Well, yes. That’s rather what Gary was disputing.
Try going to the JREF and mention any alternative thoughts to the Official Truth, and you’ll either be ridiculed mercilessly, treated with derision and contempt, or told to read the 10,000 page NIST report before you can comment.
Sorry about your baggage, dude, but this isn’t JREF.
It’s not baggage. I’ve been banned from the place over 12 mths now, and how many times have I mentioned that before this moment?
To save you searching through my posts, I’ll tell you… none!
Gary “Wombat” Robson said:
By your definition, what makes something “hate speech”?
I think most people are using the label “woo-woo” derisively. I don’t think anyone considers that a neutral term for paranormal or counter-science beliefs.
That doesn’t make it “hate speech” in a legally actionable context.
Peter Morris said:
If someone rejects every bit of evidence you present them, is it because they are being dismissive and defending their own entrenched belief that is counter to yours, or is it because all the evidence presented is lacking in rigor?
Peter Morris said:
I’m certainly not going to claim that nobody has ever used “woo-woo” to mean the female genitals. But how common is it? Certainly less common than using “pee-pee” to mean the penis (as opposed to piss).
The relevant point, though, is if that has any connection to the use of “woo-woo” to mean “supernatural, paranormal, counter-science, or mystical claims”. You have made that claim, and that is the claim that is being contested. There is no evidence to support that claim.
ivan astikov said:
If they are “reporting the phenomenon”, then they are claiming an interpretation of the phenomenon. If they are offering no evidence for their interpretation, then there is no burden to provide any explanation for dismissing them beyond “you have failed to provide any evidence to support the claim this is what you think it is”.
Bosstone, from my reading of Gary’s comment, he sounds like he is trying to refute Peter, but he is actually stating Peter’s point: the self-styled “skeptics” are in fact not skeptics at all.
I’m skeptical.
Just finished the whole thread.
So the answer is no?
That is correct.
I think it is time to put this thread where it belongs; in the sceptic tank.
Be sure and flush twice. Those are some pretty big logs!
I didn’t read the whole thread so bash me if you will.
But “woo” or “woo-woo” is not bashing or hating. It is simply a dismissing of what you believe. We neither bash, nor hate it, we simply check it, find it failing, and then do not regard it, at all.
I think you’re right. It’s clear that Cecil Adams, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan’s ghost, and God Almighty could hold a joint press conference on NBC, Fox, and CNN announcing that Peter Morris is wrong, and Peter would dismiss it out of hand.
In that case, I hope Fenris gets an official apology before this thread is closed.
Was that so hard?
Hey, it’s not easy being God disguised as a penguin in a pink tutu. Especially when everyone around you is saying, “Last year’s Mardi Gras was better.”
Loach said:
Did you read post 3? What are you complaining about? The third post is a moderator giving the exact same answer. The fourth post is a second moderator confirming and elaborating on that answer.
What are you complaining about? That the OP didn’t agree with the answer, so doesn’t want to accept it? Don’t blame the mods for that.
I’m not adding anything of substance here, but I do love this thread. If I’d known earlier that ATMB contained threads with this level of entertainment, I probably wouldn’t have discovered the other parts of the board.
Heartfelt thanks to all participants. I think I’ve learned enough from this thread to know that if my marriage ever fails, I’ll have no problems scorin’ me some new woo-woo, since I understand that it falls like rain here and on Randi’s board. Sweet.
Thank you for admitting that.
Mainly, my definition of “less good skeptic” is the ones who tell lies in order to support their position. And sadly, is board is infested with them.