Pulling of "Designing a test for Psychic Urination" in Great Debates

The BBQ Pit
1

I posted this in one of the topics there and I reproduce it here. Its for tomndebb who pulled my post on Designing a test for Psychic Urination, posted in the Great Debates forum.

This post is also to reply to tomndebb who closed my topic on “Designing a test for psychic urination” as he gave me no opportunity to reply to his question and statement (statements actually) that he put to me.

tomndebb you asked me a question and made some disparaging statements about my topic and then closed it with remarkable haste. Dont you think that you should have waited till I next logged on to give me an opportunity to reply?

Anyway I’ll do so now. This is what you wrote: “richnz, do you have a point to this? As a (poor) parody, it still appears to lack an actual point to debate.”
Do I have a point to this - yes and I shall tell you shortly and I have a few questions of my own.

It is a (poor) parody - according to you. Thank you for your kind comments, however this is just your opinion - no one else seems to have given an unfavourable opinion. To be fair to you they may not have had enough time. Then again, to be fair to me, someone may have given a favourable comment also but they may not have had enough time.

“it … appears to lack an actual point to debate.” Here I tend to agree with you, but then I am new to this board and I take my cues from what is posted here. I dont see any great difference between designing a test for psychic urination and designing a test for dowsing, which begs the question, why was I pulled whereas this particular one not?

While on this topic there are a few which may not quite be “discussions of the great questions of our time”. Would “Do Muslims party?” qualify as one of the great questions of our time I wonder? Let me hazard a guess though (on this question) while I’m about it. Many Muslims party like mad and drink like mad too - but then again it boils down to what is meant by Muslims, after all there are a few billion around. Partying in the western sense, like dancing in a disco, or party etc is frowned upon by the Islamic religion and you would probably not find Osama bin laden and his ilk jiving in a discotheque. They are more likely to gatecrash the party in a jumbo jet (and thereby party in a more pleasant place) - but I digress.

Back to my post - you claim that it is a parody- poor one at that - ouch! Parody of what exactly? I have reproduced, one of the claimants of the prizes, claims. Does it sound ridiculous to you? Thats not my fault. I didnt make the claim.

Which brings me finally to my point.(Do you have a point to this?). I do not think that debating ANY paranormal ability is one of the great questions of our time. If you read the claimants claims on James Randi’s website - they are hilarious. I have just reproduced one. But then again it may just be my quirky sense of humour. Then again, maybe others may find it funny too - who knows, give it a chance. I know you were not amused, but do you wish to impose your judgement on all who read these posts? sincerely yours - richnz

2

Tldr

3

What does that mean? I’ve seen it on other MBs.

Nevermind. I looked it up.

4

Link to original thread.

Link to Rosemary Hunter story on James Randi’s website.

5

richnz, a word to the wise…putting the identical post in two forums or even two threads is frowned upon. Just post one and link to it as a reference.

That way, if we don’t want to read one, we can easily avoid the other. :slight_smile:

6

Q.E.D., I know it’s fun to be edgy, but we really don’t need this kind of thread-shitting. You’re welcome to mock the OP for his wordiness, but let’s use our big boy words.

7

While the OP wasn’t too long, it was poorly written and difficult to read.

But here you note that your thread doesn’t have an actual point to debate, so you’re admitting that it doesn’t belong in Great Debates. So what’s the point of this Pitting? tomndebb did the right thing according to you.

Since you’re new, and you say that you’re taking your cues from what others post, isn’t what tomndebb posted a cue?

If you really have a point to debate, please share it with us here. I personally don’t see it. If not, parody threads go to MPSIMS.*
ETA: *if they need to be done at all

8

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the thread, allowing a mere 25 minutes for right of response seems a little on the stingy side. This is, after all, a messageboard, not a chat room.

9

Regardless of the outcome of this thread, I can only advise rich to let it be his last on this particular subject. The worst thing you can do with a joke, funny or not, is overtell it in the effort to make sure the audience completely gets it.

10

No Heffalump and Roo I am not admitting that it doesnt belong in Great Debates. I did not say that indeed quite the opposite.

If you read what I said was there is not much difference between my thread which was “designing a test for Psychic Urination” and the thread “designing a test for psychic dowsing”. If designing a test for psychic dowsing belongs in Great Debates, so does mine. If questions like “Do Muslims Party?” belong in Great Debates my question certainly does.

What I suggested was (from observation) that the topics in the Great Debates were not really very Great and the questions not really “the great questions of our time”.

Those were the cues I had- the postings in Great Debates. How could I take a cue from tomndebb, who asked a question and closed me in my absence? and indeed has yet to answer the questions I have posed him.

It is not surprising that you personally dont see things. Your sight seems to be selective. But thats just what I personally see.

11

Thank you

12

So is your point that most of the topics in Great Debates are vaguely retarded? Because I could get behind that.

13

I almost started a pit thread on the same topic, but I was too lazy. This closing had two problems with it, IMO:

  1. Allowing a poster less than an hour to defend their thesis is awfully stingy–especially in the wee hours of the morning.
  2. Tom, I’ve noticed lately that you, when moderating, often tell posters that their jokes are unfunny. You don’t do it cleverly, you just do it, sort of like a fifth grader who thinks it’s the height of hilarity to stare stonyfaced at someone who’s just told a joke. It’s obnoxious. You can moderate without acting like a fifth grader.

Daniel

14

Sure, Barney, whatever blows up the skirt of Mayberry’s finest.

15

I sure do appreciate it! Gollll-leee!

16

Wait. :tap, tap, tap: Is this thing on? I’m trying to speak as loudly as I can, but the amplifier seems to be broken.

Let’s try again. If you don’t have a point to debate as quoted in my last post, then the thread doesn’t belong in Great Debates. Can we agree on that?

Whether other threads belong in Great Debates is a different question from whether your thread belongs there. It may be that your thread doesn’t belong there AND those other threads don’t belong there either. If you don’t think a thread belongs in Great Debates, you can report it with the report a post button on the top of the post and alert a moderator that you think it should be moved. If you disagree with their decision and they don’t move it, you can then Pit them for that. But this is all unrelated to whether YOUR thread belongs in Great Debates (which you admitted that it doesn’t).

That may be true. That’s a bit of an opinion about what constitutes the great questions of our time. If you have examples of some actual great questions of our time that you’d like to debate and can do so intelligently, I’d welcome that. Please do so. But from what I’ve seen here, I won’t hold my breath.

You say you’re taking cues about what should be posted in Great Debates. A poster who also happens to be a moderator notes in your thread that he doesn’t think that your thread qualifies as a thread in Great Debates. That seems like a cue to me.

Now, you couldn’t have known that before you posted the thread, but you knew it before you posted this Pitting. So after you posted the thread, but before you posted this Pitting, you could have taken a cue that it didn’t belong in Great Debates.

I’m sure it is. But can you elaborate a little more on what I’m specifically selecting?

If you’re contending that I personally don’t see your point, you’re right about that. And I’ve selected that based on a number of other things I see.

17

I think most of the posters in GD are vaguely retarded (socially, anyway). But that’s just my opinion.

18

Nothing vague about it, is mine…

19

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
Wait. :tap, tap, tap: Is this thing on? I’m trying to speak as loudly as I can, but the amplifier seems to be broken.

Let’s try again. If you don’t have a point to debate as quoted in my last post, then the thread doesn’t belong in Great Debates. Can we agree on that?

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]

Tap tap tap… you are NOT the moderator and pretty lousy on wit and sarcasm – can we agree on that?

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]
If you have examples of some actual great questions of our time that you’d like to debate and can do so intelligently, I’d welcome that. Please do so. But from what I’ve seen here, I won’t hold my breath.

[QUOTE=Heffalump and Roo]

What a lovely character you are mate. Quick to pass nasty judgements on very little evidence. I’m not usually impolite, but I can assure you I can give as good as I get.

You would like to see examples of some actual great questions? It’s not really worth it in this forum. Jesus Christ he say - cast not your pearl before swine lest they turn around and rend you. I wouldn’t stake my life on it, but probably the same thing applies to Pitt Bulls.

You see people in the pits when given a more than one sentence CRCITL – (that’s Cant Read 'Cause Its Too Long) and BCWE – (that’s - Besides Cant Write Either). TDSATWHITP (that’s That Despite Spending All Their Waking Hours In The Pits) and STTW (Struggling Through The Words), BTTTHRHWTTHFTFBBOMD (that’s – By The Time They Have Read Half Way Through, They Have Forgotten The First Bit Because Of Mild Dementia) and VSAS (Very Short Attention Span).

However I will take pity on you and give you one example of an actual great question of our age.

Ours is an age of genetic engineering. Gene’s are being swapped around to make exotic organisms - the latest marvels of modern science.

So here’s a question for you to ponder over – What would be the worst case scenario of a cross between an Elephant and Pitt Bull?

Hint - when Einstein was crossed with a Beauty Queen the offspring had Einstein’s looks and the Beauty Queen’s brains.

Now ponder over this, don’t forget to breathe, and I’ll be back in ten years to check your answers. If you haven’t breathed your last that is.

PS No cheating mate! And consulting snow white’s magic mirror!

20

Great Debates is a Forum for debates. The “Great” in the title is a bit ironic: in its original incarnation before the Cafe Society and IMHO Forums were created, an example given for a topic was “Kirk vs. Picard.” However, there should be an actual debate (or some religious witnessing) somewhere in the OP. The dowsing thread seeks a method to test an actual series of claims that have been repeated ad infinitum et ad nauseam by proponents of claims for the paranormal. We have had numerous threads over the years attacking or defending beliefs in the paranormal and a thread discussing a specific claim made for the paranormal can be debated pretty easily.

Now, it has been brought to my attention that Randi and JREF actually did do some sort of test on compelling urination. If you can put together a post that actually engages that in a coherent fashion, I would be willing to re-open the thread.

Based on the basic incoherence of the OP, (which you, yourself admit had no point to debate), I decided to close the thread rather than letting it attract a lot of untoward comments throughout the day, before another GD Moderator could review it, that would require Moderator intervention. It seemed the most merciful tack to take. I am willing to reverse that decision if the thread is going to have an understandable position that can be debated. (It does not have to be profound, but it needs to be understandable and debatable.)

So, if I understand your complaint, when I note that an attempt at humor has failed miserably, I should do it in some sort of cutesy prose?

I’ll pass.
I generally refrain from pointing out that various posters have demonstrated the intelligence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and I never tell a poster that they have no right to express a belief. Given much of the drek I have to wade through each day to keep you people from eviscerating each others’ psyches, I reserve the right to note when a poster’s sense of humor displays a serious failure in its execution.