In defence of space aliens

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by Magical Realist, Oct 10, 2017.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    The one the warning was issued for. But I could have easily have chosen many others that you have posted recently, as you know.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    It has relevant commentary, as do the others. Apparently you are back to making up reasons to ban me again. And they were wondering how serious ufo discussion was shut down here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,064
    You make no attempt to discuss - let alone analyze.

    That's OK occasionally, but you have resorted to treating this as nothing but a repository of links. You've been warned about that several times so you have no excuse to pretend you don't know what's wrong.

    And it plays directly to your habit of quantity (spamming) over quality (filtering and analyzing).
     
    foghorn likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Here's the entirety of what you posted with that video:
    This astounding incident occurred at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana in 1967 and involves an encounter with a ufo that definitely got the military's attention. The incident is depicted here in dramatized form and is based on the account of an eyewitness who was there at the time:
    Your "commentary" amounts to a bare description of what's in the video, combined with your personal opinion that its contents are "astounding".

    You have done nothing to try to confirm or refute the content of the video before spamming it to sciforums. Your post contains nothing about your assessment of the reliability of the data mentioned in the video, or how you reached your conclusions. You posted no questions about the video. You just delivered it as one more piece of spammed propaganda for your cause, as usual.

    And you know this.
    No. It's just that post from DaveC, above, reminded me that previously I educated you about the need for critical thinking when you cut-and-paste videos about UFOs, and gave you explicit instructions about what is required of you here. The post also reminded me that I have been lax in holding you to a minimum standard that avoids your posts descending to mere spam. In short, you have been getting away with reverting to old bad habits.

    It seems to me that you, too, need a reminder. This is a science forum, remember. You're supposed to support/defend your position, not just mindlessly proselytise.
    1. You're not "shut down". You're right here, posting about your obsession.
    2. You're not fooling anybody by pretending that you're actually interested in having a "serious discussion". With you, it's spam then quickly move on to the next shiny bauble before somebody starts picking too many holes in your nonsense. Nothing has changed in that regard, for years.
    3. In spite of you, there has been some serious discussion in this thread. For instance, recently Yazata posted some interesting thoughts, and we had a bit of a conversation about what he wrote. There are a number of other posters here who are interested in serious discussion of UFOs. Sadly, you don't seem to be one of them, despite being a True Believer.
     
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    You said analysis OR relevant commentary. I provided relevant commentary and you know it. Now you're making up shit about analyzing videos just to infract me. Direct me if you will to the Sci Forum rule that says I have to question the videos I am posting as evidence. Prove to me you didn't just make that up. I won't hold my breath.

    BTW spamming isn't posting videos. It's posting a brand or company logo or message on a discussion board or email to gain money or free advertising. Research the meaning of words you are going to use to incriminate me with.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,064
    "...spam is defined as multiple unsolicited messages ... to large numbers of recipients ... for the purpose of non-commercial proselytizing... "
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamming
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Magical Realist:

    I remind you of the warning you received on 10 July 2017:

    ----
    Here is the relevant site rule:

    I26. Evangelising is where the poster’s main aim is to spread the word about his or her beliefs, without being interested in real discussion or critical analysis.​
    ----
    For some time now, you have been posting text and video to spread the word about your beliefs in ghosts, UFOs and other "paranormal" phenomena.

    You raise no points for discussion. When questioned about the anecdotes you post, you are clearly not interested in any critical analysis or real discussion. Instead, your typical response is to post further, unrelated anecdotes.

    You have been in breach of our posting guidelines for some time now. This stops here.

    In future, you will post a critical analysis of any anecdotes you choose to present on this forum. This will include evidence for and against the veracity of your anecdotes. Moreover, you will be willing to discuss the details and circumstances and veracity of any anecdotes you post, and you will not post another unrelated one until discussion of the previous one is complete.

    Failing that, you will receive further warnings in accordance with our published policies.
    That was back in July 2017, more than four years ago. Since then, of course, you have accumulated many more warnings for exactly the same offence.

    In fact, since 2014 you have received more than 60 (!) warnings on sciforums, and many of them have been for this.

    Either you are very stupid and unable to learn or you know exactly what you are doing and you are willing to accept further warnings because you are unwilling to change your ways.

    So stop whining. You're making your choices. You will continue to make your choices. Don't complain when your actions have the consequences you must know they will have.

    Alternatively, if you really are as stupid as you'd like your readers to believe you are, please make some effort to get yourself educated. Go back to school, maybe.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    LOL! So iow, there is no Sci Forum rule against posting videos with commentary as evidence for the position you are arguing for. You did make it up, pulling it out of your ass back in 2017. And THAT folks is how we shut down serious discussion of ufos (or whatever other subject doesn't suit James R) on this discussion board.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  12. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,319
    But you aren't seriously discussing UFO's.
    It's the same basic "I found this, but I'm not willing to actually discuss the veracity of what I found".
    It's the same with your ghosts and poltergeists posts.
    What you're doing is in effect spamming.
    Personally I'm a skeptic, but I am willing to give it serious thought, but that require that the post I respond to and the poster is someone willing to discuss.
    You're not, MR.
    You just want the rest of us to clap our hands and say "wow, that's amazing! Thanks for blah blah".
    That's not a discussion ffs.
     
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    Every bit of evidence I post is with the intent to discuss it. Find me any case in which I posted a video or article and did not follow up with discussion afterwards with any who would discuss it. There are none. If noone discusses it with me, I can't make them so I move on. I have discussed and re-discussed over and over again for 5430 posts. The record of this thread speaks for itself. If there is too much evidence posted here for your taste, maybe you need to move on to another thread. It's not my fault if you can't handle it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Okay. Please make me a list of the most important evidential points you noticed in the video that attracted the warning. Tell me why you think those pieces of evidence are particular strong, what you have done to cross-check and verify those pieces of evidence, what research you have done to try to disconfirm that particular anecdote, and what the main skeptical objections to that particular video or its contents have been. Then we can start to have the discussion you claim to want.

    If you can do this, I will retract your warning for that video.
    Your method, if one could call it that, is to try to make your opponents do all of your homework for you. Your bring nothing of your own to the table - just second- or third-hand spam.

    When somebody does apply some basic critical thinking to one of your videos - which happens here far more often than you and your material deserve - you refuse to engage. You try to shut down the conversation. You insult the skeptics. You try to change the subject to a different video. You make useless claims, such as that because you have seen lots of other similar videos, therefore this one must be worth something.

    We never get any sense from you that your brain ever engages with actual analysis of the evidence. Quite the opposite, in fact. You run a mile from analysis.
    Indeed it does. A sorry record indeed, for you. Just endless repetitive nonsense copied mindlessly from youtube, for the most part.
    You missed the whole bit about quality vs quantity. Posting a whole heap of crap doesn't add up to "too much evidence". It adds up to a whole heap of crap.
    It's your fault that in the many years you have been here you have made no effort to learn anything new about the subject that so interests you. Smart people have patiently tried to educate you, but their efforts have gone to waste. In one ear and out the other.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  15. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,319
    The record doesn't speak well for your ability to apply even an ounce of critical thinking, MR.

    You're basically doing the gishgallop in the hope that nobody'll be able to cut through your endless trubeliever spam.

    Tbh I have no clue why you haven't faced more serious sanctions, but I guess James is way more lenient than you want to give him credit for.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,411
    Looking at MR's list of 60+ warnings, it does occur to me that we've been extraordinarily tolerant of this poster. Partly, of course, this is due to the very forgiving warning/ban system that we have in place. There are lots of second, third and 12th chances built into our procedures here. People can learn to work the system, and they often do. The usual method is to lie low for 6 months or so - don't do anything too controversial, keep your head down, don't ostentatiously flout the rules - then wait while your active warning points expire. Then you're "free" to rack up at least 50 points worth of warnings before you re-enter auto-ban territory.

    One idea that occurs to me is that, perhaps, we should just impose a cut-off somewhere in the process. 50 separate warnings = permanent ban, regardless of warning points expiring, say. If a person hasn't learned how he is expected to conduct himself in posting here, even after being reminded and educated about our policies 50 times, I'd say there's probably no chance of him ever learning (or, equivalently, agreeing to abide by the rules). Time to show him the door, maybe.

    We could put this to a vote in Open Government, if anybody is interested.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,133
    Since it's not a thread in Open Government yet (feel free to move this there when it is)...

    It penalises long-term members who pick up a few warnings a year but for a number of years... no real harm to anyone over the years but suddenly banned permanently? No, I think there has to be a way for warnings to expire in the long-term.

    I'm not sure how many live points/warnings you need to be banned permanently, but maybe adopt a 2-tier system:
    E.g. You pick up a warning: it stays for 26 weeks in tier 1, and for 104 weeks in tier 2.
    Permanent ban if you rack up cumulative 10 warnings in tier 1 or 18 warnings in tier 2.
    (The lengths of time of each tier and number of warnings above are all only for illustrative purposes).

    So, using the figures above (again, only for illustration), someone joins, is an ass for 26 weeks, racks up 9 quick warnings, then settles down for the rest of the year. Tier 1 would see those 9 all expire. But they stay in tier 2 for the full 104 weeks. So if the person then goes on another warning spree, they could rack up another 9 in short time and not be banned under tier 1, but would now have 18 warnings in tier 2, and so be banned.
     
  18. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    783
    Magical Realist's preliminary analysis on his last three cut and paste quote posts and video.

    7th Oct
    Followed by big quote.
    ****
    8th Oct
    Followed by big quote.
    ****
    19th Oct
    Followed by Video.
    ****
    Anyway, he's playing by his own rules whatever you chaps decide.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  19. foghorn Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    783
    Why?
    Robert Salas didn't see the ufo himself.
     
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    There's no rule against posting too much evidence for one's position. Afterall, the thread itself is titled "In Defense of Space Aliens" which was created by James himself. I'm simply posting what the thread is supposed to be about.

    Define critical thinking for me and how it differs from regular thinking.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    My world doesn't revolve around you. I have been discussing that video with Foghat for a few posts now. I have no intention to bowing before your arbitrary rule just so you will discuss it too.
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,064
    Well that's a telling admission...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Critical thinking is, notably, the one that's required by the forum rules. You have an obligation to know what it is. (The rest of us do. That's how we don't get infracted.) And it's not our job to define it for you, let alone teach you*. That should have been part of your primary education. How far did you get in school?

    *Here's a hint though:
    - don't believe everything you hear from strangers;
    - don't believe everything your eyes try to tell you;
    - when you hear hoof beats, think horses before zebras;
    - in the case of extraordinary claims, demand extraordinary evidence.
    We've spent a lot of time trying to teach you.


    Regardless: the upshot is: If you don't know what critical thinking is versus regular thinking then you should not be posting in the science or fringe forums.

    Perhaps, James R, the solution here is - not to ban MR - but to restrict him from the science and fringe sections of the site, alongside river.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021
    Kristoffer likes this.
  23. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,646
    So critical thinking is thinking and believing in accord with pithy aphorisms? That seems rather limiting.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2021

Share This Page