Locking threads??

"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. 

'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”.

"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.

"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.

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

What a rebuttal.

Prove me wrong. 

"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.

”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?

"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?”

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”.

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.

'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.

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

What?

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

Ah, there you go. Not an unicorn.

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

How nice.

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

 
Envy? I suppose you must be a psychiatrist then.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh, you don't remember SandyB clearly. Note nearly every thread she starts is moderated.

No, that's true, I don't remember her initially. I realised that I'd confused her with someone else and altered my post above accordingly. The rest I stand by.

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.

"those that do not consider themselves skeptics are the first to hurl insults."

Evidence ?

"those that do not consider themselves skeptics are the first to hurl insults."

Evidence? 

Review your post 24.

Review your post 24.

Post 24 where?

I suddenly find that we’re now apparently locking threads.

Are threads now owned by opening posters? Such that the thread stays visible and readable on the forums, but no one else can post to it... to correct say, an error, or rebut some claimed fact... even those who may also have contributed to the thread?

This seems a distasteful, and somewhat bizarre state of affairs for psience to adopt, where the whole principle of the site was to avoid this sort of moderation? And instead allow people to comment where and how they like?

I’m perfectly happy for people to own their own content, and in the past, people have asked to have their content deleted... and that has been the way these sorts of issues have been resolved in the past.

Can we have a serious rethink about this?

I've been on forums where OPs have the ability to lock their own threads, for whatever reasons they have. It has some merits as a system, on sites meant to be more carefully moderated where mods are AWOL and threads derail, but I wouldn't say it's a great idea for a place like this.


I do think that asking for a thread to be locked isn't wholly unreasonable, if it's gone too far south; someone can always try a new thread on the same/similar subject down the road, and hopefully circumstances work out differently. But as the thread that prompted all this is back open, it's a moot point for now.