justintime wrote:I started my first thread on JREF. "Was Carl Sagan really a Skeptic?"(dec 3' 2012) I presented my position based on his interviews and biographies exposing his dubious advocacy of scientific skepticism. Carl Sagan had both a public and private persona and when revealed showed a conflicted personality. He spoke with so many IF, POSSIBLE, MAYBE, and NOT IS and ARE etc. There was no way to ascertain he was sure of anything he spoke. Even to a direct question of UFOs he said he wished they were real but there were no evidence. Yet he spent his entire life searching for extraterrestrial intelligent life through SETI and promoting the possibilities of their existence in his public interviews.
I'm not sure what the inconsistency is with Sagan framing things in terms of IF, POSSIBLE< MAYBE, NOT IS, and ARE. There is no expectation that scepticism will lead to certainty and there is no duty on a person to be certain of anything. I'm quite wary of certainty myself.
I also posted on a thread that was started a while back which was idle, drew little interest and was stuck on the first page. It was titled. "What is a skeptic? I posted my theory on skeptics/Skepticism and Rationalism and the thread took off averaging over 1000 views/day. It was renamed to Justintime's theories on skeptics/Skepticism and Rationalism.
Ummm, good for you?
With both my threads building momentum and now averaging 2000 views each/daily they were merged into one. "What is a skeptic/Was Carl Sagan really a skeptic?" Many of my direct replies were moved to a holding area. My thread is losing the integrity it once had from all this censorship. And to add insult to injury I was suspended for violating Rule 0( be civil and polite), Rule 11(You will not deliberately attempt to derail or start threads in the wrong section) and Rule 12 (address the argument and not the arguer). Considering I only stated one thread and I certainly had no intention of derailing my own successful thread with over 24,000 views and I am generally civil to a fault. This was all a fabrication and attempt to silence the lone voice of reason in a sea of very insecure skeptozoids.
Regardless of what your intentions were from my brief skim of your posts I saw what I would consider to be violations of Rule 0 and 12. Didn't read enough to get a sense of the others.
Maybe you should consider how your posts are coming across, if people seem to be reacting contrary to your intensions.
I might have inadvertently raised the living dead or intruded into a cult sustained by blissful ignorance. After several similar experiences on other Skeptic Forums I am convinced some form of civil action is necessary, because attempts at rational discourses are dismissed by moderators picked from the same group of cognitive discordant members who are willing to wear their badge of ignorance tattooed to their foreheads.
You might want to review this quote and try and figure out how people might consider it uncivil.