|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 03/11/2005 : 20:29:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now there is a strawman. Nobody - and I mean nobody - has ever stopped latinijral from asking a question here. He is obviously allowed to ask questions as he sees fit (within reason), and Dude is allowed to respond as he sees fit (again, within reason). Dude's response was to call latinijral out on several points (some still unanswered) unrelated to the OP.
I don't see how Dude's response was within reason to the OP. It wasn't a response to the OP at all. It had nothing to do with the OP.
Is it reasonable to delibertly hijack a thread right after the OP? I hope not, no matter who it is.
quote:
"Is Geller a fraud?" Answer 'no', and latinijral has a field-day with you for not being a skeptic. Answer 'yes', and he starts playing semantic and philosophical games about "mind power" being used to move the muscles which bend the spoon, and then accuses you of not being a skeptic.
I have read through latinijral's posts in that topic, and no where do I find him calling people non-skeptics (or psuedo-skeptics) for thinking Geller is a fraud (even though some people, like myself, have said that). In fact, he says:
quote:
The only problem is that you “think” I created this topic with the promise that I will bring evidence that Geller is anything but a slight-of-hand artist with a gift for grift.
You are wrong again , my dear friend Filthy.
Which to me seems to indicate his position on Gellar. It isn't direct though. And I don't really understand what he means by the following, but I have a feeling it is pro-Uri Only after reading the entire thread did I understand the following quote:
quote:
I consider a victory if URI is really out and don't doing the same frauds now.
He is saying that Uri has claimed victory over "old" skepticism because even though he is a fraud, he is still making money.
It is also quite clear here that he is saying our skepticism failed because Uri is still making money:
quote:
Old skepticism never ruined URI career.
Old skepticism can not claim a complete victory on URI.
Something must be wrong in the old skepticism
And here he says that you would have to be a believer (used with a negative connotation) if you think Uri is real:
quote:
Are you assuming that some skeptics believed that URI has legitimate powers?
Examples ,please.
Are you assuming that a skeptic can be also a believer? Interesting.
And here, he says that Uri uses an excuse and that you should be prepared for excuses by fradulant people (aka Uri):
quote:
Do you move your hands by using your brind/mine?
Do they obey to a particular order of your mind?
Well,URI's excuse is that his mind gives some “extra” powers to his hands.
His hands are just the i |
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 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 21:02:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I don't see how Dude's response was within reason to the OP. It wasn't a response to the OP at all. It had nothing to do with the OP.
Is it reasonable to delibertly hijack a thread right after the OP? I hope not, no matter who it is.
Yes, it is reasonable to deliberately hijack the thread when the OP is clearly an attempt to ridicule people. The Geller OP was (and is).quote:
So people have answered latinijral's question, and it seems as if latinijral agrees. I see no pitfall.
Then you're missing latinijral's point, which is that "old" skeptics failed. He is saying that "old" skepticism is worthless if it can't terminate the career of a joker like Geller. He and Geller are laughing at us in our alleged "failure" to do what latinijral thinks we should have been able to do (despite reality). It's all yet another strawman attack on skepticism, Ricky.
Of course, the "new" skepticism hasn't done any better against Geller, but that's beside the point. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 23:08:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that when/if latinijral goes off on the tangent of "old" skepticism, that is when the hijack should be done. No?
Well, in my opinion, not that it matters much, no. It's like if some company kept calling me every morning trying to sell me a credit card. "But I don't want a fucking card, stop fucking calling me" I'd finally say. Do you think I should politely listen to their spiel the next morning because they so "Oh, no no no. This time I want to sell you car insurance."
latinijral started a new thread about who many people regard as Randi's "nemesis." (The two have a long history.) Dude was just trying to head him off at the pass avoid yet another long sermon about some perceived failing in skeptics and their refusal to recriminate Randi. At this point, the default response is to assume the tiger hasn't changed his spots. Starting a new thread doesn't somehow reset the impressions you've left in all the others, nor are we under any further obligations to offer him the benefit of the doubt.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/11/2005 23:13:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 23:18:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I don't know about you, but when I first read the OP, I thought the thread was going to be full of latinijral supporting Uri. Did you not?
Nope, I didn't. 'Cause as soon as he said, "Please be careful while you are responding these questions" (second sentence of that OP, after "Dear Skeptic Friends"), I knew there would be much more to the question(s) than met the eye. That's the kind of thing a person says when he thinks that the obvious answers are all "wrong." And indeed, he thinks that it's wrong for us to call ourselves "skeptics" if we can't force Geller into retirement.quote:
At least he shows an ounce of skepticism in it, that is, he is able to recgonize some frauds.
I'm sure every other "woo-woo" we've met on this forum has been able to recognize some frauds. After all, it's a rash generalization to assume that someone who believes, say, in a literal six-day creation also believes that laundry balls clean your clothes better than detergent.quote:
I think that when/if latinijral goes off on the tangent of "old" skepticism, that is when the hijack should be done. No?
Given his history here and elsewhere - which one would be unwise to ignore - it is (and was) a safe assumption that the topic, no matter what it was, would turn into "latinijral-against-the-skeptics" at some point. It was only a matter of time. Dude didn't bother to wait, and latinijral's protestations as he followed Dude into the hijack were pretty weak. |
- 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 - 03/12/2005 : 00:43:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't know about you, but when I first read the OP, I thought the thread was going to be full of latinijral supporting Uri. Did you not?
It seemed pretty clear to me that he was heading towards some semantics game with the word "fraud". And, since he has repeatedly accused the JREF of <gasp> fraud, combined with the history between Geller and Randi, it was a reasonable guess that latin was headed down that road yet again.
It would certainly have been in poor taste if that thread had been his first post in the forum, or his first rant about fraud. But it wasn't.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 10:00:55 [Permalink]
|
| At first I would have said that although I'm in general agreement with Dude's take on the madness that is latinijral, Dude should have waited awhile in the thread before beginning to mess with him, just to see how it played out. But upon further consideration, I'd say that Dude was just ahead of his time. Latin has had ample opportunity to earn respect, but has failed miserably to do so, and has even squandered the initial respect accorded to all who visit SFN. At this point lat is little more than a cartoon who's meager amusement value is fading. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 19:35:25 [Permalink]
|
I think that being discourteous to others shows disrespect for oneself. Why should anybody waste time with nastiness, even if it is reciptocal. Ignoring the stupidity of others works well for the self. Nothing good comes from getting revenge. It backfires. Ignore nincompoops. They are always self-distructive. Of course, if criminality is involved, it is far better to distance oneself from dangerous people than to put oneself in the absurd position of "victim".
I do not have time in my life for such negativity. I courteously avoid nasty people (self-protection). Nasty people end up as losers. Self-destruction gets them in the long run.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 20:28:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ljbrs
I do not have time in my life for such negativity. I courteously avoid nasty people (self-protection).
I'm happy for you that you have that option. Personally, I feel that certain cases of nastiness require a more-immediate response, since waiting for the self-destruction to occur can allow a great amount of damage to happen.
For a pertinent example, some nasty people take silence as a tacit approval of what they're saying, which could lead to serious legal problems for the people who are responsible for the moderation of a web forum. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 00:37:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ljbrs
I think that being discourteous to others shows disrespect for oneself.
That makes no sense.quote:
Why should anybody waste time with nastiness, even if it is reciptocal.
Well, because some of us enjoy getting nasty.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
