|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 00:25:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave W......
With regard to your recent response to Marty, actually the "rudeness" began with Cuneiformist's sarcastic third post. I would be interested in what post of mine you first detected smarminess and smugness. Thank you for your help. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 00:44:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave W. again.....
If you will go back and read my opening paragraphs in the Vos Savant Forum, you will find that I first asked the IDENTICAL question that I opened the thread with in the SFN Forum. You cherry-picked a later question from my post and presented it as different from the initial question in the SFN that apparently confounded so many of the folks here. Shame, shame! I would appreciate your correction of that error. No, I really wouldn't, forget about it. This horse corpse beating is wearing me out. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2007 : 03:08:56 [Permalink]
|
So... still no references as requested. Good work.
Did you actually want a discussion? Because it looks like you are just here to troll, and provide marty-troll a thread to troll in.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 05:11:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave W......
With regard to your recent response to Marty, actually the "rudeness" began with Cuneiformist's sarcastic third post. I would be interested in what post of mine you first detected smarminess and smugness. Thank you for your help.
|
While I can't speak for Dave, I found it here, when, in response to a fair and honest question (which expressed, not coincidentally, the same sentiment as my own), you totally brushed off On Fire and seemed a little snarky about it. I may have misread the snarkieness, but I certainly found your reply to his request to be both odd and a bit rude, given the situation. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 07:01:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave W......
A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum. I realized I didn't care what the Romans do. |
Indeed, which is why you are being received as the Ugly American. That you are surprised by the response you got simply demonstrates the depth of your ignorance of social mores. You try to pass off the ignorance as ambivalence, but if you simply didn't care, you wouldn't have been surprised.
Cune, by the way, is correct. Your sixth post.
You also whined:| If you will go back and read my opening paragraphs in the Vos Savant Forum, you will find that I first asked the IDENTICAL question that I opened the thread with in the SFN Forum. You cherry-picked a later question from my post and presented it as different from the initial question in the SFN that apparently confounded so many of the folks here. |
I cherry-picked nothing. You asked the same initial question, but then you politely re-phrased the question in response to one of the answers you got over there. You even gave an example (by analogy with Nessie) over there, something you've refused to do here. Why did you decide to act differently here than over there, bngbuck? What prompted the snottiness here? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 07:55:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Boron 10.....
If I didn't know what a piano was, I would certainly follow your advice to go looking for one. If I did know what a piano was, I would not ask you for examples, I would answer your question by giving you my opinion of pianos! |
Perhaps that is an illustrative example of how you're different from others here. You, apparently, have no problem spending the time to explain your opinion of the wood used to make various pianos when I may have been asking about the quality of sound. | I am not offended that you asked for examples, rather by the (skeptic word) rude manner in which you asked. I am not very concerned with rudeness on my part or others, although it usually deserves return in kind. I have attempted to do that. I certainly do not think that science is offensive, I am a scientist, currently writing. |
Interesting. If you look at Kil's first post in this thread, the first of three consecutive requests for amplifying information, you may see there is no rudeness in any of the three. Nor is Cuneiformist being rude in his first post in this thread. | So far, I am the first one. |
Since I don't know what the intended subject of this one-sentence paragraph is, I will agree: you were the first one to be rude in this thread. | To whomever the pot belongs, currently, your forum. Possibly others. |
Huh?| I appreciate your not whacking this mole, and as I have said many times in the past few days, my understanding has been greatly enhanced by this experience. |
I am glad. Enhanced understanding is implied in our mission statement, after all! |
|
|
|
marty
BANNED
63 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 09:19:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
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.
|
I told you all on page five he was examining your reaction to a question of opinion.
I bet you still do not get it!
 |
| Edited by - marty on 08/09/2007 09:20:36 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 09:36:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
I told you all on page five he was examining your reaction to a question of opinion.
I bet you still do not get it!
|
Actually, it appears as if he was anticipating specific reactions here based on some preconceived notions of how "skeptics" would respond. Comments like this one to kil:
I feel that this is genuine progress - to have a professed skeptic (albeit an evil one)admit that he/she felt that all was not hallucination, error or a non-event.
I feel my work today has been vindicated. |
...clearly show that bngbuck walked in with an ax to grind, not as a genuine seeker of informed opinions. Indeed, he considers himself so well-versed in the subject already that his excursion here seems to be nothing more than a way for him to reinforce his preexisting biases, regardless of the responses he received.
So perhaps you should stop lecturing others here about what we fail to understand, because you're about 10 steps behind everyone else.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/09/2007 10:00:12 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:02:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
I told you all on page five he was examining your reaction to a question of opinion. |
But if that's the case-- if bngbuck was being somewhat dishonest in asking this question-- then why doesn't he fess up and apologize?
Let's break it down. First, he comes and asks our opinion about a phenomenon. In reality, he doesn't care about our opinion. Rather, he wants to see how we answer the question. A few people actually express interest in sharing their opinion, but want more information on the topic before doing so.
Because the actual point of the question isn't to get our opinion, bngbuck doesn't bother to provide us with the information we requested (requested, by the way, because we wanted to help him out by giving out opinions). Instead, he sends us on a wild goose chase.
This, of course, frustrates a few here. After all, we're trying to help and it seems rather odd that a person who is ostensibly researching this phenomenon wouldn't have stored somewhere links or other references to the very phenomenon he's supposedly researching!
Finally, though, it all comes out that bngbuck isn't interested in our opinions but rather in how we tried to answer the question. Fine. Then why not come out and say it: "look, guys, I'm sorry for the misleading introduction..." and explain what he was doing. In so doing, he of course has no right to be huffy if people were upset about his actions. After all, he was being deliberately misleading.
But this isn't what he's done. He's somehow claiming a high ground, and seems vexed that we'd be less than pleased by his dishonest actions. Indeed, so do you, marty. Why, however, is unclear.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 11:20:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
I told you all on page five he was examining your reaction to a question of opinion.
I bet you still do not get it! |
It's quite clear that you're the only one here who's not getting it, marty.
By the way, I've asked you quite a few direct questions recently. Are you never going to answer them? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 15:30:21 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist.....
You are becoming smarter and more lovable by the minute.
Let's break your post down:
But if that's the case-- if bngbuck was being somewhat dishonest in asking this question-- then why doesn't he fess up and apologize?
What's to apologize for? I came for source information, got it, and stayed around to possibly get more, but mostly to play. I am not a member of your fraternity and I do not owe allegiance to any of you.
Let's break it down. First, he comes and asks our opinion about a phenomenon. In reality, he doesn't care about our opinion. Rather, he wants to see how we answer the question. A few people actually express interest in sharing their opinion, but want more information on the topic before doing so.
I really did want opinion AND wanted to see how professional skeptics answer questions. The latter became more and more important as the thread extended!
Because the actual point of the question isn't to get our opinion, bngbuck doesn't bother to provide us with the information we requested (requested, by the way, because we wanted to help him out by giving out opinions). Instead, he sends us on a wild goose chase.
I wanted your opinion on the question, NOT on the specific instances of observations of UFOs. I did not send anyone on a wild goose chase, I suggested where to find the examples requested, if anyone cared to. To do so was optional. I did not care if anyone selected the option or not.
This, of course, frustrates a few here. After all, we're trying to help and it seems rather odd that a person who is ostensibly researching this phenomenon wouldn't have stored somewhere links or other references to the very phenomenon he's supposedly researching!
Of course I have references to filtered UFO sightings. Hell, I have lots of books written before the personal computer (or you) were invented. But I did not want responses regarding individual instances. I have many of those from high profile skeptics (big name references look better in a book). I wanted exactly what I got - a cross section of opinion from a community of skeptics in answer to a general question. And I also got a great deal of affect and unusual methods of response and obvious interest in many things that were not germane to the question asked, all this from a community of skeptics. I expected some of this in advance of entering the Forum, but the level and degree of response quickly became more important than the question or the answers thereto. And it is certainly important to my book. I am pleased and excited by this unexpected outpouring of emotion from what I expected to be cool, detached parsers of fact and opinion; not name callers and insulters. I am still working with the Forum quotes to define the gestalt and then express it in non-technical terms, as I don't want the book to be a technical treatise.
Finally, though, it all comes out that bngbuck isn't interested in our opinions but rather in how we tried to answer the question. Fine. Then why not come out and say it: "look, guys, I'm sorry for the misleading introduction..." and explain what he was doing. In so doing, he of course has no right to be huffy if people were upset about his actions. After all, he was being deliberately misleading.
Again, I was interested in both your opinions (of the question as asked) and your attitude. If I had said "Look guys..." early on, I would have effectively shut down the really interesting (to me) part of the discussion!
I HAVE explained what I was doing - both here and in a previous post to Cuneiformist - it is just a little later than you wanted. However, Ricky, On Fire, and especially Marty got it immediately! And Marty has tried repeatedly to explain it (albiet a tad tartly, but what the hell, we all have warts, except me) My huffiness was originally knee-Jerk reaction to insult, but as the number of posters grew and the sound and fury became deafening, I quickly tried to refine it into a tool to elicit even more response.In a sense, I became a troll at that point, but a troll with more purpose than merely to cause a furor. I am sure you people deal with this every day and I am surprised you didn't try to shut me out as a troll as soon as my retorts became too "rude"
However, the information gathered is very useful and relevant to the subject matter of my current monograph (Perception of UFOs) It will later become a chapter in the book.
But this isn't what he's done. He's somehow claiming a high ground, and seems vexed that we'd be less than pleased by his dishonest actions. Indeed, so do you, marty. Why, however, is unclear.
I am unsure what "high ground" you refer to.Reference to a specific post of mine would be useful.
I am not vexed. I was briefly, as I explained above, before I clearly understood the dynamic. After that, I attempted to widen the perspective of the Forum's displeasure (more sign ins, a more representative picture of the group as a whole)!
The sociometric "score", as it stands right now, is as follows:
AGONIST
On Fire for Christ
Ricky
Marty
NEUTRAL
Ghost Skeptic
Furshur
Boron 10
ANTAGONIST
HalfMoon
H.Humbert
GeeMack
Valiant Dancer
Dude
Dave W.
Boron 10
Filthy
NEUTRAL AGONIST
Kil
Moakley
NEUTRAL ANTAGONIST
Dr. Mabuse
Cuneiformist
AGONISTS (with leaners) ------- 5 28%
NEUTRAL----------------------- 3 17%
ANTAGONISTS (with leaners)----10 55%
TOTAL PARTICIPANTS----------18 100%
Although the sample size is way too small to draw any conclusions, 55/28 might be an interesting start. Perhaps I can add enough numbers from larger forums to improve the probability.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2007 : 15:40:47 [Permalink]
|
Curiosity: How am I an antagonist? I have only three or four posts in this thread, including this one, and all have been off topic. If I were making some such list, I'd put myself down in the INDIFFERENT catagory.
|
"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! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/09/2007 15:48:38 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 16:34:45 [Permalink]
|
filthy.....
You became antagonistic when you used the words "condesending(sic) twit" and "accused of trolling". Even though you may have been quoting, if you had used non-affect words you would have remained neutral, not indifferent. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 17:04:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
filthy.....
You became antagonistic when you used the words "condesending(sic) twit" and "accused of trolling". Even though you may have been quoting, if you had used non-affect words you would have remained neutral, not indifferent.
|
I did not accuse you of being a "condesending(sic) twit." I merely remarked that some were beginning to think it. Do you deny that much of your behavior has demonstrated exactly that?
As for the trolling accusation, others made it about marty and I remarked upon it. (I really did make those bets with myself. Try it; it's fun.)
Having had a UFO experience, with a small group at a house party, I am certainly not neutral; but I am indifferent. It was no big deal to any of us then, nor is it now. Furthermore, I suspect that most people feel the same way but simply go along with the crowd.
So, is this book going to be your first attempt at publication?
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/09/2007 17:32:49 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 17:21:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What's to apologize for? I came for source information, got it, and stayed around to possibly get more, but mostly to play. I am not a member of your fraternity and I do not owe allegiance to any of you. |
Wow. Remind me not to be in dire need of help around you, then.
| I really did want opinion AND wanted to see how professional skeptics answer questions. The latter became more and more important as the thread extended! |
Uh, "professional"?
| I wanted your opinion on the question, NOT on the specific instances of observations of UFOs. I did not send anyone on a wild goose chase, I suggested where to find the examples requested, if anyone cared to. To do so was optional. I did not care if anyone selected the option or not. |
I'm still confused. I guess my PhD isn't worth the paper it's written on. So you just want my opinion of the question that asks, "What is your view (better opinion) of 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," correct? My opinion is that your question sucked.
| I wanted exactly what I got - a cross section of opinion from a community of skeptics in answer to a general question. |
I guess I missed the whole "general question" thing earlier. But now I get it. I think.
| Again, I was interested in both your opinions (of the question as asked) and your attitude. If I had said "Look guys..." early on, I would have effectively shut down the really interesting (to me) part of the discussion! |
Well, I hope your writing skills (or my reading comprehension skills!) improve over time.
| In a sense, I became a troll at that point, but a troll with more purpose than merely to cause a furor. I am sure you people deal with this every day and I am surprised you didn't try to shut me out as a troll as soon as my retorts became too "rude" |
Well, uh, thanks for being honest as a noble troll.
| However, the information gathered is very useful and relevant to the subject matter of my current monograph (Perception of UFOs) It will later become a chapter in the book. |
I'm sure the reviewers will find it to be the strongest chapter.
| Reference to a specific post of mine would be useful. |
If you Google it, I'm sure you'll find the answer. 
| The sociometric "score", as it stands right now, is as follows... |
Talk about lovable! But what's the point of your metric? That when you deliberately act like a troll, more than half the people will be antagonistic? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Opinions regarding select UFO sightings
Topic Locked
