|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 08/11/2004 : 08:27:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I have to say that this whole thread feels mean-spirited and unkind to me. I tried to make light of it, but it didn't help.
Whether or not coberst's posts are "public", whether or not you like or agree with him, it's not cool in my world to create an entire thread demeaning him. Especially on a board that is usually so civil and respectful.
I dunno, Renae. This isn't simply a case of creating a "mean-spritied" thread to insult a particular poster.
The difference between coberst and, say, verlch is that the former has engaged in an annoying habit of starting threads with the exact same message at several different sites. Though I don't think this is against Skeptic Friends policy, it is not permitted at some forums.
Worse still is that once posted, he often fails to actively respond to people's thoughts on his posts. As has been shown, he has sometimes even cut-and-pasted his replies from a particular thread at one site to the same thread (but with obviously different readers and posters) at another site, which is particularly annoying and creates general confusion.
And then, of course, there's the fact that he can be pretty mean himself, arguing that people who disagree with him just aren't as smart is he is. He also has refused to address questions about why he's doing his multiple cross-posting.
Anyhow, the point here is not that Dave W or anyone else is now going to start ridiculing anyone we don't like (again, see verlch. Rather he's exposing this guy as the obnoxious serial poster that he really is. |
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 17:30:07 [Permalink]
|
Some of you apparently just don't get it, and every time I try to explain it, I'm treated (*cough*) to yet another insulting post about coberst.
SciFi Chick, you in particular don't seem to get it. Dave didn't just point out that he disagreed with coberst, or that coberst posted on other forums. He must have spent hours cyber-tracking him, cross-referencing and footnoting him--all to save us, apparently, from this terrible demon (sarcasm intended.)
Those of you that thought he "thanked" Dave...uh, my guess is that he was saving face and not expressing real gratitude. What else could he say?
I'm a human being before I'm a skeptic. That means I try (on my better days) to treat people--especially 60 year olds--with compassion and understanding. It's possible to disagree with someone without making them wrong, ridiculing them, feeling you have to "win" an argument. It's also possible to not like someone but shut the fuck up about it.
Anyway, I'm off to kinder, gentler pastures for a while.
Filth, thanks for gettin' it. You smash my stereotypes about dudes who ride big bikes.  |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 17:58:00 [Permalink]
|
Oh my goodness! People here and at other sites have been very patient and have tried multiple times to reason with coberst. I suggest anyone who thinks otherwise should go back and re-read the threads. IMHO this kind of posting is a type of trolling (albeit not the classic style). Philosophy Forums eventually just banned him for this behavior. Dave chose to research this behavior and publically point it out...how this can be seen as "cruelty" is really a stretch.
|
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 18:24:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Filth, thanks for gettin' it. You smash my stereotypes about dudes who ride big bikes.
Sometimes, I ride with the Angels. 
77 & 81
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 18:58:35 [Permalink]
|
Blame the victim my aunt Fanny. As far as I'm concerned I and the other people who've tried to discuss things with Chuck are the victims, here, Renae. I can't get any of that time back, time which I thought at first would be fruitfully spent, only to later find I was robbed. A little more to compose the OP in this thread didn't make much of a difference compared to the thousands of words I'd written to him beforehand.
Here is the deal:
The Skeptic Friends Network and its associated discussion forum have a mission. I found a repeat poster (Chuck) to be - in my opinion - acting in a manner which is antithetical to our mission here, while - for a fact - claiming to be aligned with, and acting on behalf of, our mission.
This is a very bad situation. It's so bad, I'll point it out again: Chuck claimed to be a "Johnny Appleseed" for critical thinking, yet through his posts, demonstrated an utter lack of critical-thinking ability, or any desire to really become a critical thinker. In my opinion, this is not the kind of person critical thinkers should want as a self-appointed poster boy.
It was clear that just attempting to engage Chuck in a discussion of his goals was impossible. Many of my direct questions to him have gone unanswered. He is unwilling to even entertain the idea that what he's doing is not critical thinking.
And so, something big seemed to be required. A proverbial (and virtual) two-by-four. An attention-getter. Creating a single "coberst history" was the solution which came to my mind. There were three broad categories of responses Chuck could have given:- "Oh, is that what people think of me? I'd better fix that,"
- no response at all, or
- thanking me for my efforts to seal his fame and glory via Internet martyrdom.
The first would have been nice. The second, a sign that the status quo would continue.
Chuck chose the last, which - as far as I'm concerned - puts the final piece of the puzzle together, and answers the question "should anyone spend any time paying attention to Chuck?" in the negative. Firmly. He is in his own little world, unresponsive to anything. All of my idealistic desires to try to get him to see what the problem is have been stripped away. He refuses to look, and assumes that any problem is of other people's creation.
And frankly, the only reason his age has anything to do with this is that maybe he can use it to claim senility as an excuse for his poor behaviour. (And if it turns out that he is senile, I'll stop blaming the victim of a neurological disease.) Nobody should have to put up with crap like his, no matter what his age. He might be 70, but he's acting like he's a 12-year-old who thinks that he's the only person in the world who's discovered Playboy. I expect much more decorum and sense from a self-described "senior scholar," especially one who seems to use the phrase as a way to get self-respect.
And as far as invading his privacy goes, there's a few other things I know about Chuck which I didn't post. Things which have exactly zero bearing on any argument I might care to make about the man or his goals. These are still things which he's made public - on purpose - so it's not like he has an expectation of privacy, but I'll give him that much.
And don't forget, there's still the possibility that he's simply yanking everyone's chains. Seems a lot of effort to go through, but I've seen more elaborate and less-funny practical jokes. And with that in mind, who can say that I've invaded his privacy at all? Or that I've treated an elderly man badly?
Actually, I'm just taking the claims that his name is Chuck, that he's 70, that he's a man, etc., all as givens. Were I to be a true critical thinker I would have asked Chuck for some form of evidence for these assertions of his, right?
Oh, couple more things in particular... Renae wrote:quote:
Dave didn't just point out that he disagreed with coberst, or that coberst posted on other forums. He must have spent hours cyber-tracking him, cross-referencing and footnoting him--all to save us, apparently, from this terrible demon (sarcasm intended.)
Sarcasm misplaced. "Hours" as in "more than a couple," yes. All to satisfy my own curiosity, thank you very much. I pretty much knew that at least a couple other people would be interested.
And had Chuck shown any tolerance or kindness towards people who disagreed with the method in which he pursued his goals, Renae, I probably would have done things differently. But he has been steadfast in his ability to look down his nose at people who had constructive criticsm for him. The Golden Rule has no effect upon those who are more-or-less oblivious to others. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2004 : 19:02:06 [Permalink]
|
coberst is using the good old political tactic of repetition.... if it's repeated often enough, regardless of factual basis, people will start to accept it.
It's a tactic that needs to be fought against, it's the same tactic that has the majority of Americans believing that Saddam = bin Laden.
What Dave W is doing, I think, is to demonstrate the behavior of coberst across multiple forums and to let people see what the guy is up to.
coberst has posted many positions and opinions that we agree with, and some that some of us don't agree with. He refuses to even give minimal defense to some of his claims when questioned. Instead he just repeats himself on alot of sites. To the point now that he's even been used as a reference.....
There is nothing wrong with questioning claims and motivations of people, especially people who claim to have a message. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 05:08:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Some of you apparently just don't get it, and every time I try to explain it, I'm treated (*cough*) to yet another insulting post about coberst.
Well, boo hoo. Maybe some people think YOU don't get it.
quote:
Originally posted by RenaeSciFi Chick, you in particular don't seem to get it. Dave didn't just point out that he disagreed with coberst, or that coberst posted on other forums. He must have spent hours cyber-tracking him, cross-referencing and footnoting him--all to save us, apparently, from this terrible demon (sarcasm intended.)
Interestingly, when I responded to you, I avoided insulting coberst. I asked you several questions - which is what someone does when they don't "get it" - but rather than answer any of them, you become sarcastic and condescending. No wonder you want to defend coberst.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Those of you that thought he "thanked" Dave...uh, my guess is that he was saving face and not expressing real gratitude. What else could he say?
Well thank you so much for reading his mind for us. Most of us aren't psychic, so it's really good to know you're here to interpret what other people mean. While it did become clear later that he wasn't thanking Dave, as a result of other posts he is now making, it was not clear to begin with. I saw no reason not to take what he said at face value. What else could he say? He could have RESPONDED with a REAL answer, something we've been trying to get him to do FOR MONTHS!
quote:
Originally posted by RenaeI'm a human being before I'm a skeptic. That means I try (on my better days) to treat people--especially 60 year olds--with compassion and understanding. It's possible to disagree with someone without making them wrong, ridiculing them, feeling you have to "win" an argument. It's also possible to not like someone but shut the fuck up about it.
Well aren't you just a saint? I find your tone and your moral highground really offensive. coberst has been a pain in the rear for some time, but you can't wait to defend him. I ask you honest questions, and you act like I'm some evil person who wants to abuse old people.
quote:
Originally posted by RenaeAnyway, I'm off to kinder, gentler pastures for a while.
Of course you are. Rather than answering any of my questions, it's much easier to stomp off flinging insults behind you. That's always a good way to save face when you're losing an argument.
quote:
Originally posted by RenaeFilth, thanks for gettin' it. You smash my stereotypes about dudes who ride big bikes.
Whatever. I would like to reiterate that I was asking honest questions. That's why I went out of my way to say that I didn't want to offend you. Your assumption that I'm not "getting it" on purpose is really insulting. That's right. Filthy is the only one here who isn't being hard to get along with because he gets you. Again, whatever.
[edited to move a paragraph where it belongs] |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
| Edited by - SciFi Chick on 08/12/2004 06:07:54 |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 05:59:08 [Permalink]
|
SciFi Chick just hit the nail on the head regarding this whole issue:
"He could have RESPONDED with a REAL answer, something we've been trying to get him to do FOR MONTHS".
Now, there's the crux of the matter folks...a large number of people, for a very long time, in a great many ways have been telling coberst explicitly what he's doing and have even specifically pointed out why this behavior is rude and condescending. How could someone not understand, you say?
Utilizing some critical thought I've come to the conclusion that either:
1) He does understand what we're saying and for some reason he chooses to ignore us and continues to post in the same manner.
2) He actually doesn't understand what we're saying and for this reason just continues to post in the same manner.
Either way the result is a behavior known as "unresponsive trolling". Each forum will have to decide what to do about this. Dave has chosen to expose the behavior. Personally, I think it's better than just banning a person without explanation. At least this option gives coberst a chance to see the problem spelled out very clearly and maybe this will lead to some understanding that can help him make the necessary changes. |
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 06:25:19 [Permalink]
|
SciFi Chick, I don't appreciate your post, either. I don't like posts designed to insult others, and I certainly don't like them about ME--especially from someone who doesn't appear to read my posts and hasn't read enough to get a good sense of where I'm coming from.
Your response to me consisted of, "Some people think other things are mean," which isn't a response so much as pointing out the obvious. If I said that I was upset that my neighbor abused his dog, would you respond with, "Some people would think beating his wife is mean."? I don't generally respond to things that are merely pointing out the obvious. I'm a grown woman, and I've long known that people see things differently and have different morals, values, etc. I don't need to be told that by strangers on the Internet.
I wasn't unkind to Ricky, and I certainly didn't cyberstalk him and call him a nut. My experience is that young people slowly grow out of the need to speak "the truth" (cough, gag) and begin to see the world differently as they get into their 30s and 40s. My EXPERIENCE, mind you. And yes, I was a difficult person at times in my twenties and I thought I could say "the truth", even when it wasn't appropriate. In my opinion, "the truth" (retch) is inappropriate here.
I also said that I GUESSED about coberst's intentions--as YOU did. I didn't say I could read his mind. You assumed he was being literal, but you don't know, either--are YOU reading his mind? I assumed he was saving face. I don't see any real point here.
Further, you assumed that I told filthy he "gets it" because he agrees with me. Actually, filthy tends to choose the high road--he often chooses the compassionate path (probably more often than I do, really.) He doesn't feel the need to control what coberst or anybody else posts and he rarely reacts personally, and I like that about him. That was part of the point I was making, which is why I said that.
By way of background, I worked in a nursing home for four years. I have a soft spot for older people and long ago became fed up with the ageism that's rampant in our society.
I think it's kinda funny that you're offended that I try to be a compassionate and empathetic person (with the admission that I don't always succeed), but you see nothing wrong with posting pages and pages of insults. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 06:31:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm a human being before I'm a skeptic. That means I try (on my better days) to treat people--especially 60 year olds--with compassion and understanding. It's possible to disagree with someone without making them wrong, ridiculing them, feeling you have to "win" an argument. It's also possible to not like someone but shut the fuck up about it.
What I don't think that you see is that this type of thinking (non-thinking?) is what leads to many horrible things. Throwing out undefended assertion after assertion, making assumption after assumption, not relying on peer review (us), calling everyone who disagrees just not "getting it" is the same kind of thinking that goes into alternate medicine, quacks, frauds, etc. Coberst's type of thinking can really have negative impacts on other people, and I won't stand for it, and I'm not sure (don't want to be speaking for Dave), but I think Dave feels the same. Just not saying anything would let this continue, and someone not so bright in the ways of critical thinking can fall victim to it.
Edit:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke
You can't just be silent. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/12/2004 06:33:34 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 06:42:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wasn't unkind to Ricky, and I certainly didn't cyberstalk him and call him a nut. My experience is that young people slowly grow out of the need to speak "the truth" (cough, gag) and begin to see the world differently as they get into their 30s and 40s. My EXPERIENCE, mind you. And yes, I was a difficult person at times in my twenties and I thought I could say "the truth", even when it wasn't appropriate. In my opinion, "the truth" (retch) is inappropriate here.
Why is the truth inappropriate here? My morals as of right now is that the truth is never inappropriate, but something that should always be demanded and sought for. You think a lie would be better?
quote:
Further, you assumed that I told filthy he "gets it" because he agrees with me. Actually, filthy tends to choose the high road--he often chooses the compassionate path (probably more often than I do, really.)
Do you feel this compassion for those who say that faith healing can cure all whose patients die when could have been helped by real medicine? Do you feel compassion for those who claim that AIDS is cureable by a healthy diet? I was thinking about what I have just said, and it appears to be a Straw Man, but I think that they way in which each (the two previous examples and Coberst) think are very alike. Coberst, whether he knows it or not, has been spreading unfounded points, and when called on it just rejects the fact that they are unfounded. This is exactly what you see in alternate medicine.
And you say that filthy "gets is" just because he agrees with you, that can only be true based on the assumption that you are in fact right. This is an assumption no one should make. Whether filthy gets it, or you get it, or I get it, or Dave W. gets it, we don't know. Thats why we are talking about it, discussing it. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 07:09:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
It's also possible to not like someone but shut the fuck up about it.
This type of response tends to irritate people. I, for one, have never "insulted" coberst but I have pointed out his bad behavior in a variety of ways ranging from blunt statement to humor. I do not "dislike" coberst but I do dislike the manner in which he posts.
Everyone who posts on a public forum is in essence "speaking publically" and needs to take responsibility for their statements...regardless of age.
Now, I'm 53 years old and I don't particularly like being told to "shut the f**k up" for voicing my opinion about a poster's outrageous behavior. Dave is the moderator here and if you do not care for his style of attempting to enforce order and decorum then you are obviously free to voice your dissent respectfully then make a decision if you wish to leave the forum or not. |
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 09:02:20 [Permalink]
|
Yeesh, the tempest is boiling out of the teapot!
C'mon guys, is Coberst's writings or cut & pastings, or whaddahell ever really worth all of this snap & sting?
I think not.
Coberst is not verlch. The latter was a seriously disruptive influence; the former is merely tedious and pendatic.
I really don't care how old he is (I'm 65 -- respect me or die horribly!), here he is just another voice, as are we all.
To me, his ever-harping upon philosophic matters and jumping from one topic to the next without reasonable discussion is an irritant, but one easily ignored along with the topic. I refuse to let my blood pressure climb over it; certainly not to the extent of arguing with third parties.
Who knows, perhaps soon, he might make an interesting contribution. Or go the way of verlch, at which time I will gleefully join, indeed lead the fray, references and sarcasm a'blazin'.
I miss verlch. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2004 : 10:23:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
SciFi Chick, I don't appreciate your post, either. I don't like posts designed to insult others, and I certainly don't like them about ME--especially from someone who doesn't appear to read my posts and hasn't read enough to get a good sense of where I'm coming from.
I have read all of the posts you've written in this topic, and I completely understood them. I just disagreed with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Your response to me consisted of, "Some people think other things are mean," which isn't a response so much as pointing out the obvious. If I said that I was upset that my neighbor abused his dog, would you respond with, "Some people would think beating his wife is mean."? I don't generally respond to things that are merely pointing out the obvious. I'm a grown woman, and I've long known that people see things differently and have different morals, values, etc. I don't need to be told that by strangers on the Internet.
Well you certainly don't mind sharing your beliefs with strangers on the Internet. I just don't understand why you keep singling me out. There was nothing at all insulting about my first post, but you essentially told me to shut the fuck up about what I have to say. I suppose now you'll say you weren't directing that specifically at me, but it was in a post directed at me.
Also, the whole dog thing is false. Several people have suggested that we ignore coberst rather than pointing out his errors. My point was that ignoring coberst might be considered by some to be just as cruel as you think pointing out his errors is.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I wasn't unkind to Ricky, and I certainly didn't cyberstalk him and call him a nut. My experience is that young people slowly grow out of the need to speak "the truth" (cough, gag) and begin to see the world differently as they get into their 30s and 40s. My EXPERIENCE, mind you. And yes, I was a difficult person at times in my twenties and I thought I could say "the truth", even when it wasn't appropriate. In my opinion, "the truth" (retch) is inappropriate here.
I think you are being unkind. That was my whole point about posting what you consider obvious. I happen to think that judging people in the harsh manner you have used is very unkind. I also don't understand what it is about what we think that makes you want to retch and gag, but I"m supposed to somehow see you as compassionate.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Further, you assumed that I told filthy he "gets it" because he agrees with me. Actually, filthy tends to choose the high road--he often chooses the compassionate path (probably more often than I do, really.) He doesn't feel the need to control what coberst or anybody else posts and he rarely reacts personally, and I like that about him. That was part of the point I was making, which is why I said that.
I will reiterate once again, since you don't seem to be understanding it: I didn't get you. That is why I questioned you. You took offense to being questioned, and now you say you don't have to answer to me, and you feel perfectly free to announce that I don't get it - which is already obvious, and I haven't denied it - and you follow that up with telling me to shut the fuck up. You have a strange way of communicating.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
By way of background, I worked in a nursing home for four years. I have a soft spot for older people and long ago became fed up with the ageism that's rampant in our society.
The issue here is not ageism. For all we know, coberst is a teenager pretending to be old.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I think it's kinda funny that you're offended that I try to be a compassionate and empathetic person (with the admission that I don't always succeed), but you see nothing wrong with posting pages and pages of insults. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmm.
I'm not offended that you are trying to be compassionate and empathetic, and I never said anything like that.
coberst has pasted quite a few pages of insults. Is it okay because he's 70? Does everyone over the age of 50 get to post pages of insults?
Dave didn't post pages of insults. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
| Edited by - SciFi Chick on 08/12/2004 11:16:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
