|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2005 : 13:53:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
If people have comments about what's going on in this thread, I suggest they post them here in this one. I said I'd be strict, people.
No shit, Dave... 
I got a bit surprised finding this in "my own" thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
[Off-topic comments deleted - Dave W.]
I specifically asked for this thread to be tightly moderated so that you can present "the New Skepticism" without someone hijacking the thread.
[Off-topic comments deleted - Dave W.]
You were asked to explain what the New Skepticism is.
[Off-topic comments deleted - Dave W.]
We want to know that The New Skepticism is.
Of course, I've got my self to blame, I asked for it. 
I just didn't realize he'd be that strict about it.
But it's cool. Dave is a no-nonsense, straight to the core, impartial kind of guy when he sets his mind to it. I wish I had that kind of analytical skill, but alas, I'm just a beginner.
Cudos to you, Dave for not holding back just because I'm a member of the staff...
|
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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 17:10:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I wish I had that kind of analytical skill, but alas, I'm just a beginner.
When you can snatch the tu quoque fallacy from my hand, Grasshopper, then you will be ready...  quote:
Cudos to you, Dave for not holding back just because I'm a member of the staff...
Let's see if latinijral feels the same way. |
- 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 - 03/16/2005 : 20:58:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Irrelevant.
Not at all, as it shows the kind of twisted "logic" you are using. You have been accused of having sex with animals, so - by your logic - until you deny it, everyone should assume that you really do have sex with animals.
The most animal she gets , the most I enjoy it.
I also give to her, the animal I have inside.
Something wrong on that? Did I break any SFN rule?
Hmmmmmm, did I hear some “sexually oriented” assumption in your irrelevant excuse?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
KIL where are you?
I am laughing proving your double speech “rules”.
And you Dave are one of the administrators here……..right?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Thank you for admitting your mistake.
What mistake? I closed the first thread because it had devolved into nothing but name-calling, and Kil closed the second one because of its length and general worthlessness.
Your “excuses” to close those threads didn't say that.
They were abstract and theoretical.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Since you( the administrators) are afraid to see them ... just closing my threads.
You can post your evidence of "old skepticism's mistakes" here, as I asked Kil not to close this thread... yet.
Why ONLY here?
I am prohibited to start a new topic about your fear?
This topic is about those debunked TACTICS of the old scepticism.
It is not about the LIES of the old scepticism.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You skipped Carlos's familiar tricked picture incident , BEFORE I posted the picture of woo woo Bidalck and the stripper Moe faux.
Doesn't matter if they behave badly, that doesn't give you the right to break their rules.
You may be able to fault them for hypocrisy, but you still haven't shown them to be afraid of what you've got to say.
My action proved their double speech and hypocrisy.
The fact of the double speech was proved in another pseudo skeptic forum.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2005 : 21:16:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only one, so far as I know, and I have no idea whether that person is a pseudoskeptic or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And how do you know?
You're an idiot, as I just said that I don't know.
Don't act like an idiot Dave. You said SO FAR AS I KNOW he/she is from the JREF.
I just asked you…….how do you know?
Just to jump in here-- latin, you should be careful. Your English sucks. In Dave's comment, the "so far as I know" is referring to the "only one"-- that is, he only knows of one; there may be more. How Dave knows that is, presumably, his business, just as you knowing about what your, uh, friends do is yours. Son. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 02:21:29 [Permalink]
|
In the thread "Attn: Dr. Mabuse" latinijral wrote this:
quote:
You started a thread about your curiosity like this:
quote:
Originally posted by DR. MABUSE.
Although Dude has already debunked "the New Skepticism" in this thread: http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4036&whichpage=6#61061 Latinijral has on several occations told us he will answer the question once someone opens a thread regarding it.
That is what I call to start a thread with a biased opinion.
Yes, and why shouldn't my opinion be biased?
You have been ranting about how the "old skepticism" has been debunked, using the link in this post that points to Daniel Drasin's "Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery" as evidence.
But in this post, Furshur has proved that Drasin's ironic/sarcastic work is false, and invalidated as evidence. So now you don't have any evidense for the "old skepticism" being debunked.
So you can't blame me for having bias.
quote:
The link you posted about Dude's nonsense , starts with a name calling.
So what? Name-calling does not invalidates Dude's post. Ignore that name calling, and the New Skepticism is still shown to be a failure.
quote:
If “the New scepticism” is already debunked as you claimed, your questions are irrelevant perse.
Not really. I still what you to tell me what you think the New Skepticism is, even though it has been debunked.
It just like the Fox Tv-show about Moon Landing hoax: The Conspiracy theory has been debunked already, but I still want to know what "evidence" the TV-show presented for their case.
quote:
I can't hijack your topic just because you said so? Is that a kind of new rule all the posters should put on their OP to avoid the hijacking as I was?
I opened the thread for a discussion about what evidense you have of being the father of the New Skepticism. Then I defined parameters for the discussion in order to keep the thread on topic at all times. Read the thread again and see that Dave is indiscriminately moderating everyone that is not on topic, even me.
quote:
You have the option to edit your opening post in order to you to start logically.
There will be no such edit, because in this post I have given the reasons for why my opinions and percieved bias is valid.
|
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. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 03:58:04 [Permalink]
|
Well, I see that our self-styled nemisis continues to dodge the issue and the question like some skittish rodent at a passing shadow. I am less than suprised; indeed, I predicted it.
It wasn't much of a prediction, really. Hell, not even Sylvia Browne could have missed that one.
Nice going, latinilral! Two posts in a row edited out for bullshit! You have set an SFN record, although it's not one to boast a whole lot about.
May I ask: do you have anything at all worth consideration? It would not appear so, as you seem unable to answer even the simplest of questions; not even the very basic question your claim raises.
In the likely event that your mind can't retain a coherent thought for longer than a few minutes, allow me to refresh it and ask again:
"What is the New Skepticism?"
You may provide the answer here, and you need not go into minute detail; a simple description will suffice.
But I again predict that you will provide only more straw men, red herrings, ad hom, and mindless blather. As stated earlier, it's an easy prediction to make because, as you have demonstrated in 'most every word that you've written, it is all that you have.
Just a thought: a claim made implies a promise to deliver on it, does it not? If I were to state that I'd discovered a new species in the genus Crotalus and could not produce the snake, I'd certainly be ridiculed by my peers. Thus, with your claim, you have given a promise, but have yet to give up the snake.
You should be grateful, latinijral, for the patience of the moderators.
 |
"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 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 10:44:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
The only problem is that his STUPID putative/latinijral dedicated rule is not there.
The rule statement was made to keep the thread on topic. Too many hijacks has been made of threads already.
You complained about Dude hijacking your thread where you wanted to discuss Uri Geller. Now I started a thread where you can explain what the New Skepticism is without your explanation being hijacked.
I demanded the rule to be enforced for your benefit as well as mine.
Note that Dave_W actually deleted stuff that I wrote to you, because it was off-topic.
quote:
I am still laughing at you.
And I just shake my head in disbelief because I didn't think you were this dense.
Even though both I and Dave have done things for your benefit, in your paranoia you still think everyone it out to get you.
(If you are paranoid, we know who you are. Stay on the line, and we'll trace your call... ) |
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. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 11:37:52 [Permalink]
|
Well latinijral for simplicity and clarity (and redundancy)
What is the New Skepticism?
The administrators and members of this forum ask no more than this of you. Not answering reflects poorly on you and reinforces the negative opinions held by many.
It is a simple question, one that should be easily answered by the "Father of the New Skepticism". |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 16:07:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral
You are using a fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This one : ” I have not seen any evidence that you will post in a thread you didn't start, so demanding that other people start threads to ask you questions means that you won't answer them.”
Or do you prefer to call it :a classic "hasty generalization" ?
Hmmmmm. Double hmmmmmmmmm………….speech.
Listen, son.
The thread has been opened. The question asked. You have not answered. The stated hypothesis has been supported by the test. So, where is that double speech and logical fallacy again?
You really are embarassing yourself you know.
Go over the the thread specifically created for you to ANSWER.
Then, if you really are a glutton for punishment, you can start your own thread to explain to us all how it is that I have not debunked you "new skepticism", sonny.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 16:59:38 [Permalink]
|
I think it's clear by now that latinijral won't answer simply because he cannot. He shows every evidence of being a fraud. Like a man who gains favor with the king by claiming he is a brilliant painter, yet stalls when the king arrives for his portrait. "The light isn't right." "I don't have the correct paints." "These brushes will never do."
Latinijral has repeatedly been asked for a description of "new skepticism" and has failed to provide an answer. Every time the question is raised he discovers some reason for not proceeding. Dr. Mabuse even obliged latinijral by starting a new thread to contain the description per his demands, yet he has erected even more hoops to jump through. He is stalling, but his time has run out.
The time to "put up or shut up" has passed. Latinijral has been extended every conceivable opportunity and shunned them all. He is a joke. I laugh at him and his lies. There is no new skepticism.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 19:09:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
latinijral:
Kil replied and said to me that there exist rules at SFN…… when I signed here.
The only problem is that his STUPID putative/latinijral dedicated rule is not there.
Latinijral, I have explained my reason for locking your threads. I pointed out the rules you agreed to so you would understand that I really could ban you under SFN guidelines. You just don't seem to understand that you are only here because we allow you to be here. We can stop allowing you to be here at any time.
As an administrator, I can take action for things that are not covered in the guidelines. In fact, it would be impossible to cover in the guidelines every possibility and what action should be taken. The top three administrators are ultimately the ones who bring this site to you and have the responsibility to make sure that the site lives up to its mission. The motive for every administrative action I have ever taken at SFN was for the betterment of SFN. That is all I really care about.
Perhaps I should put the above in terms you might understand. If you don't like my sandbox, go play in someone else's. Or make your own…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 20:09:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
So, latinijral, let me get this straight. You want to be banned so you will not have to answer the questions?
Where did you read that?
Did I say that? 
Prove it.
I want you to think about the fact of your putative/dedicated /latinijral's special rule at SFN.
I want you to think about the fact of how stupid and coward you are , for closing my threads about the mistakes of the old skepticism (SFN included).
I want you to at least respect what you are inviting here :” we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.”
I want you to think and act like a real skeptic.
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
l
Then ,under your own rules, I demand you to open the threads you closed BEFORE I start to write ( on topic) in Dr Mabuse's thread about your SFN curiosity.
You're kidding, right?
Why should I?
I just proved that your own SFN rules ( the one you posted to me and that I agreed when I signed here)) ,don't say nothing about your stupid “excuse” for closing my threads.
I just proved how stupid and coward you are, for trying to hide the mistakes/lies /contradictions/double speech/etc. of the old scepticism, by closing my threads using your putative/dedicated excuse.
It is not my fault you are so stupid to don't understand your own “rules”.
It is not my fault you are so coward that you need to close my threads to STOP the discuss of the failures of the old skepticism and the mistakes of your pseudo skeptics dudes.
So again …….
“I demand you to open the threads you closed”
No kidding at all………………………… just facts of your own mistakes.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 20:20:04 [Permalink]
|
I think this goober's getting even more hysterical.
Latinijral, what makes you think that you have the right to demand anything from anyone here? Hell, if I had my way, all of your bullshit threads would be closed for, well, bullshit.
But, as I am not in the staff, that decision is not mine.
Now, wipe your eyes, blow your nose, and slither on over to Doc's thread and answer the single, simple question concerning this "New Skepticism.
It shouldn't be all that difficult. Even a child could do it, if of course, an answer exists. I'm betting that one does not and you are throwing out yet another dead, red herring.
|
"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 03/17/2005 20:22:30 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 20:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Know what, folks? It's pointless. Yes, I know we've all known that for a long time now, but as of last night, I'm as sure of it as I am of the solidity of the table at which I sit.
The last piece of the puzzle (such as it was) was latinijral's bold hypocrisy. He's on a self-imposed mission to show "pseudo skeptic forums" for what he thinks they are, but he cannot himself lay off the "tactics of the old skepticism." In his profile, his one claimed hobby is "Debunnker of debunkers" [sic], yet he just debunks himself, instead.
From reading his posts here and elsewhere on the Web, it's pretty clear he's got this romantic notion that he's some sort of teacher, but if his lessons are going to consist of - at best - those things he's arguing against, then it will be of little use to anyone. He certainly isn't going to teach us any sort of "new skepticism," as it's clear he doesn't know how to avoid the allegedly "old" skepticism.
And so, I would say that his credibility is at zero. He isn't of any use to the people of these forums anymore, as he's not a good source for unbiased information, and he's so repetitive that the "joke" some people find in each and every post he makes has gotten so stale it could be used to drive nails.
There doesn't seem to me to be any need for anyone to even attempt to engage him in discussion in any way. His data is wrong (and if you try to correct it, he changes the subject), his insults pathetic (and he'll just fling more crap if you try to defend yourself), and his logic is non-existent. He's never going to answer Dude's questions, so asking them again and again is just a waste of time.
Now, if you're looking for something to do, may I direct your attention to this thread? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
