|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 03/12/2005 : 10:10:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
latinijral:
All I see, until now, is your pseudo skeptic efforts to be out of topic ,so your “dudes” will have another excuse to close another thread about some mistakes of the old skepticism.
You are a liar. Either that or you are so nuts, you cannot distinguish between what is true and what is not. Those threads were not closed to cover the mistakes of “the old skepticism” whatever the hell that is. They were closed for the reasons stated. For one who worries so much about those who speak for others, you are guilty of doing just that. So far you have broken every single one of your own rules about what a real skeptic should be. You're a hypocritical little prick. Mostly, I have reframed from engaging you in these debates. The reason is I prefer to dialog with those who have honest intentions. Even with those who have ideas I don't agree with. But you are not honest. You are not even worth the time it took for me to answer this latest little slur of yours.
You have been banned from several forums. The fact that you are still here is evidence that we at SFN are not trying to censure you in any way. Instead of being grateful that we have allowed you a forum to speak your nonsense, you have attacked our doing routine moderation and administration as if you think you are important enough for us to take special measures against you. You aren't.
But I have an idea. If you really think you are being treated unfairly, go away. Buzz off. Leave. Go start your own forum with your own rules. You can call it “The New Skepticism.” You will then be free to pontificate to your hearts content without having to deal with a bunch of “pseudo skeptics” demanding evidence to support your half-baked claims.
quote:
latinijral:
If you want to satisfy your curiosity, create a topic about “new scepticism “ ,then you will have an entire topic to discuss about it. Afraid to do it?
As far as I can see, no one here is afraid of the “New Skepticism.” Many have asked you to define it. So they clearly are not “afraid” of what they might learn. On the other hand, your refusal to answer questions about it is cause to think that there is no such thing. If you really think a new thread is required to define and defend it, open it yourself. The fact that you would, after many attempts to get you to define what the “New Skepticism” is, throw the ball back at those who are asking about it by calling them “afraid” is yet another example of a dodge by a pompous little prick. If opening a new thread is what it will take for you to answer the questions already asked of you, than open it yourself. Or, are you afraid to do it?
Edited to add: Come to think of it, I do not think it is necessary to open a new thread for you to answer the question of “New Skepticism.” There is no reason for you to not answer the question in the existing thread since that seems to be the gist of the thread…
Let me end this by saying that I am personally sick of you latinijral. I think you are a waste of bandwidth. I don't think you bring anything to the table but rumor, innuendo, lies, hypocrisy, delusion and obsession. What I see in your posts is another fucking whacko, one of many, who unfortunately, by way of the internet, have the means of spewing their garbage to many more people than they could without the net. As one who supports the free exchange of ideas, a price we pay for that freedom is having to deal with pricks like you… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 10:11:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Hal Bidlack deleted threads entirely.
He didn't deleted a misquote he did.
Next time try to quote the reply .
Did I confused the nicks before? Yes I did. Ask Cuneiformist.
Is that a BIG mistake to you?
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action?
But Hal Bidlack, a dastardly fellow, no doubt, has deleted no threads here. Indeed, while threads on these fora might get locked, every existing word in them is still available for viewing by anyone who so wishes.
Confusing nicks is no big deal; hell, I've done it too, upon occasions when I failed to think before hitting the 'Post' button. However, your style thus far has been condesending and even irritating, so attributing the words of one to another becomes a sign of not caring much about what you write nor the audience you are trying to reach.
Ask Dave why he named Hal Bidlack and about his confusion .
My reply was quoted and addressed to Dave, BEFORE Dave edited his reply..
I understand your confusion because your dudes deleted my threads while they were on discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Are you prepared now to answer about your "dude" action?
I am not sure what this means, and due to some previous misunderstandings on my part, I'll refrain comment until you elaborate. But it smells like another straw man.
My reply was addressed to Dave. He knows about his “dude” “action”.
Your post has a tactic of the old skepticism already debunked.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As a skeptic,…(snip)
That quote of yours made me laugh.
Show the evidence that you ARE a real skeptic.
Don't confuse yourself with the pseudo sKepticism.
All I see, until now, is your pseudo skeptic efforts to be out of topic ,so your “dudes” will have another excuse to close another thread about some mistakes of the old skepticism.
If you want to satisfy your curiosity, create a topic about “new scepticism “ ,then you will have an entire topic to discuss about it.
Afraid to do it?
Dude deleted you're posts? I rather think not unless he has only recently became a moderator. But no matter, that is just another straw man. As are to be found throughout your posts.
No, no, latinijral, no new threads, no more red herrings and greased pigs. I am asking you, not Dave nor Dude, nor anyone else; it's you right here and now:
How am I a psuedo-skeptic; why do you use such a poor reference as Daniel Drasin? I have posted a page of his that shows him to be a little woo-woo -- did you not research? Why will you not come up with con |
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/12/2005 10:24:55 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 15:13:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Neither I nor anyone here can figure out what the hell you're talking about! The New Skepticism; what is?
Can someone please translate this in spanish, so we might have a better chance of Latin ever giving an answer?
Why not use Altavista's Babelfish? I'll bet it would do just as good as latinijral. Too bad it can't translate context, because that's where latin is really lacking. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 15:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Ask Dave why he named Hal Bidlack and about his confusion .
My reply was quoted and addressed to Dave, BEFORE Dave edited his reply..
Please show evidence that Dave has edited his reply. Or are you afraid to do it?
quote:
I understand your confusion because your dudes deleted my threads while they were on discussion.
You're a liar! Your threads have not been deleted!
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 18:50:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Please show evidence that Dave has edited his reply.
Hell must be freezing over, 'cause latinijral got something right. In my previous post, I wrote "Edited to add..." with a whole bunch of stuff after it.quote:
You're a liar! Your threads have not been deleted!
Yes, the deletion of threads accusation is a complete lie. Heck, none of the admins have even deleted any of his posts (of course, latinijral has deleted his own post - at least one). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 20:39:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Ask Dave why he named Hal Bidlack and about his confusion .
My reply was quoted and addressed to Dave, BEFORE Dave edited his reply..
Please show evidence that Dave has edited his reply. Or are you afraid to do it?
Why should I be afraid to do it?
Fear is only in the pseudo skeptics when I ask them to show the evidence of their claims. You have now many examples from some of your SFN dudes.
Dave EDITED his reply ,you just need to read his reply and his own words.
quote :” Edited to add: for everyone who…..( snip the blab blab blab)”
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I understand your confusion because your dudes deleted my threads while they were on discussion.
You're a liar! Your threads have not been deleted!
I made a mistake .Bingo !!
If recognizing that mistake make me a liar , then call me a liar.
Now make a party , go see the tits of your girlfriend and be happy proclaiming how man enough you are for doing that.( remember when you wrote that?)
You don't need to provide me evidence. I understand you.
I don't even care if she/he is virtual or real.
I want you happy.
The quote should be read it this way : “I understand your confusion because your dudes CLOSED my threads while they were on discussion.”
I will not edited it , since here is the “proof” of your pseudo skeptic “victory”.
Go tell KIL about it.
Another tactic of the old scepticism ….debunked.
See? No fear at all.
You should learn that.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 20:41:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by KIL.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
All I see, until now, is your pseudo skeptic efforts to be out of topic ,so your “dudes” will have another excuse to close another thread about some mistakes of the old skepticism.
You are a liar. Either that or you are so nuts, you cannot distinguish between what is true and what is not. Those threads were not closed to cover the mistakes of “the old skepticism” whatever the hell that is. They were closed for the reasons stated.
Those “reasons” are just your opinion. I expressed mine.
I even reopened a closed topic ( by Dave) with another thread of the same topic ( with many more pages), because Dave did not supported his original “reasons” why he closed the original one .
quote:
Originally posted by KIL.
For one who worries so much about those who speak for others, you are guilty of doing just that. So far you have broken every single one of your own rules about what a real skeptic should be.
And what are those “rules”?
Why don't you use it?
quote:
Originally posted by KIL.
You're a hypocritical little prick. Mostly, I have reframed from engaging you in these debates. The reason is I prefer to dialog with those who have honest intentions. Even with those who have ideas I don't agree with. But you are not honest. You are not even worth the time it took for me to answer this latest little slur of yours.
I am honest enough to come to the _self named- skeptics forums to tell them the mistakes of what they “think” skepticism is.
quote:
Originally posted by KIL.
You have been banned from several forums. The fact that you are still here is evidence that we at SFN are not trying to censure you in any way. Instead of being grateful that we have allowed you a forum to speak your nonsense, you have attacked our doing routine moderation and administration as if you think you are important enough for us to take special measures against you. You aren't.
If you think that debating and telling you the mistakes of what you think is skepticism, is a big attack ,then you are the one in troubles.
Yes I had been banned from 3 different pseudo sceptics forums, all of them related to the JREF.
The reasons why they banned me were because of their fear to see the evidence about their mistakes or about their double speech.
Prove me wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by KIL.
But I have an idea. If you really think you are being treated unfairly, go away. Buzz off. Leave. Go start your own forum with your own rules. You can call it “The New Skepticism.” You will then be free to pontificate to your hearts content without having to deal with a bunch of “pseudo skeptics” demanding evidence to support your half-baked claims.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2005 : 21:20:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I even reopened a closed topic ( by Dave) with another thread of the same topic ( with many more pages), because Dave did not supported his original “reasons” why he closed the original one .
What part of the ending post did you not understand?quote:
And what are those “rules”?
Why don't you use it?
Why should Kil abide by what he thinks your "rules" are?
quote:
I am honest enough to come to the _self named- skeptics forums to tell them the mistakes of what they “think” skepticism is.
You haven't done so yet, though.
quote:
If you think that debating and telling you the mistakes of what you think is skepticism, is a big attack ,then you are the one in troubles.
But you haven't debated anything, nor have you shown us a single mistake of skepticism.quote:
Yes I had been banned from 3 different pseudo sceptics forums, all of them related to the JREF.
Why are you bringing up the JREF? Stay on topic.quote:
The reasons why they banned me were because of their fear to see the evidence about their mistakes or about their double speech.
Prove me wrong.
So you're saying that Skeptica was lying when she told you to remove a picture which violated her privacy policy? What evidence do you have to support such a claim?
quote:
I twice asked Dave about the hijack to the threads some members did. He refused to answer.
You refused to even attempt to prove that you exist, which you implied should be my first concern. I think I demonstrated quite well your inability to answer simple questions.quote:
I understand his fear to answer.
You know, if you hadn't followed right along with the hijacks, I might have been more interested in doing something about them.quote:
I also understand also how some of your pseudo sceptics members , always refuse to provide evidence of their claims.
Liar. I provided lots of evidence to show that EvilYeti never once said that Chris Bidlack received a scholarship, and that such a c |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 05:16:37 [Permalink]
|
Now, here's something interesting that I've noticed earlier, here & there:
quote:
Let me end this by saying that all the insults you posted about me , you will hear and see if you have the balls to write in a true believer/self confessed-religious forum, just acting as how you pretend to be here.
So ,it is not a big deal to me. I understand you.
Latinijral came in here writing like someone who has only a tenous grip on a second language. While I do not doubt that English is indeed his second tongue, I suspect that he is a lot more fluent than he'd have us believe, as the above, brief paragraph demonstrates.
Hell, he's bullshitted us about everything else; why not that as well?
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 06:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Lets try this:
¿Cuál es "el nuevo escepticismo", y qué le califica ser su padre?
Que são "o skepticism novo", e o que qualifica-o ser seu pai?
Quel est "le nouveau scepticisme", et ce qui vous qualifie être son père ?
Che cosa è "il nuovo scetticismo" e che cosa li qualifica essere il relativo padre?
"#26032;#12375;#12356;#25040;#30097;#35542;" #12399;#20309;#12391;#12354;#12426;#12289;#12418;#12398;#12364;#29238;#12364;#12354;#12427;#12383;#12417;#12395;#20462;#39166;#12377;#12427;#12363;#12290;
#1041;#1091;#1076;#1091;#1090; "#1085;#1086;#1074;#1099;#1084; #1089;#1082;#1077;#1087;#1090;#1080;#1094;#1080;#1079;#1084;#1086;#1084;", #1080; #1082;#1074;#1072;#1083;#1080;#1092;#1080;#1094;#1080;#1088;#1091;#1077;#1090; #1074;#1072;#1089; #1073;#1099;#1090;#1100; #1089;#1074;#1086;#1080;#1084; #1086;#1090;#1094;#1086;#1084;?
Was ist "die neue Skepsis", und was qualifiziert Sie, sein Vater zu sein?
#928;#959;#953;#959;#962; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; "#959; #957;#941;#959;#962; #963;#954;#949;#960;#964;#953;#954;#953;#963;#956;#972;#963;", #954;#945;#953; #964;#953; #963;#945;#962; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; #954;#945;#964;#940;#955;#955;#951;#955;#959;#962; #947;#953;#945; #957;#945; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; #959; #960;#945;#964;#941;#961;#945;#962; #964;#959;#965;;
Maybe he'll answer if the question is presented in some language other than English...
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 07:25:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Lets try this:
¿Cuál es "el nuevo escepticismo", y qué le califica ser su padre?
Que são "o skepticism novo", e o que qualifica-o ser seu pai?
Quel est "le nouveau scepticisme", et ce qui vous qualifie être son père ?
Che cosa è "il nuovo scetticismo" e che cosa li qualifica essere il relativo padre?
"#26032;#12375;#12356;#25040;#30097;#35542;" #12399;#20309;#12391;#12354;#12426;#12289;#12418;#12398;#12364;#29238;#12364;#12354;#12427;#12383;#12417;#12395;#20462;#39166;#12377;#12427;#12363;#12290;
#1041;#1091;#1076;#1091;#1090; "#1085;#1086;#1074;#1099;#1084; #1089;#1082;#1077;#1087;#1090;#1080;#1094;#1080;#1079;#1084;#1086;#1084;", #1080; #1082;#1074;#1072;#1083;#1080;#1092;#1080;#1094;#1080;#1088;#1091;#1077;#1090; #1074;#1072;#1089; #1073;#1099;#1090;#1100; #1089;#1074;#1086;#1080;#1084; #1086;#1090;#1094;#1086;#1084;?
Was ist "die neue Skepsis", und was qualifiziert Sie, sein Vater zu sein?
#928;#959;#953;#959;#962; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; "#959; #957;#941;#959;#962; #963;#954;#949;#960;#964;#953;#954;#953;#963;#956;#972;#963;", #954;#945;#953; #964;#953; #963;#945;#962; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; #954;#945;#964;#940;#955;#955;#951;#955;#959;#962; #947;#953;#945; #957;#945; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; #959; #960;#945;#964;#941;#961;#945;#962; #964;#959;#965;;
Maybe he'll answer if the question is presented in some language other than English...
Ok, just so my brain won't spontaneously combust:
O que é "novo ceticismo", e o que o qualifica como pai?
Good grief. I should stop writing in english. My portuguese sucks |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 12:03:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia:
My portuguese sucks
Yeah, mine too! |
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
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 12:54:47 [Permalink]
|
¿Cuál es "el nuevo escepticismo", y qué le califica ser su padre?
Que são "o skepticism novo", e o que qualifica-o ser seu pai?
Quel est "le nouveau scepticisme", et ce qui vous qualifie être son père ?
Che cosa è "il nuovo scetticismo" e che cosa li qualifica essere il relativo padre?
Was ist "die neue Skepsis", und was qualifiziert Sie, sein Vater zu sein?
O que é "novo ceticismo", e o que o qualifica como pai?
Vad är "den nya skepticismen", och vad kvalificerar dig till att vara dess fader?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 13:07:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by KIL.
You are a liar. Either that or you are so nuts, you cannot distinguish between what is true and what is not. Those threads were not closed to cover the mistakes of “the old skepticism” whatever the hell that is. They were closed for the reasons stated.
Those “reasons” are just your opinion.
You are wrong. Those reasons are not Kil's "opinions", those reasons are facts.
"This is why I close this thread" is a statement of fact, not a statment of opinion. If you can't see the difference, I can't understand how you can function is society. If you do see the difference, then you're just screwing around with us, and if so: go f*** yourself with a cactus.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2005 : 13:24:24 [Permalink]
|
Lat, I am not going to respond point by point to your criticism of my last post to you. Dave did a fine job of doing just that. Once again, he pointed out your lies and hypocrisy. I understand that all the criticism of you or your claims just rolls off your back and you will carry on, unfazed. That is what keepers of the one true truth do. They are so convinced of whatever they are selling that it is unthinkable that there can be any flaws in their logic and they therefore dismiss any serious objections, no matter how well made they are. You are so secure (or insecure) in your beliefs that it becomes an impossibility that you are wrong. In short, you are a closed circuit. You are opaque. No light goes in and no light comes out. There is no debating with those who are unwilling to even consider any possibility of error in their reasoning.
If being a “new skeptic” means being as close minded as you, than there is no new skepticism. Not unless it is framed as dogma, impervious by a (probably) conscious willingness to consider correction. Skeptics must remain open minded. That is a basic tenant of both skepticism and science. Skeptics must consider new evidence no matter what particular bias they have. But you have provided no evidence for your claims beyond rumor and innuendo. Anecdotal evidence (and the main body of evidence you have used to support your claims has been anecdotal) does not count. Any skeptic who knows anything about critical thinking knows that. It has been demonstrated that other parts of you claims are simply wrong. You have even, so far, refused to define your claim to a “new skepticism.”
You are correct about skepticism not being about debunking. It is about the investigation of evidence in support of a claim of fact. A claim is debunked when the supporting evidence does not support the claim. And even that must be re-thought if new evidence is brought forth and holds up upon further investigation in support of an already dismissed claim. But you have offered no such evidence in support of the claims you have made. Not unlike claims of the New Age, “some people believe” or “this is how I see it, so you must see it that way too,” anecdotal evidence has been your primary argument in support of your claims. Your “new skepticism” claim can't even be evaluated since you have offered no support (or even a definition) for us to consider.
Of course, I know I am spitting into the wind writing this stuff to you. You are certain of your beliefs and that is that. (That certainty, of course, renders you as neither a critical thinker nor a skeptic.) Judging by the style of debate you have demonstrated on these boards, I would say that the “Father of the New Skepticism” is probably a king with no clothes.
I stand by every word of my previous post to you. I would have to raise my opinion of you in order for me to consider you beneath contempt.
Edited for grammer... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
