Yanking Our Chains

You guessed it... a thread about Truthseeker.

I am beginning to suspect that Truthseeker is not what he's "cracked up" to be (pun intended). There are far too many contradictions in his posts that reveal he doesn't believe what he's posting. He claims to be in a 'home stay' scenario to attend school and claims this was forced upon him by society. That could only be by choice. He abhors rationality yet claims he is rational. He claims education will eventually be the destruction of us all yet he claims to have studied psychology for years. Curious.

If he did believe what he's posting and his countenance remained as is, he would most likely wind up selling pencils on the street corner. Only a complete fool would hire him. If he believed in his "truth" and "love" theories, his claims, which are pure fiction, would not be necessary. There would be no reason for him to lie to everyone.

The Q submits he is posting his nonsense only to see our reactions. The more we react, the more nonsense he posts. He is playing everyone here like a well tuned squeezebox.

The Q submits Truthseeker is yanking our chains.

What say you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You guys really love to tear truthseeker apart. Could you explain to me what's wrong with him, other than what you've already said?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Picking apart those who are not established as part of the clique seems to be the modus operandi here. It's like being welcomed by a group of hungry cannibals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*Places a head on a pike*

Of course, Dr.Eyvl could leave, rather than brood about some disagreement he had with Asguard. Or he could grow some balls. Or he could quit whining....

On to the affairs of better men!

Pollux: Nobody 'loves' tearing Nelson apart. I would much prefer that Nelson justified his assertions, or stopped resorting to insults when questioned, so that we could have a rational discussion.

Of late I have been ignoring him, but I do not wish to have some interpret my silence as agreement. I do think that the Q is wrong, I doubt that Nelson is making his history up or 'yanking our chains'.

 

Ouch! She's nasty.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I guess I just have to keep my eyes peeled. He spaces all of his sentences apart so I just skip his posts anyway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Adam here in america we might say 'nayastay!'

 

I have only been here a couple of months, in no way am I a part of the "clique", yet oddly enough, no one has ever attacked me or torn me apart.

It also took me about 3 seconds to realize what TruthSeeker is all about.

But since we are talking about TruthBeater, I want to discuss the "purple clad scientist from Orion" thing. Being a comparative newcomer, I never saw the original thread where he claimed such a thing, but Q often mentions it. Where did this first come up? I am curious, it sounds pretty funny.

All in all, though, I just want to drop an anvil on him. Maybe several.

 

Dr Evyl/Pollux

This thread was not triggered to tear apart Truthseeker nor does this have anything to do with a clique.

In another thread, I commented that all members, regardless of what they post, should be treated as equals, Truthseeker included. It was brought to my attention that Sciforums is a community and that disruptive posters can harm the community and that their actions should be discussed or the poster should simply be ignored. At first I did not agree, however the argument from the other members was strong and I have changed my mind somewhat.

What triggered this thread was that Truthseeker once again posted his nonsense in a science forum. It was properly moved to another more appropriate forum. Thanks go out to the moderator. The Q however, became hostile and began to suspect that Truthseeker is flirting with us and making us all look the fool.

Xev does not agree. Although the Q has agreed with Xev on many occasions, there were times of disagreement. However, the Q appreciates the bright mind of the young Xev (amongst other things). Her disagreement with the Q will most certainly be taken into consideration. The Q could very easily be wrong. Show me I am wrong.

 

Northwind

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?postid=99312&highlight=Orion purple#post99312

Enjoy.

 

I believe the burden of proving something rests with the one trying to prove an unknown.

And I really hope that thing about Orion aliens was a joke.

 

Adam

I believe the burden of proving something rests with the one trying to prove an unknown.

Very true. Therefore, can you comment on any of the points I've made above? Agree? Disagree?

 

No, I'm a pathetically indecisive atheist and skeptic. This is yet one more piece of paper in my Undecided tray.

PS: My Undecided tray is about 75 billion times as large as the Decided tray.

 

Q: Young indeed.

I cannot show that you are wrong, only Nelson can by beginning to back up his posts with substance.

My feelings on the matter are mere intuition - I get the feeling that Nelson is sincere. His posts reek of the sincerety, dedication and frenzy of a man who thinks he has found the Eternal Truth (tm)

However, this may be a defect of my nature. I am not one who can easily 'act a part'. I appear to be as I am, and I do not expect that sort of deception in others. To watch for it takes an act of will that I have yet to get accustomed to.

In any case, my feelings and intuitions are not evidence. As evidence, I submit that Nelson's history has yet to contradict itself, although his professed feelings do.

He claims to be utterly rational while disparaging rationality? I think this is more a proof of his irrationality than of deception.

The same can be said of his claims about education.

Further, he often contradicts himself for the simple reason that he cannot admit that he was mistaken.

His claims that society forces him to do certain things are only evidence of his problem with responsibility - and one can see that problem in his claims that rapists are not bad but 'sick'.
http://www.sciforums.com/f22/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6894&pagenumber=7

Furthermore, I do not think that his reaction to Tony1 could be considered acting a part - I see a certain sincerity -
http://www.sciforums.com/t6531/s/thread.html

I do not see somone playing a role. I see a rather confused man.

*Sigh*

Aren't we all?

Er, confused, not men, that is.

Edit to add: Perhaps I believe his sincerity because I am, or was, very like him. The desire to save the world, the 'why can't we all just get along?!', the belief that there is a solution to all problems.....

Luckily, I have a better conciousness of my limitations, and I became a skeptic. And I am gifted with a certain native cynicism and 'coldness'.

 

I so enjoy watching the fifth and sixth generations of sciforums bicker amongst yourselves. What's this? You call me a hypocrite? Well you forget I was part of the SECOND GENERATIONS over a year ago. Yeah, right on.

But, you must also remember that like, a ton of people that are my friends are coming here. Cactus Jack, Oedipus, Lesion, and more recently, Rasputin (the unforgivng bastald didn't say that I referred him).

But Back to Truthseeker.

 

quote:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Love is NOT mental insanity. Lack of it is what is completly mental insanity. How can someone live without Love?

NEEDS, in oder hand, can surely cause mental insanity. Need is commonly mistaken by love...



If you can't live without something, isn't it a need?
__________________


Cactus,

quote:

If you can't live without something, isn't it a need?


Love IS life...




~Well there we go. It really speaks for its self
~Cactus

 

A thought

Our friend Truthseeker and Paul W. Dixon of "Supernova from experimentation" fame are one and the same.

Paul is a psychologist. I get the distinct feeling he posts to see what peoples reactions are. As I said before, I felt as if he was conducting an experiment on 'internet debunkers'. Same for Truthseeker. Who ever it is posts random, wishy washy, hand waving contradictions to see what the reactions are.

Or am I reading too much into things. Truthseeker, perhaps you can enlighten us all with simple, plain speech.

BTW, Xev, drop that dead guy, Ki, for some one with feeling and an admiration for what a love slave can really do. Stanley is a dork.

 

Thed:

Nelson isn't Nelson? Interesting.

And who might that be?

Besides;
"That is not dead which can eternal lie
And with strange aeons even death may die."

Sorry, had to say it. Damn phrase sticks in your head if you don't, and I look odd going about muttering it.

 

Oh, okay then, maybe.......

H.P LOVECRAFT!

Oh wait, he's dead too. Damn. Damn. Damn.

Yog-Sogeth knows the gate! Yog-Sogoth is the gate! He knows where the Great Ones broke through of old, and they shall break through again! Past, present and future, all are one in Yog-Sogoth!

This is oddly relaxing.

 

Tiassa once mentioned gray matter with regard to ts but was otherwise neutral.

There is a wide range of interests here, and intellects, but also different levels of intelligence. It is usually not very discrete to criticize someone's intelligence especially without some form of independent measure, but if we are honest then intelligence can play a significant role in ability to perceive complex issues as well as to reach meaningful conclusions.

There is a direct correlation between levels of intelligence and levels of confusion.

IOW people with high IQ are rarely perceived as confused people, and usually quite the reverse.

I don’t believe truthseeker is capable of being manipulative in the way that Q suggests, but confusion, and all that that implies, is I think the most credible explanation.

I suggest the correct approach to such a condition is – to be sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant of the weak and wrong.

It is interesting to note that the degree of involvement with the Supernatural, including religion, is directly proportional to the degree of factual knowledge available to a person: To the extent of his involvement with the uncompromising, hard facts of science. The bell curve, depicting the graphic display of variances in intelligence within a population, places 80% of the U. S. population in the I.Q. range from 85 to 115 -- the median range of intelligence.

Is it really a coincidence that about 90 % of the U. S. population is also involved in religious or irrational belief systems? The September 1999 issue of the prestigious "Scientific American" magazine published a repeat-survey, confirming previous surveys: Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered "eminent" scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife. Contrary to the notion fostered by so-called "creation-scientists", Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god.

So the issue of truthseeker is simply that he is of average intelligence, i.e. between 85 and 115. I suspect those here who are at college and are doing reasonably well are more likely to be around the 130 level and can demonstrate a significantly higher degree of reasoning power. I also suspect that most of those who want to communicate through this medium in what is effectively an intellectual activity (as opposed to playing mind numbing computer games), are those who appreciate and want to take part in reasoned arguments. But there are exceptions - note that truthseeker tends to preach and so does Loone, and their responses to criticism tend to be less than effective and often turn into abuse.

So should we criticize someone for being average or should we just accept the diversity that constitutes the human race and sympathize with those less capable?

Cris