K9!
New
I looked at that thread and decided it wasn't worth my time because it was obviously going to end up deleted. The idea of inviting people into a forum for some kind of a show down seemed really childish. If Bob can't defend his opinions elsewhere, why should we police the internet for him? I don't find it all that entertaining to have to go back to arguments that have been done to death (pardon the pun) around here multiple times, particularly with individuals who clearly haven't read the literature and who can't seem to write coherent posts. Bob can learn about the research. He can ask questions. I'm happy to share information and interesting links with those who ask. If he wants to take that information to go back and fight with others on twitter, that's up to him. But expecting us to gang up on people he's invited to the forum seems inappropriate to me. His decision to leave the forum in a huff seems equally inappropriate. If he's really interested in these topics, he should stick around.Nono, we have many, many beautiful sunny weekends here in Australia, and we are totally on top of the skeptics too. ;-)
But seriously, I suspect that the "not acting quickly enough" was a combination of resenting (or merely pushing back against) bippy123's prior advertising of the fact that "a skeptic is on the way!" (and that he was relying by implication on us guys to demolish that skeptic) as well as a general tendency amongst Skeptiko regulars to assume good faith (as you seem to imply). My position probably comes from assuming that bippy123's perspective based on his prior interaction with these folks was accurate. Is that biased? Potentially, yes, but it's a bias I'm willing to correct if it can be shown to be inaccurate.
Last edited: