Yes, please.
If i played games and manipulated the way you guys do, the first thing i would have done is call in the hired guns and rally. I have systematically picked you guys apart. Not one objective party.
Toss me or watch out, because…hey, a hint…damn fine lucky day for you (I had a 78 today with 2 birdies)…I’m feeling generous…because I have been a mirror, reflecting back to you the image you display. That is so elementary and you guys crumble like crackers.
Time to let me go. I’m listening???
I’m sorry, but this post is off-topic. What is specifically wrong with the article you complained about in the OP?
You wouldn’t know a logical argument if it bit you in the ass. All you have presented are dreams and poetry. Bad poetry.
Please see post #164.
Buh bye!
We win!
My God, that was pathetic. He did do something systematically; post by wasted post, rant by incoherent rant, and finally with that crappy poetry, he destroyed, first, any respect I gave him initially, then any sympathy, and finally even my last bit of pity. It took years for Lekatt to do the same thing, but this person managed it in one thread.
I don’t take it personally – I mean, we’ve all had our time wasted here. But it still hurts.
One last post, cuz I know I do owe someone an explanation. I’m just not sure who I am talking to when I do it. And if I am going to make a statement as I did…“not one objective person”, then I have the obligation to disclose my goals I had when I started this thread. There is certainly the chance that the one person does exist somewhere.
When I read David’s reply, I really appreciated the skeptic side. It has tremendous merit since it does offer a perspective more difficult to find. I did not like the fact that it was a reply for a request of the opinion of this website, which is called “straight dope”, but only skepticism was offered.
The psychic ability is in question, but since he was unique…and not actually a psychic as indicated, there should have been more accurate information. Had he actually been a self-proclaimed psychic as the article indicated, then it would not have bothered me at all. There are a few more fairly substantial descrepancies, but they still would have been OK if the article was portrayed as solely a skeptical point of view.
These things bother me, with my past experiences online. I do not like injustices, and I stand up for truth, defending truth in my opinion. Being an online forum, it is a corrupt system to field replies this way. As I quoted earlier, half-truths are evil. They have one purpose…to deceive.
I felt there was a way to get to the bottom of this. Throw it out into the jungle so to speak…to give this website a chance to show who they really are. I have to admit, I expected to be "controlled’, since I have encountered this exact situation many times. I was prepared to expose what I knew was pure skepticism portrayed as fact.
I did not create the terms or methods of this site. I merely exposed them. I knew up front that I could not conform to your methods. If I did paste as you asked, you would use any tools available to maintain your status quo. But I had to be totally honest, though not fully disclosive of my goals.
I was right on. After I pushed several “buttons”, I did expose the skeptical nature which is subjective and dangerous. If you are noble in your cause, you must assume a noble position. Instead, the corrupt system failed…the “paste and deceive” technique surfaced.
There is a convenience and clarity function to pasting, but it is commonly exploited for deception…creating outright lies by context issues that change words from another into weapons…changing their intent. To assume the roles required for seeking truth, you must actually care about truth.
My analogy concerning the court of law explains much. My many tangents were designed to keep myself immune to your control tactics that I expected, and received…and to provide Cayce insight, non-scientific concepts intended to inspire and provoke, and promote passion and real-life emotions.
There were some attempts to appear as though you were interested, but it was intended to get me to conform. Once I gave in and pasted what you wanted, you would have prosecuted it with enthusiasm, using skeptic tactics and shifting burdens upon me.
I never intended to change anyone’s beliefs. Everything I did was designed to let you take your flaws and magnify them. Yes, I had hoped I would be asked to show how I can improve David’s article. It is a shame that you work so hard to defend your skeptic society website which is based on the end result…debunking all that exists. Why else would someone refuse to be a bit more vulnerable, which is where you start when you are honest. You “clean the slate” and hold yourself accountable for your words and actions.
It is a shame that websites operate this way. Truth is so precious, and skepticism is so valuable. Humanity ruins what it touches, and that admission is where we start. Had I had a noble reaction at any time, which would include making yourself somewhat vulnerable, then the burden would have been shifted to me honestly. You guys would have owned me if you just had the ability to accept reponsibly.
One good thing, you can improve any minute of any day. When we hesitate to place blame until after we have earned that right, then we are able to stand up to scrutiny without being afraid. When people, who are imperfect, can admit they are able to improve, and show compassion for the needs of others, and have a desire to be worthy of what they proclaim themselves to be, then they have honor.
reading this thread has made me dumber
In many cases, when people want a handy illustration of “meaningless”, they reach for Chomsky’s famous creation, “Colourless green ideas sleep furiously”.
Now we have an equally good alternative: all of soffty’s posts in this thread.
Perhaps we could adopt this flowering of Soffly’s ‘wisdom’ as our own favourite, home-grown example of “meaningless”. He or she has an apparently endless gift for demonstrating that you can arrange words in patterns that are gramamtically ‘correct’, and yet convey no meaning whatsoever.
Off-topic. Please see post #164.
Promises, promises.
Some points to ponder:[ul][]Soffty has posted a “final” essay of 784 words. This post, along with all his previous ones, never once attempted to answer the simple and serious question posed at 17 different times, by different participants, in posts 26,33,50,56,66,82,83,85,90,103,113,117,143,158,164,166, and 173.[]Soffty complains about treatment in this forum/thread, yet a moderator once admonished someone else for too strong an insult.The term “pathological posting” comes to mind.[/ul]
Possibly, possibly. So give us one and we’ll see. You still haven’t even done that.
You’re like the house guest who never leaves. You’re like Cousin Eddie. You’re like a persistant zit that won’t go away. You keep promising to go away, but every day I see a new page festering in this stupid thread. If I pretend like I’m interested, will you shut up and leave?
Can we please stop feeding this. . .thing? (said the guy who couldn’t resist coming back one more time :smack: )
I know what you mean. At this point it seems like a reasonable assumption that Soffty really can’t find anything wrong with the staff report, but it offends his beliefs so he keeps trying to insist it’s wrong in the hopes we’ll all get tired and agree.
outright lies created by context issues that change words from another into weapons by me
I, too, will act against my better judgment and make myself vulnerable.
soffty, could you guide a skeptic to a website that fights against this pernicious proving and cut-n-paste controlling? Perhaps I could improve to the point of recognizing how any of this pertains to the OP.
I don’t need no stinking guide. 