|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 13:47:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
I am not making any argument, so by your reasoning there is no logical fallacy.
As to argumentive, I have responded to questions indicating that the meaning of my original question was understood differently by different participants. This was intentional. I gathered information useful to my purpose due to varying understandings of my question.
As is evident from my postings to rat and marfknox, the question remains exactly the same.
Regarding dickhead, I refer you to Kil's comment:
Attacked or corrected? Everyone knows that I am not happy with the level of hostility on this forum these days.
Apparently you are, but your use of the derogative is symptomatic of what I have perceived as a widespread (but not blanket) attitude among the titled elite of your group. As I have stated many times earlier, this is useful information to me, and I thank you for it. |
 |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 14:12:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck...
As to argumentive, I have responded to questions indicating that the meaning of my original question was understood differently by different participants. This was intentional. I gathered information useful to my purpose due to varying understandings of my question. |
Sounds like you're just making excuses for being a shitty communicator again. After all, you've already demonstrated that you're willing to lie rather than simply admit an error.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2007 : 14:34:17 [Permalink]
|
I am curious, bngbuck. In the OP, you stated: | I have asked this question of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Marilyn Vos Savant and many other brights, and I would like to address it to anyone on this forum that would care to respond. |
I am wondering how Dr. Dawkins, et al, responded to your question.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 16:48:29 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.....
Please re-read the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of rat's article. This commentary from him was what was spot-on to me. I found the rest of the article interesting, but not of great use to my monograph.
The rest of the article was occasionally tangential to my subject matter, but not really germane - particularly because it dealt primarily with "aliens", extraterrestrial speculation, and the like.
"Ufologists" (preposterous term) do, in fact, divide into object viewers and alien or extraterrestrial life believers. Please do not ask me for referents, take it or leave it. It is merely an aside. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 17:11:04 [Permalink]
|
Filthy.....
None of the persons you named have responded to me as yet. Nor have I found writings or debate dialog by any of them concerning anything having to do with UFOs. I suspect they are not interested in the subject matter. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 17:13:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck...
"Ufologists" (preposterous term) do, in fact, divide into object viewers and alien or extraterrestrial life believers. Please do not ask me for referents, take it or leave it. It is merely an aside. |
"In fact," you say? Another unevidenced assertion from a known liar. 
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 17:48:16 [Permalink]
|
| I would like to welcome the first lady to this thread on this testosterone-charged forum. |
Wow, you really don't know me very well. I'm one of the guilty parties that has been recently admonished by other members for being aggressive and insulting, and was recently asked to cool it by a moderator. In real life I often must consciously curb my aggressiveness in debate so's not to be a buzz-kill at parties. But I'm cool if you want to gender stereotype.
| However, if you find this term - lady - in any way offensive, I apologize in advance and if you indicate, I will certainly desist. It is my experience that there are some delightful women that dislike the appellation, and I do completely understand their position. |
I am not at all offended, though I find it weird that you start your address to me with an entire paragraph emphasizing my gender. I also find it weird that you would do this with an absolute stranger, knowing that some women are offended by the address "lady" (I know women who feel this way, too, even if I'm not one of them.) Would it not have been safer to simply ignore my gender and treat me like any other human being?
| What is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon? |
You are asking something rather vague and broad, so I'm going to give a vague and broad answer, dull as it may be (I find details far more interesting and useful.)
Primarily, I don't give a flying fuck. Seriously, I don't care. Stuff in the sky and people see it and don't know what it is… ok, whatever. Isolated incidents could be just about anything, and if a specific sighting happens repeatedly, it can be studied by science and then my interest is peaked. I don't mind not knowing much about something, but I need to know that it is something before I can care.
Project Blue Book and the Condon Committee both ceased almost 50 years ago and concluded that the UFO sightings were nothing extraordinary. I tend to trust those assessments.
I think people who continue to make a big deal out of UFO sightings, especially if they haven't even experienced one first hand themselves, are engaging in wishful thinking; they needs a little excitement in their life and so latch onto a cultural phenomenon, which not only gives them something exciting and mysterious to learn and talk about, but also gives them a sense of belonging with others who share the interest.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2007 : 18:50:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by GeeMack
Originally posted by bngbuck...
"Ufologists" (preposterous term) do, in fact, divide into object viewers and alien or extraterrestrial life believers. Please do not ask me for referents, take it or leave it. It is merely an aside. |
"In fact," you say? Another unevidenced assertion from a known liar.
|
Do you do much beyond insults?
One Trick Insult Pony
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 19:05:22 [Permalink]
|
Marty.....
Sorry to have been late in responding to your request for a continuation of the sociological dissection that I offered some time back. I was attempting to give Cuneiformist a different perspective of the group dynamic that had formed after I intentionally provoked several of them. It was only the first two pages of posts, and was in no way meant to be a complete sorting of the the entire thread to that point, only an indication of how things were beginning to shape up in the group.
If this sample size (of the entire universe of skeptics) was large enough to be statistically significant, possibly some reasonable conclusions could be made. But you can't do much with twenty on thirty participants.At the very best, it could only be an approximation of a true random sampling of the universe of Skeptics. As you know, there are much larger skeptic forums on the Internet. I hope to be able to do a somewhat more meaningful analysis a little later.
By the way, what's your general view of how the entire discussion is going up to the most current posting?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 19:13:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave W.....
Please re-read the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of rat's article. |
Okay.When it comes to the subject of UFO's I subscribe to the view held by Arthur C. Clarke: I don't believe in them because I have seen far too many of them. Unlike many people, I have spent a lot of my time looking up into the sky. This will happen when you are an aircraft nut, amateur astronomer, dedicated birder, and an incorrigible daydreamer. As a result I have seen more than my fair share of unusual things going on above my head, but, again unlike most, my experience has taught me that a little applied thought will usually explain what is happening. Many people go about their lives blissfully unaware of anything above the level of the ‘walk; don't walk' sign, and on those odd occasions when their attention is grabbed by something higher it can cause some confusion. To be fair, very few will immediately yell “flying saucer!” at such times, but those who do will probably be with us for a long time to come.
These people should not be of much concern to the skeptic, as their story does not usually go much further than family and friends before the chuckles convince them to give it up. Okay.| This commentary from him was what was spot-on to me. |
Go figure. He tells you why he doesn't believe, and why lots of people might be confused. That's a commentary on the "perception of the UFO phenomenon?" To me, it reads as a hypothesis regarding the perception of UFOs themselves, and it says absolutely nothing about "...the small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial phenomena reported by large groups of ordinary people..." to which you were "only" referring. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 19:24:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Marty.....
Sorry to have been late in responding to your request for a continuation of the sociological dissection that I offered some time back. I was attempting to give Cuneiformist a different perspective of the group dynamic that had formed after I intentionally provoked several of them. It was only the first two pages of posts, and was in no way meant to be a complete sorting of the the entire thread to that point, only an indication of how things were beginning to shape up in the group.
If this sample size (of the entire universe of skeptics) was large enough to be statistically significant, possibly some reasonable conclusions could be made. But you can't do much with twenty on thirty participants.At the very best, it could only be an approximation of a true random sampling of the universe of Skeptics. As you know, there are much larger skeptic forums on the Internet. I hope to be able to do a somewhat more meaningful analysis a little later.
By the way, what's your general view of how the entire discussion is going up to the most current posting?
|
There are a few that are honestly interested in your question and a discussion thereof. I perceive a tight knit group that abhors outside thought that has even the most remote possibility of disrupting the "correct" world view. Because of this dichotomy useful thought in direct relation to your question is obscured. As I see it your purpose was two fold; and this obfuscation is relevant to an ulterior motive.
All in all I am enjoying this conversation a great deal!
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 19:30:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Marty.....
Sorry to have been late in responding to your request for a continuation of the sociological dissection that I offered some time back. I was attempting to give Cuneiformist a different perspective of the group dynamic that had formed after I intentionally provoked several of them. It was only the first two pages of posts, and was in no way meant to be a complete sorting of the the entire thread to that point, only an indication of how things were beginning to shape up in the group.
If this sample size (of the entire universe of skeptics) was large enough to be statistically significant, possibly some reasonable conclusions could be made. But you can't do much with twenty on thirty participants.At the very best, it could only be an approximation of a true random sampling of the universe of Skeptics. As you know, there are much larger skeptic forums on the Internet. I hope to be able to do a somewhat more meaningful analysis a little later.
By the way, what's your general view of how the entire discussion is going up to the most current posting?
|
 The plot thickens.... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 19:47:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I would like to address my question to you specifically, as I have already received a very substantive answer from rat. If you have not already done so, I would appreciate your reading the thread from the beginning. The question is:
What is your opinion of the UFO phenomenon?
Understand that I am not concerned, at this time, with "phenomena" that involve alleged aliens, alien abductions, alien visitations,or any speculation or "proof" dealing with the possibility of extraterrestrial life.
I am focused on the perception of unexplained aerial or near-space objects. The report filters are described in my second paragraph. I thank you in advance for any response you may care to make.
|
Wow. Why is this about a thousand times more clearly explained than the original question? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 20:04:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
I perceive a tight knit group that abhors outside thought that has even the most remote possibility of disrupting the "correct" world view. |
Where has any such thought been presented, marty? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2007 : 20:20:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty...
Do you do much beyond insults? |
In this thread bngbuck has made at least one statement which was demonstrably false. If he knew it was false, he is a liar. And actually considering him a liar gives him the benefit of the doubt. If he doesn't know he's making false statements, his ability to sort fantasy from reality, his general state of sanity, gets called into question. I mentioned his lack of veracity to remind him, and others, that we already know (even as Dave W. has mentioned) that anything bngbuck says can no longer be accepted as truthful.
And yes, Bill scott, Michael Mozina, and GK Paul are also known liars.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Opinions regarding select UFO sightings
Topic Locked
