|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:18:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by marty
Originally posted by Dave W.
Besides, "ad hominem diatribe" in this case is just a few ten-cent words for "lot of insults." You certainly didn't mean that GeeMack was making an ad hominem argument (appealing to feelings or prejudice rather than intellect while attempting to defend a logical proposition), because GeeMack wasn't doing so. He wasn't saying that because you're rude and lazy, you must be wrong. That would have been a classic ad hominem argument. I find it pretentious when people use ad hominem when they really mean "insult" or "personal attack," even more pretentious than correctly putting ad hominem in italics.
|
This is why your forum lacks critical thinking and encourages this sort of behavior. Your words are a projection of self. Others tend to follow suit.
|
What a load of hypocritical crap.
|
EXACTLY
|
 |
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:20:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
What a load of hypocritical crap.
|
How have I been hypocritical?
Or is this another shot from the hip INSULT without the benefit of thought? |
| Edited by - marty on 08/07/2007 18:21:22 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:43:32 [Permalink]
|
Good luck, Marty. Several of the folks in this forum don't think, reason, or listen; they just run their pre-recorded arguments and insults. It is the strangest group of would-be intellectuals/thinkers/scholars that I have encountered in a long time.Some are quite reasonable, others are rabid.
My question was substantially answered by the end of the second page, but I kept getting provocations that I couldn't ignore. I've had about enough by now - the thread has deteriorated to acrimony-
but I believe certain of these attack dogs will keep on yelping
far into the week. I intend to stick around a while to see if anything else of value to me comes up, and if nothing else, to be amused. Again, best of luck |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:44:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
Originally posted by Dave W.
Besides, "ad hominem diatribe" in this case is just a few ten-cent words for "lot of insults." You certainly didn't mean that GeeMack was making an ad hominem argument (appealing to feelings or prejudice rather than intellect while attempting to defend a logical proposition), because GeeMack wasn't doing so. He wasn't saying that because you're rude and lazy, you must be wrong. That would have been a classic ad hominem argument. I find it pretentious when people use ad hominem when they really mean "insult" or "personal attack," even more pretentious than correctly putting ad hominem in italics. |
This is why your forum lacks critical thinking and encourages this sort of behavior. Your words are a projection of self. Others tend to follow suit. |
What part of any of what I wrote is a "projection of self?" Or is the problem that I'm not criticizing GeeMack for being insulting like I'm criticizing bngbuck for being insulting? I see by your latest two posts that that is, indeed, the problem.
The real problem is that I wasn't criticizing bngbuck for being insulting in the part you quoted, and especially in the part you bolded. I was criticizing him for being pretentious while acknowledging my own faults in that same category. You missed that, marty, read into my post something that wasn't there, and insulted everyone here for it with a blanket accusation.
So, marty, you obviously shot from the hip with an insult, and then you criticized HalfMooner for doing the same. There's a word that describes that sort of thing, but it slips my mind at the moment. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:46:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Good luck, Marty. Several of the folks in this forum don't think, reason, or listen; they just run their pre-recorded arguments and insults. It is the strangest group of would-be intellectuals/thinkers/scholars that I have encountered in a long time.Some are quite reasonable, others are rabid.
My question was substantially answered by the end of the second page, but I kept getting provocations that I couldn't ignore. I've had about enough by now - the thread has deteriorated to acrimony-
but I believe certain of these attack dogs will keep on yelping
far into the week. I intend to stick around a while to see if anything else of value to me comes up, and if nothing else, to be amused. Again, best of luck |
So shall I assume that your answer to my question is that you will not address the substantive portion of my first post in this thread? |
- 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 - 08/07/2007 : 18:52:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
1.I opened the thread with a very specific request for opinion
on the UFO phenomenon-not opinions on specific instances
of UFO activity. |
I know I'm late to this party, but the problem, it seems to me, was with your question. The obvious answer within the context you provided was the one that Kil and Dude provided: regardless of apparent credibility, if people claim to have seen something that they cannot identify, why not take them at their word? If they meant to say that they saw an extraterrestrial spaceship, that's a whole different kettle of fish.
So, obvious answer. Boring answer. What's interesting is the claim within your question, that there is a "small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial phenomena reported by large groups of ordinary people..." (etc). Whether your intent was to focus on those or not, using them as a premise for your question opens the subject to relevant inquiry.
Plus, your claim implies that you know of events which meet such criteria already. Refusing to post even a single reference, and instead directing questioners to perform hours of Googling, is utterly obnoxious. Offering up a specific tree or two, but reiterating that you're interested in the forest only, would have been understood and even appreciated.| I try only to insult those who insult me. |
You failed to live to that standard with your "misanthropic rants" comment, which was so vague as to indict the entire member base here.| ...I have nothing to apologize for... |
Really?
|
| So shall I assume that your answer to my question is that you will not address the substantive portion of my first post in this thread? |
What are the substantive questions of the above post?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 18:55:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Several of the folks in this forum don't think, reason, or listen; they just run their pre-recorded arguments and insults. |
Actually, marty, if you'd like a good example of projection, the above is it. Rather than explain himself right away when his question was obviously mis-interpreted, bngbuck was rude and dismissive. He then got back what he was dishing out, but he is now playing at being the innocent victim of anonymous goons. Note also that his post is based upon feelings and prejudice, so he obviously thinks that personal attacks are okay, but he'll complain about them anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 19:01:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
What are the substantive questions of the above post? |
I didn't use the word "question." Does an important point really need to be in question format for a response to be expected?
Why aren't you addressing my earlier post that was actually written to you, anyway? Should I have asked you what the word was? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 19:04:52 [Permalink]
|
I'm still not sure what set things off, here, bngbuck. I honestly wasn't trying to be confrontational. I did sincerely wish to see some examples so that we were speaking from the same frame of reference before entering in the discussion. I found your reply to be a bit off-setting.
Seriously. I don't know what your PhD is in, or what you study, but you can see how this set up can lead to disaster, no? That is, if I give you my opinion on something X, when you have in mind something Y, but we never clarify whether we're talking about X or Y, my opinion is wrong, but you'll never know because we haven't established more concretely what we're talking about!! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 19:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
Originally posted by Dave W.
Besides, "ad hominem diatribe" in this case is just a few ten-cent words for "lot of insults." You certainly didn't mean that GeeMack was making an ad hominem argument (appealing to feelings or prejudice rather than intellect while attempting to defend a logical proposition), because GeeMack wasn't doing so. He wasn't saying that because you're rude and lazy, you must be wrong. That would have been a classic ad hominem argument. I find it pretentious when people use ad hominem when they really mean "insult" or "personal attack," even more pretentious than correctly putting ad hominem in italics.
|
This is why your forum lacks critical thinking and encourages this sort of behavior. Your words are a projection of self. Others tend to follow suit. |
GeeMack stated a few things that I can understand that bngbuck felt was insulting. But GeeMack wasn't making an ad hominem argument. But he's right in that bngbuck hasn't communicated his wishes well, and that not providing links of cases as examples of what he is looking for is kind of lazy.
What Dave_W have written does not lack critical thinking. And his analysis of bngbuck seems logical enough. Marty, your answer to Dave insults me, as I'm a part of this forum.
There aren't many of us who really are in position to provide an informed answer to his initial request, as such reports are rare and hard to find. Now he tells us that he has done research, then why not offer a link?
The answer I initially provided is a half-assed answer, just because I know of no UFO-report that includes the details of what many different people reported, so I have a hard time determining what the answer should be. I took my two examples because I believe that the different people reporting the UFO would probably report the same kind of phenomena. However, the UFO's were eventually identified, so we know what it was. And knowing that, it's pretty easy to understand why so many would report the same kind of story.
If would probably be different with a report when the object remained unidentified.
I would like to read a UFO-report where the object was not identified, and where I could read many people's witness accounts, and compare them to one another. But I can't becuse I don't know of such events, and the only one here that probably does have a link to such investigations refuse to provide any. Suggesting we should waste hours googling for such reports when he possibly have such examples readily available is rather shitty in my opinion. |
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. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 20:46:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
Several of the folks in this forum don't think, reason, or listen; they just run their pre-recorded arguments and insults. |
Actually, marty, if you'd like a good example of projection, the above is it. Rather than explain himself right away when his question was obviously mis-interpreted, bngbuck was rude and dismissive. He then got back what he was dishing out, but he is now playing at being the innocent victim of anonymous goons. Note also that his post is based upon feelings and prejudice, so he obviously thinks that personal attacks are okay, but he'll complain about them anyway.
|
My reading of the conversation is bngbuck explaining over and over that the responses were not what he was talking about with vitriol spit back into his face(a couple of posters excluded).
Is this how you moderate a forum? Defend know entities against all invaders?
Do you see yourself as a white blood cell?
The funny thing is he was gauging your reactions to a question of opinion. Dave, you and a few others do not get it and still after rereading the posts (if you read them in the first place) will not get it.
He at no point made an assertion and was continually attacked for claiming an assertion without evidence.
Try reading before you interject with your infectious form of asinine and protagonistic moderation.
|
| Edited by - marty on 08/08/2007 07:52:29 |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 20:53:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marty
What are the substantive questions of the above post? |
I didn't use the word "question." Does an important point really need to be in question format for a response to be expected?
Why aren't you addressing my earlier post that was actually written to you, anyway? Should I have asked you what the word was?
|
| So shall I assume that your answer to my question is that you will not address the substantive portion of my first post in this thread? |
Will you admit you are a lier? Or did you forget what you had just posted?
The text is there for all to see.
You used the word question.
Is lying another form of moderation?
Your simple tactics may work for the simple minded, but I think the majority that visit see what you are.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 20:53:11 [Permalink]
|
I guess I will spit into the wind here, too. Originally posted by bngbuck
I refer only to the small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial phenomena reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts; and those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other serious investigations, and NOT rejected as hoax or hallucinatory. |
See, bngbuck, this is your claim:
There is a "significant number of highly documented sightings ... not rejected as hoax or hallucinatory."
It is customary here (a skeptic site) to present evidence for a claim when asked. Telling us to look it up our damn selves is unlikely to provide a warm response.
I, for one, cannot provide you with anything resembling an unbiased opinion without any information. |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 21:01:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
GeeMack stated a few things that I can understand that bngbuck felt was insulting. But GeeMack wasn't making an ad hominem argument. But he's right in that bngbuck hasn't communicated his wishes well, and that not providing links of cases as examples of what he is looking for is kind of lazy.
What Dave_W have written does not lack critical thinking. And his analysis of bngbuck seems logical enough. Marty, your answer to Dave insults me, as I'm a part of this forum.
|
I am insulted that you defend idiotic comments and continue to attack arguments not made by bngbunk.
Have you read the posts in this thread?
It looks as if you have not.
You are still attacking something that has never been there, and has been stated several times is not there.
Are you retarded?
I am really asking.
|
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2007 : 21:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
I guess I will spit into the wind here, too. Originally posted by bngbuck
I refer only to the small but significant number of highly documented sightings of UFO aerial phenomena reported by large groups of ordinary people, groups of professional military or police, sightings verified by multiple radar trackings, groups of military pilots or astronauts; and those cases thoroughly examined by Condon et al, Project Blue Book, and other serious investigations, and NOT rejected as hoax or hallucinatory. |
See, bngbuck, this is your claim:
There is a "significant number of highly documented sightings ... not rejected as hoax or hallucinatory."
It is customary here (a skeptic site) to present evidence for a claim when asked. Telling us to look it up our damn selves is unlikely to provide a warm response.
I, for one, cannot provide you with anything resembling an unbiased opinion without any information.
|
He is asking what is your opinion of the group think associated with unexplained sightings.
Please read, do not cherry pick out what you think associates with a plausible reasoning behind the insults.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Opinions regarding select UFO sightings
Topic Locked
