KGS you silly boy, get your ass in here

[Dunderman]

[QUOTE=KGS]
Stop pretending this is a debate. It’s a dogpile, plain and simple. Particularly with comments like this: And that’s just the first page. So…I’m the one who’s supposed to be polite, calm, rational, and backing up each word I type with scholarly, peer-reviewed citations?? Nice debate, yeah. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

The debate turned that way after you acted like a moron.

Are you seriously trying to tell me, that whenever you think of this perceived triumph over Cityboy, you DON’T get a slight grin on your face, accompanied by a quick, brisk stroke to your self-esteem?

Stop projecting. There wasn’t even a triumph. He just said “oops, it seems I was wrong”. That’s no reason to gloat.

Did Cityboy know your true, full name? If not, no wonder he couldn’t find your desk.

Do you know anything, anything at all, about how tests, experiments and studies are done? cityboy clearly stated he could find the desk by thinking about it as “glee’s desk”. Whether or not you say it’s impossible is totally irrelevant. glee was given a claim to test, and tested it.

Aaaaand…hate to burst your ego bubble, but…
I’ve underlined the parts you missed. His use of “probably” and “might” prove conclusively that his opinion had NOT changed, he was just no longer 100% sure that Remote Viewing actually worked.

You are quite amazingly stupid. His opinion changed from “I can do remote viewing” (which is not even an opinion, but a factual claim) to “there probably is no such thing as remote viewing, and if there is, it isn’t what I’ve experienced”. For someone who claims that going from “I’m possibly psychic” to “psychic powers aren’t reliable” is a significant change of opinion, that cityboy didn’t change his opinion at all is a rather curious statement. Not that you’re able to notice such things.

[FinnAgain]

[QUOTE=KGS]
Good Lord, glee! I wait two days for you to show up, and this is the best you can come up with?

Stop pretending this is a debate. It’s a dogpile, plain and simple. Particularly with comments like this:[snip]

@FinnAgain

We don’t have to suspend judgement just because someone claims something.

[/quote]

Heavens forfend! Someone pointing out that the person making a claim has the burden of proof upon them? Gee, that sure it some vicious dogpiling, there.

[glee]

[QUOTE=KGS]
Good Lord, glee! I wait two days for you to show up, and this is the best you can come up with?

[/quote]

Oh dear.
You spent **two days ** waiting for my reply?
You need to get off the Internet, and get out more. See a movie, shoot some hoops. Your small world is closing in on you.

[QUOTE=KGS]

Stop pretending this is a debate.

[/quote]

It certainly isn’t a debate. That’s because you refuse to back up any of your claims, and **won’t listen ** to any of ours.

[QUOTE=KGS]

All I can say is…there IS something to it. You can’t convince me otherwise.

[/quote]

Instead of debating, you resort to insults:

[QUOTE=KGS]
It’s a dogpile, plain and simple.
[/quote]

And here’s the worst of the pack (all posted by you of course):

AHA!!! So THAT’S where his prejudice comes from!! I should have known. All this time, he’s pretending to be fair & balanced, when in fact HIS CAREER depends on the non-existence of psychic power. That explains the denial, the evasive answers, and the barely concealed hostility. It all boils down to money in the end, doesn’t it?

However, some people – in fact, most people, especially Americans – are solely money-oriented…

Like I ever met this twit before I posted to that thread…

Look, as far as I’m concerned, Ianzin acted like an asshole.

So, fuck it. Fuck you, and fuck apologies.

I’m too busy with real life to go back read the whole stupid thread…

I know there’s a deep-seated hostility towards psychics on the SDMB…

You are far too daft to realize this…

Heck, sometimes I feel like I’m standing onstage at a Klan rally, trying to explain that some minority groups aren’t criminals…

Well, then you must not have a brain…

I am not the one showing sociopathic behavoir here. Not that I expect anyone else to admit to that…

Are you one of the deluded test subjects, or part of the conspiracy?

Sorry, that’s the only answer that applies to your bonehead question.

Read the fucking thread again, you festering hyena stool.

You fuckin’ little liar.

[QUOTE=KGS]

So…I’m the one who’s supposed to be polite, calm, rational, and backing up each word I type with scholarly, peer-reviewed citations?? Nice debate, yeah. :rolleyes:

[/quote]

On this board we are all supposed to aim for that standard.
You’re the one who won’t post any cites.

[QUOTE=KGS]

Did Cityboy know your true, full name? If not, no wonder he couldn’t find your desk.

[/quote]

Oh look. Another KGS claim about psychic powers!
So unless a remote viewer knows your true, full name, they can’t find your desk?
Here are the implications of your statement:

• KGS knows that remote viewing exists (cite?)
• KGS knows that remote viewing won’t work if the true name of the subject is not given (cite?)
• KGS knows that remote viewing won’t work if the full name of the subject is not given (cite?)

Of course there will be no cites.

[KGS]

@glee

It certainly isn’t a debate. That’s because you refuse to back up any of your claims, and **won’t listen ** to any of ours.

Then why do you keep pretending that it’s a debate? I’ve been more than open about my beliefs, and I’ve backed them up with evidence. Granted, the only evidence I have is anecdotal and subjective. If that’s not good enough for you, well…it ain’t my cross to bear. This “discussion” (a stretch to even call it that) has tested some of my beliefs, and I can see which ones need work, and which ones are more firm than ever. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if anyone believes me or not.

[QUOTE=glee]
On this board we are all supposed to aim for that standard.
You’re the one who won’t post any cites.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Not every thread on the SDMB is a debate. Some are expressing opinions only, and some are about Mundane Pointless Shit I Must Spew From My Ass. Look, YOU are the one who’s addicted to debates. You want a cite? Check out this IMHO thread, where you started to debate the existence of ghosts, and you got bitch-slapped by a moderator in the very next reply.

@glee

Oh look. Another KGS claim about psychic powers!
So unless a remote viewer knows your true, full name, they can’t find your desk?

Well, every psychic reading I’ve ever had, started with me stating my full name three times. It “opens up the channel”, they said. (Whatever the hell that means.) As for remote viewing…okay, I’ll be honest. I don’t have any proof that remote viewing actually works, and I have no direct experience with it. So I’m not gonna defend remote viewing specifically, because unlike other psychic phenomena, I’ve never seen this one actually work.

I will not however, assert that ALL psychic powers are fake, just because this particular one doesn’t work. That’s close-minded behavior – and frankly, it’s not even remotely scientific. The nature of Science requires you to be open-minded to new ideas, accepting of new theories like splitting the atom. To close your mind off to other people’s opinions, other people’s experiences and beliefs, and focus only on what in your small world has been objectively proven, and insist on “cites” for the most ridiculously tiny things – well, that’s a perversion of Science. And I find that attitude downright offensive.

[Dunderman]

[QUOTE=KGS]
I will not however, assert that ALL psychic powers are fake, just because this particular one doesn’t work.
[/quote]

And nor does anyone else.

The nature of Science requires you to be open-minded to new ideas, accepting of new theories like splitting the atom.

Ideas with evidence behind them, such as the idea that splitting the atom would be possible. And it was!

On the other hand, we have ideas with no evidence behind them. There is no requirement to be open-minded to those ideas.

[glee]

@glee

It certainly isn’t a debate. That’s because you refuse to back up any of your claims, and won’t listen to any of ours.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Then why do you keep pretending that it’s a debate? I’ve been more than open about my beliefs, and I’ve backed them up with evidence. Granted, the only evidence I have is anecdotal and subjective. If that’s not good enough for you, well…it ain’t my cross to bear. This “discussion” (a stretch to even call it that) has tested some of my beliefs, and I can see which ones need work, and which ones are more firm than ever. I don’t really give a rat’s ass if anyone believes me or not.

[/quote]

It could be a good debate. But you have not been making a useful contribution.
(This is the first time you’ve admitted that your evidence is anecdotal and subjective.)
I called you on your claims, which clearly implied that you knew a lot about paranormal powers, including remote viewing.
Now you post “As for remote viewing…okay, I’ll be honest. I don’t have any proof that remote viewing actually works, and I have no direct experience with it. So I’m not gonna defend remote viewing specifically, because unlike other psychic phenomena, I’ve never seen this one actually work.”
That’s fine.

Please bear in mind that all sorts of threads take place here, but once someone makes a claim, they will be asked what evidence they have to support it.

@kgs

Well, every psychic reading I’ve ever had, started with me stating my full name three times. It “opens up the channel”, they said. (Whatever the hell that means.)

Now this is interesting. I have no experience of psychic readings, so I’d like to learn more.
Did the psychic explain what happened if the subject didn’t state their name in this way?
Was the reading similar to ‘cold reading’?
Did you think the psychic justified their fee?

@kgs

I will not however, assert that ALL psychic powers are fake, just because this particular one doesn’t work. That’s close-minded behavior – and frankly, it’s not even remotely scientific. The nature of Science requires you to be open-minded to new ideas, accepting of new theories like splitting the atom. To close your mind off to other people’s opinions, other people’s experiences and beliefs, and focus only on what in your small world has been objectively proven, and insist on “cites” for the most ridiculously tiny things – well, that’s a perversion of Science. And I find that attitude downright offensive.

Who said all psychic powers are fake, just because one doesn’t work?

I’m a scientist and my position is that it would be great if there were new powers we could make use of. I just need to know what evidence there is for these claims.
Sadly every time the paranormal is investigated scientifically, the powers fail to work. Every time.
And your claims were not ‘ridiculously tiny’. They were clear statements that you knew details of amazing powers that have never been seen before. If I say I can levitate at will, I need to back that statement up.

@kgs

You want a cite? Check out this IMHO thread, where you started to debate the existence of ghosts, and you got bitch-slapped by a moderator in the very next reply.

Thanks for the cite.
However ‘bitch-slapped’? [Princess Bride ON] I do not think this word means what you think it means [Princess Bride OFF]
In your example a Moderator asks me politely just to vote, not discuss.
Instead this thread is an example of ‘bitch-slapped’!