Anecdotes and eyewitness testimony

#41
I want to know how Iyace always avoids the ban hammer of Andy. I've seen many members banned for the same infractions they make once which he makes over and over. How does he do it that's what I want to know?
 
#42
I want to know how Iyace always avoids the ban hammer of Andy. I've seen many members banned for the same infractions they make once which he makes over and over. How does he do it that's what I want to know?
What infractions? I spoke my honest opinion. Questioning someone's character shouldn't be a violation of rules; you skeptics use that tactic as your #1 go to weapon. I'm just genuinely skeptical. How would that be ban-worthy?
 
#44
What infractions? I spoke my honest opinion. Questioning someone's character shouldn't be a violation of rules; you skeptics use that tactic as your #1 go to weapon. I'm just genuinely skeptical. How would that be ban-worthy?
Are we feigning innocence or just rationalizing? I'm taking into consideration nearly all your postings. Here's a quote. Being a smart fellow I think you'll have no trouble figuring out who wrote it.
Your actions in this message are not appropriate. We cannot allow users to be abusive, overly aggressive, threatening, or to "troll". This does not follow our rules.
And before I forget, add in your use of certain expletives.
 
#46
Are we feigning innocence or just rationalizing? I'm taking into consideration nearly all your postings. Here's a quote. Being a smart fellow I think you'll have no trouble figuring out who wrote it. And before I forget, add in your use of certain expletives.
I'm confused here, my friend. If pointing out your soap-box style preaching ( it's for the lurkers ), passive accusations of ' wanting to believe ', general lack of aptitude to discuss these issues ( JREF HALP ME!!11), and other general complaints lobbed at you by people other than myself is any of those things then I'm at a loss. Although, I guess this is America where people can act like idiots and then have some sort of moral support for being the victim when someone points it out. I'm sorry you feel like you're the victim in all this, but I can't say I'm really surprised. If you're going to constantly call into questions the mental faculties of proponents ( accusing everyone of ' rationalizing ' ( see your thread bashing maaneli ) ), then I'm going to constantly call into question your mental faculties.

You're an older dude, I would have understood by now the concept that you shouldn't dish out what you can't take. If you want to act like the Jehovah's Witness of materialism, then you have to accept that people who don't agree with you are going to take offense to your holier-than-though attitude. In fact, the majority of proponents I talk to in private chat and in chats outside of Skeptiko utterly detest you to the point of constantly requesting to admins that you be perma-banned.

I, of course, don't want this. You serve as the perfect example to the rest of the forum what a zealous and dogmatic materialist actually looks like; Highly uneducated on what you're discussing, dead-set on bringing your apologist attitude to people who genuinely don't want to talk to you, and an inability to actually see your own deficiencies. I guess you're kept around ' for the lurkers '.

I think you have a lot of growing up to do. =)
 
#47
Ha what a surprise, another pointless thread brought to you courtesy of steve001.

Your buddies at JREF are loving your streak I'm sure.

"What is your emergency"

"...there is a gentleman walking around with a gun"
This is a general description of the situation. Not inaccurate.

"Yea he's like pointing at people"
This is a lie, not a failed perception. In fear that this kid with a gun is a real threat, this caller is pressing the issue. Trying to make the situation worse than it is so that 911 is responsive. If any of you have ever made a 911 call like I have you know that in that moment you exaggerate things to elicit a quick response. You don't lose true awareness of whats going on.

This is why he said "he is LIKE pointing at people" instead of something more definitive such as "he is pointing it at people and making threats etc".

So ok thanks Steve001 you certainly proved that anecdotes are worthless and never give us an accurate description of real events. Good job, we can all go home now. The ball game is over thanks to Steve.
 
Last edited:
#48
Referring back to the original topic of this thread, I'm going to need some corroborating evidence and a peer-reviewed report about this thread before you can convince me that it exists and I'm not just engaged in magical thinking about invisible people talking through boxes on a mystical woo-network. Otherwise, I just have subjective experience, which is less than useless. This thread currently does seem nonsensical enough to just be another weird daydream.
 
#49
Are we feigning innocence or just rationalizing? I'm taking into consideration nearly all your postings. Here's a quote. Being a smart fellow I think you'll have no trouble figuring out who wrote it. And before I forget, add in your use of certain expletives.
Also, remember that time where you endorsed limbo as an honest non-sockpuppet? Remember when he was banned along with BlueMule for being a sockpuppet? Seems you were endorsing some nefarious shit there. Something the admins might want to take a look into. ;)
 
#50
Referring back to the original topic of this thread, I'm going to need some corroborating evidence and a peer-reviewed report about this thread before you can convince me that it exists and I'm not just engaged in magical thinking about invisible people talking through boxes on a mystical woo-network. Otherwise, I just have subjective experience, which is less than useless.
We call it the woo-ngularity.
 
#55
That's a convenient way to dismiss what people say without actually engaging with it. You seem to be pretty experienced at that. ;)
Exactly... the only thing he has proven (if he really believes what he posted in the OP) is that HE sees only what he wants to see. I saw no earth shattering insight in the video. He is welcome to make the case stronger if he likes, I doubt he has the capacity.
 
Last edited:
#56
Eyewitness testimony. Now this something I'd really like to get a skeptical explanation on. It's amazing that so many debunkers are psychologists, not recognizing that with the sort of grand scale lying and hallucinating that would have to be taking place for the objects of debunkery not to be happening as described, would entail an enormous amount of healthy individuals manifesting the temporary onset of symptoms of severe pathologies only to revert back to normality as the timeline of applied debunkery ends (or whatever). It's not a matter of cognitive bias or wishful thinking when people are five feet from an anomaly that is staring them in the face. So, either way, there's an interesting phenomenon here. The first is the paranormal event itself. If not that, the second is the temporary fucked-up-ness of an otherwise healthy witness. The second fits nothing we know about human psychology. Not to mention that hallucinations are personal. A hallucination by many individuals is called consensus reality. It's fascinating either way. And one of the two requires an explanation.
 
#57
Eyewitness testimony. Now this something I'd really like to get a skeptical explanation on. It's amazing that so many debunkers are psychologists, not recognizing that with the sort of grand scale lying and hallucinating that would have to be taking place for the objects of debunkery not to be happening as described, would entail an enormous amount of healthy individuals manifesting the temporary onset of symptoms of severe pathologies only to revert back to normality as the timeline of applied debunkery ends (or whatever). It's not a matter of cognitive bias or wishful thinking when people are five feet from an anomaly that is staring them in the face. So, either way, there's an interesting phenomenon here. The first is the paranormal event itself. If not that, the second is the temporary fucked-up-ness of an otherwise healthy witness. The second fits nothing we know about human psychology. Not to mention that hallucinations are personal. A hallucination by many individuals is called consensus reality. It's fascinating either way. And one of the two requires an explanation.
Your ideas about space & time are something I revisit, probably think about at least once a week actually.
 
#60
Eyewitness testimony. Now this something I'd really like to get a skeptical explanation on. It's amazing that so many debunkers are psychologists, not recognizing that with the sort of grand scale lying and hallucinating that would have to be taking place for the objects of debunkery not to be happening as described, would entail an enormous amount of healthy individuals manifesting the temporary onset of symptoms of severe pathologies only to revert back to normality as the timeline of applied debunkery ends (or whatever). It's not a matter of cognitive bias or wishful thinking when people are five feet from an anomaly that is staring them in the face. So, either way, there's an interesting phenomenon here. The first is the paranormal event itself. If not that, the second is the temporary fucked-up-ness of an otherwise healthy witness. The second fits nothing we know about human psychology. Not to mention that hallucinations are personal. A hallucination by many individuals is called consensus reality. It's fascinating either way. And one of the two requires an explanation.
Anybody wanna answer this? Let's see.
Paul is gone.
Bart's probably not around either.
Malf is too busy being hilarious.
Steve001 is a senile dumbshit
Arouet hates me and probably can't read this either...
Linda! Hey Dr. Lovely, can you help me out here?
 
Top