You can spot what I call True Woos (as opposed to the Debunkers definition, where they simply call anyone who has any interest whatsoever in Paranormal / Anomalous Phenomenon, anyone who is reasonably convinced by any of the research and data [and has researched and considered all sides] in suggesting that there is something there worth further serious study, etc, to be blindly labeled as "Woos", lumping us all in with the gullible crazies in one blanket definition) by their reaction to simple critical questions.
If you ask someone making claims to back up their statements with actual evidence or request further evidence for their claims, and they instead fly off the handle and start hurling insults and show themselves to be unstable, that's a True Woo.
If you calmly present basic very reasonable skeptical arguments and inquiries, and ask them to respond to them and deal with them, and they instead fly off the handle and start hurling insults and show themselves to be unstable, that's a True Woo.
Now, on the otherhand, if you were to ask someone like me for evidence of whatever I claim to be convinced of, I'll gladly provide it, as much as possible, and even give an indepth response as to exactly why I feel the data is significant. And if you respond with indepth skeptical questions, I will respond to each and every point indepth, and give counter-data if applicable, and if I don't have an answer to something, or don't have sufficient evidence for something, I'll admit it and state that I need to research the matter further.
That type of response versus a True Woo's response is how you can tell a serious researcher of these topics from a fluff bunny.Statistics: Posted by Eteponge — 22 Nov 2009, 00:35
]]>