|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2005 : 20:12:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
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?
You kept your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
That is the reason why Ricky wrote this : “Read the last post, the admins/moderators do that to every thread that becomes too long here.”
You never denied that.
So , don't use those debunked tactics of the old scepticism.
If the same topic was discussed in the other thread I opened, and was LONGER than the first one …… why was allowed……………. to be closed AGAIN?
Why you didn't close it? Any fear to do it?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
And what are those “rules”?
Why don't you use it?
Why should Kil abide by what he thinks your "rules" are?
Read again Kil's reply to me.
I want to know where are those “rules” he refered..
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
Really?
That is just your biased opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
Really?
That is just your biased opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
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 - 03/13/2005 : 21:12:39 [Permalink]
|
Oh, please stop. I've fallen on the floor and my sides are hurting from laughter!
Latinijral, no one here has ever heard of you, or Carlos either for that matter, before you came here and began blithering. Some of us casually visit the JREF fourms, but as far as I know, few or none actually participate. I don't.
When are you going to finally cop to the fact that no one here gives a lizard's spittle about the financial mistakes, if such they be, over there in Randi's neck of the woods?
Judging from your behavior here, most likely, never.
Thus, I advise you: give it a rest. Retire to a sort of a monastic seclusion and contemplate upon the vastness of the universe and the less than significant part that we all play in it.
Then return to us and explain exactly what the fuck the "New Skepticism" is!
It will lighten your soul and refresh your mind. Don't thank me; I'd recommend it for anybody.
 |
"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 - 03/13/2005 : 23:15:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You kept your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
Liar. Had I wanted to be "as abstract and theoretical as possible," I wouldn't have given any reason at all for closing that thread.quote:
That is the reason why Ricky wrote this : “Read the last post, the admins/moderators do that to every thread that becomes too long here.”
You never denied that.
And you haven't denied that you have sex with animals.quote:
If the same topic was discussed in the other thread I opened, and was LONGER than the first one …… why was allowed……………. to be closed AGAIN?
Why you didn't close it? Any fear to do it?
The second thread was 15 pages. That's our informal guideline. Doesn't always happen, but often, it does.quote:
Really?
That is just your biased opinion.
If you've got evidence that you have presented a single "mistake" of the "old skepticism" here, please present it.quote:
So go with your “stay on topic” to your SFN pseudo sceptics dudes
That's not on topic.quote:
What privace policy? The subjective and putative one?
Many pictures had been posted in that forum,before the incident. And after.
Just because you don't understand her privacy policy doesn't mean she doesn't have one. And the fact was, you didn't have permission to post that photo when you posted it, and Hal's comments about it didn't explicitly grant you permission to post it, either. That wasn't a copyright issue, it was a privacy issue. You broke Skeptica's rules, and she banned you for it. And now, without a shred of evidence (only your biased opinions), you claim that she actually banned you because she was "afraid" of you. What a crock of poo.quote:
Now, do you know why I was banned from the other two JREF related forums?
I don't care. A single contradictory case means that your claim that you were banned at all three places due to fear is incorrect.quote:
Ask your JREF friendly chatters.
I only know of one, and I don't know if he/she will ever be back.quote:
You refused to answer TWICE a question I made to the administrator of this forum, concerning a hijack of my thread.
Coward . It proved your double speech concerning the rules of your own forum.
What rules? Is there a rule that administrators must answer every question? |
- 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 - 03/14/2005 : 08:16:47 [Permalink]
|
"Earth'd up, here lies an imp o' hell,
Planted by Satan's dibble;
Poor silly wretch, he's damned himsel',
To save the Lord the trouble." -- Robert Burns
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2005 : 14:43:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
Really?
That is just your biased opinion.
It should be quite obvious by now that we don't agree with you.
If you are indeed right and we are wrong, then you're not getting through to us.
I suggest that you have not been presenting your case in a way that makes us listen. Perhaps you should reconsider your approach, and find another way to connect to us.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
Really?
That is just your biased opinion.
Same thing here.
Since we are obviously not taking impression of you and your mission, you are not doing it the right way.
Try to figure out a more creative way of presenting your case, and you might get us 'old skeptics' to listen.
|
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. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2005 : 16:40:18 [Permalink]
|
Well, by latin's own (apparent) criteria, it seems that "new skepticism" is prettymuch useless.
"old" skepticism, he claims, is a failure since it cannot force Geller to completely retire.
Therefore "new" skepticism must be an even worse failure, because it can't even convince the "old" skeptics that they are wrong!
Way to go latin, your the father of a miserable failure!
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2005 : 17:03:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Well, by latin's own (apparent) criteria, it seems that "new skepticism" is prettymuch useless.
"old" skepticism, he claims, is a failure since it cannot force Geller to completely retire.
Therefore "new" skepticism must be an even worse failure, because it can't even convince the "old" skeptics that they are wrong!
Way to go latin, your the father of a miserable failure!
Holy SHIT! This is dead on, Dude. Thanks for pointing out this bit of logic we should have put forward ages ago! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2005 : 21:17:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Therefore "new" skepticism must be an even worse failure, because it can't even convince the "old" skeptics that they are wrong!
And it can't seem to force Geller out of business, either. |
- 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 - 03/14/2005 : 23:09:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You kept your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible.
Liar. Had I wanted to be "as abstract and theoretical as possible," I wouldn't have given any reason at all for closing that thread.
Your “reason” was abstract and theoretical.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
That is the reason why Ricky wrote this : “Read the last post, the admins/moderators do that to every thread that becomes too long here.”
You never denied that.
And you haven't denied that you have sex with animals.
Irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
If the same topic was discussed in the other thread I opened, and was LONGER than the first one …… why was allowed……………. to be closed AGAIN?
Why you didn't close it? Any fear to do it?
The second thread was 15 pages. That's our informal guideline. Doesn't always happen, but often, it does.
Thank you for admitting your mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Really?
That is just your biased opinion.
If you've got evidence that you have presented a single "mistake" of the "old skepticism" here, please present it.
Since you( the administrators) are afraid to see them ….. just closing my threads.
Look at the loser of KIL. At least you have potential.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
So go with your “stay on topic” to your SFN pseudo sceptics dudes
That's not on topic.
Stay on topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 00:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
latinijral:
Until now all I have is your promise to close every thread I will start about the mistakes of the old skepticism
Hmmmmmm.
Not exactly. My promise is to close every thread that is critical of the old skepticism until you define the new skepticism. Since you made the claim that a new skepticism exists and you are its father, I think you should explain exactly what that new skepticism is and what makes you its father. It is you who has made the old and new skepticism a point of comparison. Not I. But as a skeptic, I default to the rules of critical thinking. And this is basic stuff here. You made a claim and now you must support that claim for any further conversation on what is old and what is new to have any meaning.
quote:
latinijral:
Nah ,he wrote you are his “voice” and he will agree with you in everything you post.
You are a shameless liar. What I said was this:
quote:
Me:
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.
Yes, I agreed with Dave's response to your reply to me. Sue me. The fact that you feel ok about twisting that into a whole new meaning sheds more light on your character, as if we needed that… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 07:28:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
[I wrote:]quote:
And you haven't denied that you have sex with animals.
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. This is the logic you asked me to apply to the question of whether or not Chris Bidlack got a scholarship - his father didn't deny your baseless accusation, so you demand that I acknowledge it as real. If that is "new skepticism" logic, you can keep it, as it makes every allegation true by default, which is utterly stupid.quote:
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.quote:
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.quote:
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.quote:
Yes ,all of them were because of the use of the double speech of the pseudo skeptics and the fear that I proved their mistakes.
Baloney. One of them was for posting a picture you had no right to post.quote:
From your response in the second thread with the same topic ( also closed)
You've never started two threads with the same topic.quote:
It is relevant for the main point. The JREF lied about the scholarship program and the "rewards". You have the JREF quotes.
No, I don't. I've got quotes which show that the JREF scholarship program was poorly advertised and sloppily managed, and quotes which show that they changed how that program was presented to the public, and even quotes which show that some JREF members were really pissed off about the whole thing. But I've got not a single quote which shows the JREF lied about anything.
Besides which, you keep dodging my point. You said that nobody here has ever presented evidence to support their claims. I presented evide |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 10:35:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
latinijral:
I wish to know what rule of your little forum says that.
quote:
Registration Rules and Policies Agreement:
In your use of these forums, you agree that you will not post any information which is vulgar, harassing, hateful, threatening, invading of others privacy, sexually oriented, or violates any laws.
These are all rules that you agreed to when you joined SFN.
You have been vulgar, harassing, hateful and threatening. You have invaded others privacy. That little icon you posted with the girl removing her top was sexually oriented.
These rules may be overlooked at times and that is completely up to the administrator's discretion. In your case, they add up. You are not the first to get a warning. But you are the first to suggest that we have made rules up as we go just to harass you. It is your lousy attitude and your continual breaking of the rules that may get you banned. As time goes on, you have made it harder and harder to let you slide on the rules that you have agreed to abide by. You can whine all you want to about our unfairness, but the fact that you are still here and allowed to post demonstrates that we are more than fair. We have bent over backwards for you and you still insult us with your lies and name-calling. What kind of person does that?
Edited for grammer.. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 10:57:59 [Permalink]
|
Hey latinjackass.
I have debunked your new skepticism.
We aren't really sure what your "new skepticism" is yet, since you refuse to tell us.
However, based on your alleged debunking of "old skepticism", I have merely applied your stated criteria to your "new skepticism".
"new skepticism" has been found to be totally inefective in convincing skeptics that they are wrong.
Therefore, by your stated standards, "new skepticism" is not only debunked but proven useless.
Looks like you are going to have to come up with another type of skepticism. Please allow me to offer some name suggestions.
Inept-icism
Stupid-icism
defunct-icism
gimped-icism
All seem like they would apply to anything you came up with. Hope thats helpfull for you.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2005 : 12:05:14 [Permalink]
|
As I have stated before, getting banned is exactly what this impotent arachnid wants. Not being a mental health expert, I haven't the faintest idea why, but I have ever decreasing doubts that he'd make an interesting, clinical study for someone who is or is aspiring to be.
From here, he'll probably go to the Skeptic's Ring to select another place to whine and whinge about Randi, and and how unfairly JREF and SFN have treated him, even though he's lasted here a lot longer than he would have anywhere else.
I still hate to see a precident made over somone as shallow as this, but I now notice that only a very few of us are currently responding to him -- we too, might make a good study for a head-shrink student for our unwillingness to ignore him; drop the slops, as it were. Never the less, he has lowered the discourse of these fora to a level that, while I feel right at home, is really not acceptable.
One more slim chance to clean up his act, then butcher the pig and dump him.
|
"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!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
