Skeptics suck

Skeptics are a closed-minded, line-following, cowardly bunch with no real balls.

They live in a tiny world with their huge egos and never really accomplish anything, except recruit more spineless wannabes.


There’s always another beer.

I see you’ve moved your how-to-troll thread from MPSIMS.

Beer, so your skeptical of skeptics,eh?

Beeruser, is it true that you’re the guy Nicolas Cage based his characterization on in Leaving Las Vegas?( :slight_smile:

I realize this was a post that slithered down the board list from the Pit where Beeruser intended it to be, but an excess of anything is wrong. That would include skepticism. Moderation in all things, including moderation! :wink:

Well, since it’s in Great Debates, I’ll do some debunking.

I note with interest that BeerUser failed to provide any proof for his opinion that “Skeptics are a closed-minded, line-following, cowardly bunch with no real balls.”

I’ll start with your allegation that skeptics have no balls. If you meant to say that skeptics have balls but that they are not real, please correct me, and I’ll be glad to debunk that, too.

You cannot simply make an assertion of this nature and expect people to believe it. We need facts. A link to an original source, a book, anything would be a start. And no anecdotes-- The simple fact that you heard somewhere about a ball-less skeptic is not proof.

Even solid proof of the existence of a single or even a few ball-less skeptics does not mean that you can make a blanket assertion as to the ball-lessness skeptics in general. Remember that correlation is not necessarily causation, especially in the esoteric field of testicular deficiency.

Keep in mind that you make an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary proof is needed.

As to your second assertion, it assumes a priori the correctness of the first. Ergo, it is meaningless until you can prove the foundation.

So until you provide some real evidence, I refuse to believe that skeptics are any of the things you claim.

Can I wink-smiley thing a whole post? I’ll try :wink:

Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine

Manhattan, where can I send the retainer? You’re just the kind of lawyer anyone could possibly want? :slight_smile:

Now, to the topic at hand…

Some skeptics are of the female persuasion. With the rarest of exceptions, and ignoring incomplete transsexual operations, female persons are not possessed of balls in the anatomical sense. Therefore it is safe to believe that at least some skeptics are ball-less.

Further, I have never, whether in real life or in observations of fiction, non-fiction, or the Web, observed a skeptic attempting to recruit an invertebrate organism (except for one discussion with a theologically-minded octopus, but my own mental state was not conducive to objective observation at the time, and I may have hallucinated it). Therefore I would have to take exception to BeerUser’s comment about “…recruit[ing] more spineless wannabes.”

Not to mention that if they’re “wannabes,” why would they need to be recruited? You don’t recruit people that already want to be what you’re recruiting for!

Dammit, here I have been travelling on my life-journey, thinking that I am a fairly skeptical person if not a full-blown skeptic. Then Beeruser posts his well-reasoned definition of a skeptic, and I find the props knocked out from under me. I suppose that I will have to think of myself in different terms from now on, as I would never think of questioning Beeruser’s use of terms. Maybe I could use “realist”, as I do live in the great big objectively verifiable world, usually.

I would like to second Polycarp’s high opinion of manhatten. Any attorney who is also an old Deadhead can’t be all bad.

Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Cave ab homine unius libri

You are apparently unaware that “wannabe” is an invertebrate species know for its lack of testicles, grossly swollen ego and ability to follow a line precisely. It is also much prized for ease of recruitment by various groups, but I am generally told that skeptics find them unappealing, preferring to let the wannabes attach their leech-like mouths to the less discriminating. Therefore I must also object to Beeruser’s assertions.

“Eppur, si muove!” - Galileo Galilei

Dr. Fidelius said:

The problem, sir, is that most attorneys are deadheads, but not with reference to the music of the late Mr. Garcia and his colleagues.

Well, I will admit that I am close-minded. Every time I leave my mind open, the cat gets out.

I’m skeptical that I can add anything worthwhile to this thread, but i can assure you that I do, in fact, have testicles…

Yer pal,

Dr F:

Apropos of nothing at all, I’ve noticed, and appreciated, the sig of manhattan for quite some time.

That is all.

Flick Lives!

Oh, yeah, I also think that Beeruser is being a little too broad-brushed.

Flick Lives!

I’m so skeptical I doubt the sincerity of other skeptics.

-author forgotten

Yeah, well I’m skeptical that you’re really Occam!

He can’t possibly be Occam. Look at that stubble!

“The world ends when I die. And as far as I’m concerned, the rest of the universe might as well call it a day too.” – Matt Groening

Hey, I don’t doubt that he’s Occam. Look how many people have been using his razor lately, just on this board. Would you shave with something that’s been used that much? :slight_smile:

I don’t consider myself a skeptic.

But if you tell me the sun is shining, I’ll go to the window and look.

Then I’ll say, “Well, it was shining 8 minutes ago”.