|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2005 : 22:39:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
How many times should I repeat to you pseudo skeptics, that THIS thread IS about the DEBUNKERY TACTICS of the old scepticism being debunked.
See the difference?
IT WAS NOT about the old skepticism being debunked.
IT IS about the debunkeryTACTICS.
The same kind you are trying to express here like your excuse of your mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
Irrelevant since I explained to you above your pseudo skeptic mistake.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
So you can't blame me for having bias.
Yes I do. Just because they were stupid to understand the point ……………it doesn't save you repeating the same mistake
But I understand you now a little more, since you are a confessed beginner.
Under that perspective now listen:
Breath deeper and relax………
(I will not call you stupid since you are learning now with me).
If you pretended to start a thread to solve your curiosity about two specific questions to me……………………………….
Why you didn't do it without your biased opinion?
Why you didn't just post your questions without your biased opinion and clean as possible , without ANY biased ( SFN administrators) interference?
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
If you posted a link about Dude's nonsense , at the beginning of your OP , then I must assume that is relevant to the topic.
I began answering to your OP referring to your initial mistake.
I refered ALWAYS to YOUR topic.
You are even discussing here your OP with me.
But my reply was deleted.
If you aske |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2005 : 23:42:45 [Permalink]
|
| Dave_W, Kil, @tomic... It's about time to lose this clown. |
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 - 03/18/2005 : 01:10:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why you didn't do it without your biased opinion?
His opinion isn't relevent to the question you condescending little prick.
Besides, he was right. Your "new skepticism" has been shown to be a failure by your very own "new skeptical" standards.
quote:
Dave_W, Kil, @tomic... It's about time to lose this clown.
I'd hate to set a precedent for banning people, but this guy is starting to demonstrate his true troll nature in full force. I predict that if you issue him a warning he will just deliberately defy it in a direct attempt to get himself banned.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2005 : 02:36:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
How many times should I repeat to you pseudo skeptics, that THIS thread IS about the DEBUNKERY TACTICS of the old scepticism being debunked.
See the difference?
IT WAS NOT about the old skepticism being debunked.
IT IS about the debunkeryTACTICS.
The same kind you are trying to express here like your excuse of your mistake.
And you conveniently ignore the fact that Furshur proved Daniel Drasin's work false.
So it does not matter if we are talking about "old skepticism" or "debunkery TACTICS". Daniel Drasin's work is still inadmissible either way.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
Irrelevant since I explained to you above your pseudo skeptic mistake.
It's not irrelevant. Furshur has proved Drasin's work false, thus it cannot be used for anything else than an example of poor attempt at humour.
quote:
If you pretended to start a thread to solve your curiosity about two specific questions to me……………………………….
Why you didn't do it without your biased opinion?
Because I can't help myself. My bias have been built by your inability to express yourself and your mission here.
quote:
If you asked help to the administrators , you should thought about that invalid action posted on the link and your biased opinion.
Then go see more FOX TV. Maybe “The Simpsons” will make you more happy.
I never realized "The Simpsons" was produced by FOX TV.
Can you show evidence of that? The Simpsons seems too high quality satire to be from FOX. I like it though.
quote:
If you are the one who defined the parameters , and you are the one who failed to be on topic ,then you are the one who should read it again.
Don't be such an ass.
You haven't written anything remotely on topic in that thread yet, you miserable failure.
I wrote a few paragraphs that wasn't directly on-topic, but I figured they |
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 - 03/18/2005 : 04:24:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell
Splitting hairs on debunkery is a red herring, yet another among many. Argumentum au defunct fish, eh latinijral? You're good at it, but it still stinks.
I'll bet Matt Groning could do a hilarous, Simpson's segment on you. Hell, you've got enough material to keep a gaggle of shrinks busy for an entire symposium.
Ok, you purile intellectual-guttersnipe, the Question yet awaits your (chortle) wisdom. When, if ever will you enlighten us?
 |
"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
26031 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2005 : 07:34:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Please, people, I'm asking for your help.
Ok. I'm only doing this for amusement, anyway. 
Probably we'd better quit him before latinijral goes completely grande mal. He get's less coherent with each poke of the stick and I'd not like for it to be me that creamed his blood vessels.
'K 'Jral, I quit. You da winner. Dat noo skepticism be's da bomb! 
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2005 : 10:21:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Your reasons are invalid under your own parameters , like the invalid reason the administrators gave me for closing my threads.
Now…….start again…….if you want. I give to you another chance.
And don't ask for help to administrators I have proved their double speech.
You better ask your girlfriend for help and have a good time …..son
OK, this has gone on long enough.
1) The administrators were asked to moderate the thread for content. That you did not agree with the scope is irrelavant.
2) You have proven nothing. "Double speech" is just your way of deflecting critique of your premises with personal attacks.
3) Your continued harping on Dr. Mabuse's girlfriend in sometimes inappropriate manners must end now. Cease and desist commenting on that subject. It is inappropriate fare for these fora.
Those who scream "oppression" the loudest on fora tend to be the biggest TOS violators. You are no exception to this rule. We have stated our reasons for closing your threads. That you do not agree with them is irrelevant. If you don't like how this board is moderated or this set of fora are administered, feel free to set up and run your own. There are several decent forum programs you can get inexpensively.
Your prepensity for going to others fora and demanding that they play by your rules alone is what has gotten you banned elsewhere. It is both arrogant and illogical.
Now. Kindly answer the questions related to the OP of this thread or move on. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/18/2005 10:22:34 |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2005 : 22:01:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by DUDE.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
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. .
I am , mamacita ( cute “mommy”).
quote:
Originally posted by DUDE.
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? .
If you able to read carefully Dave's quote : ” 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.”
Dave's quote was before Dr. Mabuse opened his thread.
Dave's hasty generalozation and fallacy was proved wrong since I did post and answered Dr.Mabuse OP. I was on his topic all the time.
It was not my fault that DOC started his OP with your nonsense.
It was not my fault that Dave deleted my replies ON TOPIC.
Dave's quote contained a hasty generalization and a fallacy that I proved wrong.
It is part of his double speech .
quote:
Originally posted by DUDE.
You really are embarassing yourself you know. .
If you can think you will notice that I am embarrassing the SFN administration, showing the evidence of their double speech.
quote:
Originally posted by DUDE.
Go over the the thread specifically created for you to ANSWER. .
I was there. I answered 3 times . My replies were deleted. I was on Mabuse's topic all the time.
I didn't hijack his thread like you did ( with the SFN approval) with mine.
quote:
Originally posted by DUDE.
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. .
The SFN administrators are not able yet to provide me a logical support about their putative rule to close every thread I started or will start.
Yes ,I proved that you have debunked yourself with your nonsense and debunked tactic…..mommy. Was so easy.
But YOU can start a thread ( the putative rule is not for you) about your curiosity.
Don't make the same mistakes of Dr. Mabuse.
|
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 - 03/19/2005 : 07:11:48 [Permalink]
|
"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2005 : 07:41:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
How many times should I repeat to you pseudo skeptics, that THIS thread IS about the DEBUNKERY TACTICS of the old scepticism being debunked.
See the difference?
IT WAS NOT about the old skepticism being debunked.
IT IS about the debunkeryTACTICS.
The same kind you are trying to express here like your excuse of your mistake.
And you conveniently ignore the fact that Furshur proved Daniel Drasin's work false.
So it does not matter if we are talking about "old skepticism" or "debunkery TACTICS". Daniel Drasin's work is still inadmissible either way.
You conveniently ignore the fact that is about YOUR claim that I ( latinijral) claimed that I debunked the old skepticism.
Since you and your dudes are unable to provide evidence of your claim ,you and your dudes just appear as a bunch of pseudo skeptics and losers.
Don't forget to include the SFN administrators.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Irrelevant since I explained to you above your pseudo skeptic mistake.
It's not irrelevant. Furshur has proved Drasin's work false, thus it cannot be used for anything else than an example of poor attempt at humour.
You conveniently ignore the fact that humour can be use as a weapon more effective to ridicule those debunked tactics.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
If you pretended to start a thread to solve your curiosity about two specific questions to me……………………………….
Why you didn't do it without your biased opinion?
Because I can't help myself. My bias have been built by your inability to express yourself and your mission here.
Then your bias opinion was part of your topic.
That is the reason why you are just a “beginner” lost in this discussion.
Even DUDE can start a thread with the questions of his curiosity. But he is afraid to do it.
You put the example but you failed on your own mistakes.
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
If you asked help to the administrators , you should thought about that invalid action posted on the link and your biased opinion.
Then go see more FOX TV. Maybe “The Simpsons” will make you more happy.
I never realized "The Simpsons" was produced by FOX TV.
Can you sh |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
| Edited by - latinijral on 03/19/2005 07:56:03 |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2005 : 16:26:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by VALIANT DANCER
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Your reasons are invalid under your own parameters , like the invalid reason the administrators gave me for closing my threads.
Now…….start again…….if you want. I give to you another chance.
And don't ask for help to administrators I have proved their double speech.
You better ask your girlfriend for help and have a good time …..son
OK, this has gone on long enough.
You expressed your opinion. You are not under any putative rule here.
quote:
Originally posted by VALIANT DANCER
1) The administrators were asked to moderate the thread for content. That you did not agree with the scope is irrelavant.
False.
Here is whatDr. Mabuse wrote in his OP : “I hereby state the rule for this thread: No hijacking will be allowed.
I ask the moderators to enforce this rule, and the SFN- members to abide by it.”
My responses to his OP didn't hijack the topic contained in his OP.
Dave deleted my replies in contradiction of what Dr.Mabuse clearly stated.
Even Dr. Mabuse confessed his mistake when I proved him wrong: “I wrote a few paragraphs that wasn't directly on-topic, but I figured they were close enough not to be off-topic. It's my own fault that I didn't define to Dave where to draw the line.”
quote:
Originally posted by VALIANT DANCER
2) You have proven nothing. "Double speech" is just your way of deflecting critique of your premises with personal attacks.
Read the above and see the double speech in Dave's action. It is just a single example. I have proved their double speech many times , that is why they ( KIL AND DAVE) are with fear to my topics.
quote:
Originally posted by VALIANT DANCER
3) Your continued harping on Dr. Mabuse's girlfriend in sometimes inappropriate manners must end now. Cease and desist commenting on that subject. It is inappropriate fare for these fora.
Since you are commenting that subject ( that doesn't need a separate topic), let me refresh your memory.
[/red]Dr. Mabuse was the one who wrote about how he likes to see the TITS of his girlfriend. [/red]
If you think I wrote something inappropriate about his girlfriend, please let me know…………………….where?
Dr.Mabuse never told me I wrote something bad about her.
Are you jealous, paranoid or something?
quote:
Originally posted by VALIANT DANCER
Those who scream "oppression" the loudest on fora tend to be the biggest TOS violators. You are no exception to this rule. We have stated our reasons for closing your threads.
You are using a fallacy and a hasty generalization. You remind me Dave.
I just proved your pseudo |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
| Edited by - latinijral on 03/19/2005 16:30:08 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2005 : 15:16:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
False.
Here is whatDr. Mabuse wrote in his OP : “I hereby state the rule for this thread: No hijacking will be allowed.
I ask the moderators to enforce this rule, and the SFN- members to abide by it.”
My responses to his OP didn't hijack the topic contained in his OP.
Dave deleted my replies in contradiction of what Dr.Mabuse clearly stated.
Even Dr. Mabuse confessed his mistake when I proved him wrong: “I wrote a few paragraphs that wasn't directly on-topic, but I figured they were close enough not to be off-topic. It's my own fault that I didn't define to Dave where to draw the line.”
At this point it should be obviously clear to you what the main topic of the thread is. As Dr. Mabuse stated himself, his comments were slightly off topic. Dave W. has chosen to moderate very strictly, more strictly then Dr. Mabuse imagined himself. You know the rules that are set, abide by them. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2005 : 19:28:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by VALIANT DANCER
3) Your continued harping on Dr. Mabuse's girlfriend in sometimes inappropriate manners must end now. Cease and desist commenting on that subject. It is inappropriate fare for these fora.
Since you are commenting that subject ( that doesn't need a separate topic), let me refresh your memory.
Dr. Mabuse was the one who wrote about how he likes to see the TITS of his girlfriend.
Regarding the icon, I wrote: "If I want to see tits, I can ask my girlfriend".
The point was that you shouldn't have posted that icon (no matter how cute it might be), because it was inappropriet to post images with sexual contents.
If you wanted to post images like that, there are other forums to do so, not SFN, and that if any member of SFN wanted sexually oriented stuff, they know where to get it: elsewhere. Not at Skeptic Friends Network.
I resent you mentioning my girlfriend in that manner. I was hoping that my silence would be enough for you to recognise the common decency of leaving it alone.
Aparently I was mistaken.
quote:
Dr.Mabuse never told me I wrote something bad about her.
Should I have to? You lied about what I said about her. That would be your first clue.
I wrote, using a conditional statement: "If I want... , ..." (the comma is used instead of 'then')I never wrote what I did or did not like. Stop misrepresenting people.
This is just another nail in the coffin. Oh how I wish your ass banned from here!
|
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. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2005 : 23:43:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by DR. MABUSE.
Regarding the icon, I wrote: "If I want to see tits, I can ask my girlfriend".
Yes , I never quoted you. You also said, something like, because is LIVE after that.
Unless you deleted/edited your own post , it will conveniently to post the link to your complete quote. Link please.
My interpretation ( the one I posted) to your quote was that you like ( -prefer-) to see the tits of your girlfriend.
If my interpretation was wrong , my apologies to you and specially to your girlfriend.
quote:
Originally posted by DR. MABUSE.
The point was that you shouldn't have posted that icon (no matter how cute it might be), because it was inappropriet to post images with sexual contents.
In that point , the administrators who wrote in the same topic ,never referred to that “sexual content”. They could warned me /or deleted the icon, mention the icon , etc.
They did it after they started closing my threads with their putative rule. Ask KIL about it. We already discussed that point. And was not the reason to close my threads.
Your avatar is a cute icon too. Is………….(nevermind)?
quote:
Originally posted by DR. MABUSE.
If you wanted to post images like that, there are other forums to do so, not SFN, and that if any member of SFN wanted sexually oriented stuff, they know where to get it: elsewhere. Not at Skeptic Friends Network.
Why you didn't mention the icon in the same quote?
I thought you were referring about the stripper Moe Faux $5000 JREF scholarship scandal.
Some topics are with some sexual content involved. But they are not sexually oriented as you assumed.
Maybe you are confused now with the sexual scandals of some founders of some Skeptic Organizations , I brought at my URI topic ( page 13 and 14).
But KIL and DAVE didn't mention nothing about your sexual concern.
quote:
Originally posted by DR. MABUSE.
I resent you mentioning my girlfriend in that manner. I was hoping that my silence would be enough for you to recognise the common decency of leaving it alone.
Maybe your juvenile error was to mention and relate your girlfriend with “If I want to see tits”……………..no matter where the comma was.
My apologies to you and her are here, if you feel I did a misinterpretation of your quote.
quote:
Originally posted by DR. MABUSE.
. Oh how I wish your ass banned from here!
I understand you , I recently forced you to recognize your mistakes on your thread about your latinjral' s curiosity.
Bad background to you. But you learned something.
Remember I gave you another chance.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
