Skeptics asked not to post

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#22
But your intentions still aren't clear to me. You're obviously not well liked here, your opinion gets junked or ignored the second you post it, and when you get banned, you come crawling back to the forum within minutes. Don't you have anything better to do that to spend time on a forum that clearly values your opinion as less than dirt? Why not just go join an atheist circlejerk forum?
Because sometimes I get involved in good discussions, as recently with Bernardo. It has also happened with David Bailey, Interesting Ian, the member who convinced me that strong emergence is probably incoherent, LoneShaman, and others. I'm also interested in some of the topics, such as the AWARE study.

And on top of that, you make threads and posts to whine and complain like some 4 year old child to a forum that would love nothing more than for you to never post here again. Maybe you should find a hobby or something?
Yeah, I'm sure that I'm the big contributor to whining around here. Oh please give us a forum without any proponents!

~~ Paul
 
#24
Because sometimes I get involved in good discussions, as recently with Bernardo. It has also happened with David Bailey, Interesting Ian, the member who convinced me that strong emergence is probably incoherent, LoneShaman, and others. I'm also interested in some of the topics, such as the AWARE study.


Yeah, I'm sure that I'm the big contributor to whining around here. Oh please give us a forum without any proponents!

~~ Paul
I don't understand. Then stop whining and leave! Apparently the administration of this forum doesn't enjoy the company of your type. No one is forcing you to be here. If you like the interesting convos you've had here then shut up and follow the rules.

How am I seriously having to explain this to a man that's almost triple my own age?
 
#25
In the interest of fairness, and good humor, perhaps we should have a subforum for strictly mind=brain discussions, or a mod- prefix.

But then again, in the interest of saving time, there's already the JREF forums...
 
#26
In the interest of fairness, and good humor, perhaps we should have a subforum for strictly mind=brain discussions, or a mod- prefix.

But then again, in the interest of saving time, there's already the JREF forums...
Exactly! There's already like 5 forums where skeptics dominate the moderation and tone. Most parapsychology forums are dominated by super new agers who don't want to discuss the science or disagree with the assumptions that can be made from the data. If it was meant to be a 50/50 affair between proponents and skeptics, then we would have to limit the amount of each group to 50/50 proportions. But based on paul/really/arouets/Lindas amount of dislikes, disagrees, and general downvotedness, it's clear the vast majority of people on this forum do not appreciate their presence.

This subforum was designed to contain skeptics in an area where they can debate and discuss the issues, while more convinced individuals can still participate in other subforums without having their ideas lambasted. Look how that turned out in the homeopathy thread on this subforum. A skeptical fist pumping circlejerk of grown adults who are still scarred from mommy and daddy making them go to church. It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing.
 
#27
I am a quasi-skeptic (I don't think mind = brain, but I am skeptical of most psi claims) and I appreciate the materialist voices in the room. It makes for more stimulating discussion to have a diversity of views. The only thing that I find annoying is when skeptics make conclusory statements that imply an absolute certainty or mocking dismissal of "believers." This is something rarely seen, if ever, from the skeptics who post here and therefore their voices should be allowed through loud and clear.
 
#28
But based on paul/really/arouets/Lindas amount of dislikes, disagrees, and general downvotedness, it's clear the vast majority of people on this forum do not appreciate their presence.
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure there's an alternative hypothesis that could explain those particular stats.

Can you guess what it is? :)
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#29
I don't understand. Then stop whining and leave! Apparently the administration of this forum doesn't enjoy the company of your type. No one is forcing you to be here. If you like the interesting convos you've had here then shut up and follow the rules.
I'm not sure how this follows from what I said. I gave you reasons why I don't want to leave. I am following the rules, to the best of my ability to understand what is clearly an arbitrary set of them. For example, I'm not posting anywhere but in this forum until someone announces what the new rules are.

How am I seriously having to explain this to a man that's almost triple my own age?
I don't know what you think you are explaining, so I can't answer this. Perhaps if you linked to one of the whining threads that I supposedly started?

~~ Paul
 
#30
It's like posting on a basketball forum that football is better, and being a top poster.
Your hypothetical basketball forum doesn't have the tagline including the phrase, "and their critics." attached to the podcast it was for. If it did, it would be entirely appropriate to criticize football. And skeptiko's forum was exactly that way...

The model of the podcast has been to demonstrate there is a scientific basis to all this, and the forum followed suit. Academic arguments are going to have dissent, its just part of how it works. Even Socrates advocated dissent as a way to identify holes in your own thinking.

As I continue to say; we need to be focused on how to get the experiences that make people certain to people who are not certain, renaming forums tri-monthly and playing musical chairs with personal labels helps that zero.
 
#31
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure there's an alternative hypothesis that could explain those particular stats.

Can you guess what it is? :)
Well there is a reason Stack Overflow et all requires you to spend karma to give a downvote; it forces you to only downvote truly bad and uninformative material, whereas in Reddit or here you can just check "unlike" every time you don't like the poster.
 
#32
You know guys, all you really need to be able to post anywhere on this forum, is a serious openness to the possibility that mind is not brain, or that some ψ phenomena might be real, or that NDE's might be more than some utterly obscure phenomenon created by dying neurons!

For anybody who fails that test - I can't understand why they even want to be here! I mean, I don't post on Christian forums, or flat earth forums, or whatever.

David
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#33
You know guys, all you really need to be able to post anywhere on this forum, is a serious openness to the possibility that mind is not brain, or that some ψ phenomena might be real, or that NDE's might be more than some utterly obscure phenomenon created by dying neurons!
I'm open to the possibility that mind /= brain. But apparently the rule is that I have to act like I accept it.

For anybody who fails that test - I can't understand why they even want to be here! I mean, I don't post on Christian forums, or flat earth forums, or whatever.
Why not? After all, if you have an open mind, you might learn something. You only have to be open to the possibility, after all. :)

~~ Paul
 
#34
You know guys, all you really need to be able to post anywhere on this forum, is a serious openness to the possibility that mind is not brain, or that some ψ phenomena might be real, or that NDE's might be more than some utterly obscure phenomenon created by dying neurons!


David
Not.

lol
 
#35
..based on paul/really/arouets/Lindas amount of dislikes, disagrees, and general downvotedness, it's clear the vast majority of people on this forum do not appreciate their presence.
If that assumption was correct, with a negative rating of -59 votes, presumably this would indicate that the vast majority of people on this forum do not appreciate your presence either?
 
#36
If that assumption was correct, with a negative rating of -59 votes, presumably this would indicate that the vast majority of people on this forum do not appreciate your presence either?
Call me a skeptic but I find it a little odd that his negative vote exactly cancels out his positive (+59 and -59) and that the same figure is the negative score for Paul (at least as I write this).
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#37
Call me a skeptic but I find it a little odd that his negative vote exactly cancels out his positive (+59 and -59) and that the same figure is the negative score for Paul (at least as I write this).
Yes, it seems Iyace's negative ratings just exploded all of a sudden. Is this the result of one member? A rosebudding phenomenon?
 
#38
Yes, it would seem that there were multiple dislikes registered against Lyace's account from one other account this morning.
 
#39
Perhaps Paul might indulge us, and give us a breakdown of the 59 negative ratings he's been given by account name?

That might be an interesting exercise
 
#40
My 6 dislikes are made up of:

4 from Rosebud (I never heard of, who clicked dislike on every post I made on one particular thread?)
1 from North
1 from The Ethical Skeptic
 
Top