First things first...

Hi Killtown and welcome!

Nostradamus - Please don't poke the CTers.

Ciscop - Oh Ciscop..... what can I say to you???? I'm sure that your 'Special Fred' video (which I removed) was not intended to upset. However, it did. While I realize that you have a sense of humor. However, videos that make fun of handicapped children tends to be a sore spot with me. I really don't care to go into some rant about this at 7:30 in the morning but what the heck! I will. So start reading and take your time so as not to find yourself on the short end of a ban.

The topic here is "Why are new members not posting?" Well.... we get a new poster, he joins in the convo by asking a civil question from a previous comment and he's met with a bit of aprehension and distrust. Granted this situation may have some previous background that I am not aware of but it's shades of what happened to ProfessorX when he joined and some members thought he was someone else. Can we all please give new people enough rope to hang themselves before we make assumptions?

Now for that video.... I'm sure that a larger portion of humanity would find it amusing (the music was cute but the lyrics sucked) due to never having to have much contact with a handicapped child other than pointing and hopefully laughing quitely to themselves about some of the things they do. I however, happen to have one of those 'Special Freds' as well as get the pleasure to meet many wonderful children with special needs.

I hate to tell you this Ciscop but CTers are not "Special Freds". Not even close. Just because someone has an opinion on a subject that you don't agree with (for any reason) is not a cue for you to start with 'retarded' references. If you care to find out the difference, feel free to PM me and I'll be glad to give you plenty of personal insight as to the actual differences.

May I also point out that Killtown asked a perfectly civil question but instead of an answer, he got ridiculed. I can never remember all of SCEPCOPs treatise or arguments but if any of you listened to his radio talk last night, you will certainly see the irony come to life in this topic.

[jakesteele]

I'm not posting because I have posted and started threads and very little, if any, response from the members. I got disillusion because some of the threads I started were a lot of work for me and I was hoping for some feedback.

For the record, I am a skeptic and was turned off by the lengthy post of the "Rules of Pseudo's. I felt it was a generalization and a stereotype that sounded more like wanting to get something off your chest than an article or subject to debate. Hence, I didn't reply to many of your posts because I felt there was an agenda for posting. I can't speak for other skeptics or so-called "pseudo-skeptics" and although I agree that some of them can come across rude, that is not for me to support or defend. I can only speak for myself. Just my two cents and apologize if I offended.

Your input is fair enough and I respect that. My Rules of Pseudo was a satirical take of a thread from JREF which was entitled Rules of Woohttp://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=132578
in which they, of course, make fun of and belittle. As I read their thread I started laughing because on many of the Rules of Woo all you had to do was replace the work woo with the word debunker and it fits like a golve. I will mock them in the same way the mock others. I'ts called mirror imaging. I tell them that debunkers and woos are each other's evil twin.

I do get a lot of satisfaction from taking shots at them because when I first went to that forum I was expecting something very different;. calm, rational, objective exchanges about topics that I feel are worthy of such. What I found instead were a bunch of science based fundamentalists who rat pack anybody that dares dissent from the party line.

Also, my Rules of Pseudo are right on the money. If you read them and think about them you will see how they describe in a satirical way their psychological dynamics in areas of woo/CT/true believers. I figure fair's fair. Now, in all fairness, I have found that forum to be chock full of very intelligent people who, on anything but woo, are straight forward and I have learned a lot from them.

Also, I need to define something very clearly. A skeptic in the truest form of the word is very different from a debunker(pseudo), IMO. Here is my definition for both words:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

Debunker – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away. Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking and start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

Thanks

[RarelyImpressed]

I posted a few times here, but I don't get many replies in my topics....then again maybe none of my topics are that interesting. As for "conspiracy theorists" I think some people don't even know the true definition of that word. Second there is not overwhelming evidence against conspiracy theories not all of them. I would say the evidence tips in favor of "conspiracy theories" not all of them. I certainly don't believe in the hologram theory at all find it ridiculous. I do think something fishy happened that day, but I can't put my finger on it. It seems many of you "skeptics" who IMO hijacked the word....are coincidence theorists. Everything is a coincidence and blown out of proportion....that stance lacks critical thinking IMO. Take the middle path, be a truth seeker not a dogmatic coincidence theorist.

[NinjaPuppy]

Thank you both Rarely Impressed and Jakesteele.

Glad to see you both back here and I do hope that you will consider sticking around or at least give it another go.

[ProfWag]

I'm not posting because I have posted and started threads and very little, if any, response from the members. I got disillusion because some of the threads I started were a lot of work for me and I was hoping for some feedback.

For the record, I am a skeptic and was turned off by the lengthy post of the "Rules of Pseudo's. I felt it was a generalization and a stereotype that sounded more like wanting to get something off your chest than an article or subject to debate. Hence, I didn't reply to many of your posts because I felt there was an agenda for posting. I can't speak for other skeptics or so-called "pseudo-skeptics" and although I agree that some of them can come across rude, that is not for me to support or defend. I can only speak for myself. Just my two cents and apologize if I offended.

Your input is fair enough and I respect that. My Rules of Pseudo was a satirical take of a thread from JREF which was entitled Rules of Woohttp://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=132578
in which they, of course, make fun of and belittle. As I read their thread I started laughing because on many of the Rules of Woo all you had to do was replace the work woo with the word debunker and it fits like a golve. I will mock them in the same way the mock others. I'ts called mirror imaging. I tell them that debunkers and woos are each other's evil twin.

I do get a lot of satisfaction from taking shots at them because when I first went to that forum I was expecting something very different;. calm, rational, objective exchanges about topics that I feel are worthy of such. What I found instead were a bunch of science based fundamentalists who rat pack anybody that dares dissent from the party line.

Also, my Rules of Pseudo are right on the money. If you read them and think about them you will see how they describe in a satirical way their psychological dynamics in areas of woo/CT/true believers. I figure fair's fair. Now, in all fairness, I have found that forum to be chock full of very intelligent people who, on anything but woo, are straight forward and I have learned a lot from them.

Also, I need to define something very clearly. A skeptic in the truest form of the word is very different from a debunker(pseudo), IMO. Here is my definition for both words:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

Debunker – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away. Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking and start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

Thanks

I actually tend to agree with much of what you have said Jake. I DISPISE their use of the word "woo," and if you notice, I have posted there a few times (usually in religion), but I don't post much and since I've found this one, prefer this site to theirs, much for the same reasons you have.
My only critique is your definition of Skeptic. I see no reason why I can't be decided as to what is true. I have looked at things for many years and have decided that space aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, and TK, (among othes) do not exist, however, I am OPEN to change my mind should the facts present itself. Believers (or whatever term to coin those who aren't skeptics,) have also decided on what is true or not true, but that doesn't make them a pseudo-person. For example, I have decided there is no Loch Ness Monster. I am 99.9% certain that Nessy doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean the door hasn't been left ajar...Oh, and I feel that way about God also.

[Scepcop]

I'm not posting because I have posted and started threads and very little, if any, response from the members. I got disillusion because some of the threads I started were a lot of work for me and I was hoping for some feedback.

For the record, I am a skeptic and was turned off by the lengthy post of the "Rules of Pseudo's. I felt it was a generalization and a stereotype that sounded more like wanting to get something off your chest than an article or subject to debate. Hence, I didn't reply to many of your posts because I felt there was an agenda for posting. I can't speak for other skeptics or so-called "pseudo-skeptics" and although I agree that some of them can come across rude, that is not for me to support or defend. I can only speak for myself. Just my two cents and apologize if I offended.

Where is the "rules of pseudos" thread? I did a search for it but couldn't find it. Can you post the link to it Jakesteele?

Anyhow, if you aren't getting replies to your posts, then just save them in a file and post them somewhere else. That's what I'd do.

[Scepcop]

I think this place ought to set up some sort of partnership with The Daily Grail. They could use a discussion forum and we could use the traffic they get.

Great idea. I'll ask them about it. But they are an established site and if they wanted a forum could have installed one long ago, so they probably have a reason for not installing one.

[ProfWag]

Where is the "rules of pseudos" thread? I did a search for it but couldn't find it. Can you post the link to it Jakesteele?

it was posted on July 25 under the "Pseydoskeptics and their Fallacies" board.
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=174