Psience Quest

(2019-07-25, 01:11 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Stating one's position on how one sees the situation in question having happened is fine, but maybe we should show a bit of restraint when it comes to piling on the name-calling?

We are asking for this minimal principle of respect from all contributors.

And yet, he continues to prove the point... Look how condescending he is acting in the “A plea” thread.

(2019-07-25, 02:23 AM)ParapsychResearcher Wrote: [ -> ]E. Flowers' comment is directed at me, and is also very insulting and confused. So even though I don't want to get into this again, I will attempt to explain my side of the dispute in response.

I am fairly sure that there is nothing “confused” about that comment. I am also sure that an expert in human intelligence (whatever that means) can interpret the first part of that comment, which was meant to be taken literally (more on this later).

Quote:"resorted to questioning another user’s IQ and throwing epithets almost out of the gate"

I have to wonder if E. Flowers actually bothered to read the thread in full. As Chris noted in his "Plea" thread, it took quite a while before tim's uncomprehending and misrepresentation-laden posts annoyed me enough to start insulting him.

Of course not. I am also “incapable” of understanding your arguments, or even following a thread for that matter.

Quote:E. Flowers seems also to have missed the attack from tim that preceded my insult about his intelligence: "You are also very stupid, quite rude and wholly illogical, and there I'll leave it."

Yep. Still incapable of following a thread. I should, perhaps, ask for a refund on all those college loans...

Quote:So, in fact, tim was the one who started the attacks of that sort--it was more than reasonable to respond in kind, especially given the execrable quality and know-it-all aggressiveness of tim's offerings up to that point. The only thing that I wrote both explicitly related to intelligence and that could be construed as insulting prior to that reply from tim is the following: "If you've actually read my posts carefully, then there are some serious reading comprehension limitations on your end." Note the "if"[...]

Yeah, shame that all of that leads to this gem: “You thoughtlessly endorse whatever conforms to your prejudices no matter how weak its evidential basis is. You simply aren't worth talking to, at least on this topic.”

I don’t see any “if”s there, buddy.

Quote:Moreover, I only turned hostile after tim drew an association between me and Keith Augustine (whom I quite dislike) to give himself an excuse to dismiss my responses.

Was he supposed to know that you disliked Augustine? Is the drawing of parallels really an attempt to bail on the conversation? This is, after all, a man that has been arguing with Max over the “mechanics” (term used *very* loosely here) of NDEs for five years (or, perhaps, more), but feel content drawing conclusions about him... It’s not like you just met him.

Quote:The fact that (seemingly) so few people on this forum object to tim's relentless mashing of everything (about NDEs, at least) through his hyper-partisan frame, and his sparking of conflicts such as this one that results, is baffling to me. I refer readers again to Chris' "plea" thread, Chris being one of the people here who does rightly oppose that behavior.

Hyper-partisan? Really? Oh, wait, never mind. Here you are just drawing conclusions about people you just met... Again. 

Quote:It seems to me that Mediochre, in the "Plea" thread, has done a good job of explaining how tim first really derailed the discussion, something that his supporters are evidently completely blind to (although tim is aggressive right from the get go in his tireless efforts to stifle anyone who diverges from his Reynolds dogma even slightly):

"There's an old tactic I used to see people use on spiritualist forums that I like to call 'tone policing' where they'd use a very nice calm tone but the content of what they were saying was still threatening, libatious, plain untrue, easily debunkable, very horrific to believe* and so forth. Then when the other side eventually got tired of pointing out the obvious and just started insulting them in defense they'd throw up their hands and go 'whoa whoa why can't we have a civil discussion here? I mean, I was being nice to you' And the defensive person would be the one to get in trouble rather than the one ignoring all their points and dodging questions."

Cool story. Not particularly relevant, Tim did none of those as far as I could tell. Also, very interesting coming from a man that must find himself in that very position very often, given his tendency to discuss “real magic” (and how to practice it).

Quote:Indeed, one of tim's posts includes a sentence of exactly the kind that Mediochre identifies: "That's over the top ! Where have I jumped down your throat, for heaven's sake ?"

Oh, wow... That is pretty damning. I mean, it’s not like he was responding to something like: 

“If you cannot deal with inquiry from a sympathetic interlocutor who is merely trying to get the facts straight, without jumping down their throat for having the audacity to get in the way of your inflexible understanding of things, you need to get a grip, badly.”

Or anything of the sort. Which is, definitely, not “threatening, libatious, [or] plain untrue” (pick your favorite). 

Quote:E. Flowers again:

Yep.

Quote:"He must think that we are a bunch of hicks that go on daily Bigfoot hunts (or something to that effect)."

There are at least two problems with the above statement.

For someone whose “academic work” revolves around human intelligence, you are having one hell of a time understanding the sardonic nature of this assertion. Of course I don’t think you perceive us as hicks, but you do express yourself like you *are* smarter than anybody here. My point, which admittedly may be easier to understand for the older members (they are “we”, BTW), is that we (see?) are used to dealing with *a lot* of “researchers”. Many of them are MDs. But there is also the career scientist, some of which visited us all the way back when Skeptico was interested in the science behind the weirdness. And boy, is the curriculum vitae of some of them likely to make yours look pale by comparison (and that’s actually not a dig, they are *that* damn good).

Quote:First, I believe that some paranormal phenomena very likely exist (including anomalous NDEs), whereas the mention of "Bigfoot" seems to imply that I'm an adamant skeptic...

Still failing to catch on to that sardonic tone... So, I will cut it here. It would be amusing to discuss the irony that an expert in human intelligence somehow failed to understand a -admittedly cynical-joke and wrote all of that after taking things a bit too literally.

(2019-07-25, 07:37 AM)ParapsychResearcher Wrote: [ -> ]Whereas the insults repeatedly directed at me in the period I stopped engaging, not to mention the insults I received before I insulted anyone, are just fine. tim and his friends have trouble keeping track of the actual course of conversations, apparently. "How dare this guy not take attack after attack and not respond!?"

"condescending"; "the kid is still sitting on top of one hell of a high horse"

You seem to be one of those people whose instinct to "cut down the tall poppies" is very easily triggered. A bit sad.

Is “Tim and his friends” a TV show? Oh, I sure hope that it features me berating him a few weeks ago for his never ending feud with Max. Or, you know, any of the unconditional and wacky things that children’s shows teach boys and girls these days.  (<- See? This time I used the emoji, to make it easier)

Boy, each and everyone of these adults has been involved in heated debates among themselves. They may be colleagues, but are hardly a circle jerk.

in regards to your “brilliant” observations about me:

1- Its still amazing that you fail to understand why you come across as condescending and arrogant. Ask a friend to read your posts  once in a while and request feedback.
2- I am not a millennial, but I will take my safe space to avoid being “triggered” if it includes fine wine.

Is it full moon or something?   

(2019-07-25, 08:40 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Is it full moon or something?   

Good time to check.

(2019-07-25, 08:47 AM)ParapsychResearcher Wrote: [ -> ]"human intelligence (whatever that means)"

I will begin by noting that those skeptical of the reality of human intelligence are, almost without exception, those who know nothing about it. Perhaps you need to get back to college and take out more of those loans.

Where exactly did I express my disbelief in the concept of human intelligence? No, I was emphasizing that you claimed expertise on something in the most obscure of ways, without bothering to explain yourself. Are you a psychologist? Psychiatrist? Who knows. Ergo, “whatever that means”. Lousy reading comprehension there, expert. 

Quote:'I don’t see any “if”s there, buddy.'

Funny, I don't see anything about intelligence in what you've highlighted, and it seems to be the IQ remark that's really gotten under your skin (but not tim's prior insult of my being "very stupid," somehow)--wonder why. By the way, surely you're aware of the distinction between thoughtlessness and stupidity?

I don’t know, maybe because my quote is actually from the post that you made before he called you a troll and very stupid? As in, “you actually escalated things”.

Quote:"Is the drawing of parallels really an attempt to bail on the conversation?"

Odd that you take issue with my failure to grasp your (alleged) jokes, but can't seem to get the clear meaning of "dismiss" in the context in which I used it (that word has more than one meaning, by the way, something you may not have caught in college).

”Take issue”? 

Also, to quote an “expert” that I just met: “incoherent”

You, quite clearly, accused Tim of willingly ignoring your arguments. Which actually has nothing to do with your failure to understand a joke. There is nothing subtle in your assertion, you are blunt as one would expect a youngster to be. However, if it arouses your curiosity, it does take some basic understanding of irony to catch the joke.

Quote:"Here you are just drawing conclusions about people you just met... Again."

Something tim is mysteriously free to do in your book. Interesting. And, of course, you see nothing wrong with your indicating that I'm a "pretentious jackass" and "troll" even though you had not even communicated with me prior to issuing that attack. More of that glaring intellectual inconsistency from tim's pals.

Of course. How does the old saying go? “Actions speak louder than words.” You began attacking tim’s character while he was still being civil, promoting him to lash out and then questioning his intelligence. I made my comment when your character was already widely exposed. I know that subtle things are difficult for you, but do try to keep up.

Quote:"Tim did none of those as far as I could tell."

What a rebuttal.

Prove me wrong. 

Quote:"Oh, wow... That is pretty damning."


You seem to have failed to appreciate how perfectly tim's behavior aligns with Mediochre's broader characterization. But clearly you're uninterested in trying to see the alignment, so I won't push this.

No. I just took notice that you began with the low key bashing before he lashed out. And, also knowing that he will likely say whatever he thinks out loud after years of seeing him around, I’m unconvinced of this argument. Your actions actually fit the mold better, as far as I can tell.

Quote:”you are having one hell of a time understanding the sardonic nature of this assertion. Of course I don’t think you perceive us as hicks"

What in my comment gave you the impression that I believed that you thought that I literally regard you all as hicks? Much like tim, you impute thoughts and intentions to people without any basis to do so in what they've written. This is especially ironic given your repeated claim of my failure to understand (parts of) your post.

Ah, let’s break this one by parts:

1- “Hicks” is colloquial parlance for “simpletons”. And, why on earth would I use that? Gee, IDK, maybe one of us suddenly began questioning IQs and mocking people for typos?
2- If you didn’t take that literally, then you have a lot of free time to waste typing superfluos paragraphs.
3- Who exactly were you trying to convince when you continued explaining your idiosyncratic leanings?

Quote:"but you do express yourself like you *are* smarter than anybody here."

The justification for this claim being, what, exactly? I had a spat with tim and have argued with those taking his side and going on to attack me--therefore I act like I am smarter than anybody else [...]

And I quote “Gee, IDK, maybe one of us suddenly began questioning IQs and mocking people for typos?”

Quote:Ask Laird and Chris if, in my communications with them, I've given the impression of thinking that I'm smarter than they are.

Why? How would that be relevant? By your own admission you only show that juvenile side when you feel “attacked”.

Quote:Oh, but let me guess, that was just hyperbole, right?

Nope, it’s fact. You do not go around questioning the intelligence of other people and putting it on a scale unless you feel pretty superior to them.

Quote:'is that we are used to dealing with *a lot* of “researchers”'

There you go again with that chip on your shoulder.

This literally makes no sense. I merely pointed to you that you are not an unicorn. Deal with it.

Quote:Yes, God forbid people who can rigorously engage parapsych material do so--those filthy elitists knowing statistics and things!

What?

Quote:Wouldn't surprise me, since, on average, they've probably got a few decades on me.

Ah, there you go. Not an unicorn.

Quote:Now, if I were compared to someone my age, it'd be a different story.

How nice.

Quote:Hope that doesn't set off your hair-trigger envy again.

 
Envy? I suppose you must be a psychiatrist then.

Quote:"Hurrr this guy responded to my baseless insult that was couched in a poorly done joke. His response means nothing because I think he didn't realize I was trying to be funny while insulting him!"

Oh, you are letting that “age” that you referenced before show.

(2019-07-25, 08:53 AM)ParapsychResearcher Wrote: [ -> ]And it's amazing how blind you are to your own hypocrisy. But I'm beating a dead horse here.

'Is “Tim and his friends” a TV show? Oh, I sure hope that it features me berating him a few weeks ago for his never ending feud with Max.'

What makes you think you know everyone I do and don't include in that group? Again, you think you understand what I meant by something, but, in the course of our exchange so far, have repeatedly misattributed beliefs to me.

Edit: As with the other thread, I won't be posting further here for the mods' sake.

No, boy. I commented on your behavior, which is evident and can be easily analyzed from your posts. You, on the other hand, came back with some nonsense about triggers... Which was funny, at least for those of us that understand why a millennial kid would respond with that, but really inconsequential to the actual discussion.

Ah, nostalgia. These recent threads remind me of the original skeptiko forum. All we need now is Sandy B to come in and hurl insults at anyone who dares offer any skeptical analysis whatsoever, and Weiler to brag about something.

berkelon Wrote:Ah, nostalgia. These recent threads remind me of the original skeptiko forum. All we need now is Sandy B to come in and hurl insults at anyone who dares offer any skeptical analysis whatsoever, and Weiler to brag about something.

What was wrong with the original Skeptiko forum ? BTW I actually preferred, the straightforward, honest approach, to yours, berkelon. I suspect you're just another sophisticate/pseudo sceptic, posing as being open minded.  
 
I noted that you gave a like to that pompous, over sensitive, busy body, Chris in his continuing attacks on me. Entirely consistent with your previous actions.

(2019-07-25, 10:43 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]What was wrong with the original Skeptiko forum ? BTW I actually preferred Sandy B's straightforward? (honest)) approach (albeit controversial) , to yours, berkelon. I suspect you're just another sophisticate/pseudo sceptic, posing as being open minded.  
 
I noted that you gave a like to that pompous, over sensitive, busy body, Chris in his continuing attacks on me. Consistent with your previous actions.

Oh, you don't remember SandyB clearly. Note nearly every thread she starts is moderated. One glaring characteristic I've note are those that do not consider themselves skeptics are the first to hurl insults.