And it is important to note that this thread will live in perpetuity; others will come across it. It would be irresponsible to let such dishonest commentary go unchallenged on what is still - at its core - a forum of science.
An entire thread, yes.
So you have strung him up as a punching bag. You let him exist here so you can constantly take punches at him, to assert your superiority over him, and so you can show others just how superior you are to him. Wow. It had been stated by others that this is how you behave, and have behaved, but I never thought you'd actually admit it quite so openly. Just... wow. Certainly not behaviour I'd expect from a moderator. Frankly, given your clear prejudice and agenda as far as MR is concerned, should you really be allowed to moderate him any further, and should you not instead pass any moderation of his behaviour to the others?
Irrelevant to my point, but hey, whatever.
Noone's asking you to. So thanks for the strawman. Maybe you can build a new and tidier haystack with the straw instead?
What you think about it is, frankly, irrelevant. Just another example of you throwing punches against your punchbag. The fact is that a case is put forward. It doesn't matter who, or why, or whether they are the "very best of the best cases" or just some watermark on a photo or video. The case put forward is all that matters.
Agreed.
So it's clear you're more interested in the meta-discussion than the actual cases. So, why not set up a thread to discuss the meta issues? Why derail an existing thread for a tangential discussion that you use for nothing but throwing punches. Oh, that's right, the thread's in a lull!
As have many of us. That's what this thread is actually useful for.
Then discuss with them and don't bother discussing with those you know won't change and don't have the open minds you want. Unfortunately you can't help yourself: you see the punchbag you have hoisted, and so you feel you have to throw the punches.
No, I have no such perception, and nothing I have said should lead to that conclusion. Have another go.
Indeed, I wouldn't be. So what?
Yep, that's about it, and that's what this thread seems to be for, not the effluence of the meta-discussion which is clearly nothing but an excuse to punch your MR-bag, the one you have hoisted so as to make an example of him. If you honestly want to have that meta-discussion, which could genuinely be an interesting discussion, rather than it being an excuse to have a go at your punch-bag, then set up a thread for it. You might even get 2 active threads for the price of 1.
So what? Are you duty-bound to fill the lulls in threads with tangential issues that you only raise to throw punches at your bag? After all, the 3rd rule when posting: "Post on-topic. Avoid going off on a tangent - if you have to, start a new thread." Meta-discussion is a tangent. Start a new thread for it.
I.e. a tangent. Which your rules state should be avoided, or moved to a new thread. You can even call it "Punching the MR-punchbag" thread if you want.
It's possibly an interesting discussion but is clearly tangential to this thread. So start a new thread for it, if you honestly want to have that discussion. But that clearly doesn't suit your agenda, your bias, your personal issues with MR. So, well, yeah. Whatever.
We do have rules here. Maybe you should follow them?
No, not really.
I am not oblivious to the irony, JamesR, but sometimes one needs to join the fray to end it. WW2 would have been a different affair if all those wanting peace stayed at home, right?
Oh, wow. The irony is strong with this one, the one who simply can't help himself in trying to psychoanalyse people's motivations, littering their posts with such efforts. Probably lost on you, though. Whatever.
It was rhetorical.
How long back is "a while back"? You don't seem to have started any threads in this forum for the past 7 years, for example. You started one back in 2014 about the Phoenix Lights case, but I do hope you're not referring to that one as it is hardly an "illuminating tutorial" on anything, and certainly not a "proper" investigation. (Also, note that it is not conclusions that are persuasive, but arguments. Conclusions are just statements.) So maybe you were referencing a different thread? Please can you indicate which it is, and provide a link?
So ... how much analysis of this story would be considered "sufficient" so that we don't get accused of dismissing it too hastily?
Oh, I’m okay with quickly dismissing this claim. lolSo ... how much analysis of this story would be considered "sufficient" so that we don't get accused of dismissing it too hastily?
I don't know. I find most Martians to be pretty level headed, almost like Swedes.
Maybe James will agree with you and we’ll have a tie.
Not sure if I’d say he’s willfully lying, but he may suffer from hallucinations or an illness that causes them/delusional thinking. He’s extremely bright and knows a lot about astronomy for his age, so I wonder if people are merely awestruck by that, and believe everything else he’s claiming.Why would he lie?
No. Magical Realist chooses to keep coming here. He chooses what he posts. He is free to come or go as he pleases. He is not a hostage.
No. Like I said, you have a rather poor grasp on my motivations - even after I took time to carefully explain them to you, in part. Strange, that.
My "agenda" here has always been to advocate for critical thinking and rational discussion, with respect for scientific methods. I really have very few other agendas, when it comes to this place. I also hope to keep sciforums something of an island of rationality in the vast internet seas of stupidity, politics and vested interests.
You did. You didn't mean to? Okay, then. No worries.
Strange. You address me directly with criticisms and commentary and questions, but when I politely answer you all of a sudden you no longer want to know what I think.
You may draw your own conclusions, of course.
I haven't derailed discussion. The "meta" discussion you refer to is on topic, for reasons I explained in my previous post.So, why not set up a thread to discuss the meta issues? Why derail an existing thread for a tangential discussion that you use for nothing but throwing punches. Oh, that's right, the thread's in a lull!
Clearly, something you said led me that conclusion, at least. Why are you so dismissive? If you already believe you know everything and have all the answers, why ask any questions? You apparently have everything work out. What's the point of this, then? Trying to set up your own punching bag, perhaps? Projection, much? You seem very focussed on the whole punching bag concept.
Yes, I see how that might work.
I think it's quite appropriate to keep it all in the same place. After all, the behaviour helps explain the general pathology of the presentation.
No, I'm not duty bound to post anything. Thanks for asking. How about you?
Which rules am I not following?
A lull in the forum is a bad thing. People come here to be engaged and to engage in conversation. If they come here and there's nothing new to read, they don't stick around for long. You must surely be aware of this from your own perspective? Or do you like boredom?
Your loaded rhetorical questions are becoming tiresome.
Call it a hobby of mine. I'm something of a student of human behaviours, include the ugly ones. You're making an interesting spectacle of yourself as we speak. I wonder how long you'll do that for. Is this making you feel better about yourself?
You didn't look hard enough. Helpfully, Magical Realist has linked to a relevant thread, from 2016. Take a look. It's a slow start on the first few pages, but stick with it. It's a ripper of a read.
Your hopes and personal opinions are noted, again. Thanks for the feedback, Sarkus!
Thanks for providing your readers with that link, Magical Realist! I'm very happy for you to keep promoting that thread.James must be referring to this thread from 2016 where he concluded after much mental gymnastics and confirmation bias that the object witnessed was the planet Venus, then a meteorite, and then a deflating weather balloon. A trifecta of coincidental mundane causes seen by multiple eyewitnesses!
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/portage-county-ravenna-ufo-chase-1966.158484/
He's trying to convince himself, first and foremost.
My feelings about MR aren't the most relevant thing, I think, even though for some reason people seem keen to read in lots of things about my feelings about MR.
If MR has converted any minds, it will have been completely by accident, because he has never posted anything that ought to convince anybody of anything.
There are two facets to my participation in this thread. One is that I post here as a regular member of sciforums. I contribute to the discussion. I try to counter bad arguments with better ones. That is no different than what a lot of other members do.
It is more lax. We need some kind of dividing line between actual science and the Fringe subforums. It is very important, in my opinion, to distinguish actual science and legitimate enquiry about actual science, from crazy and/or just bad pseudoscientific crap. We have a place for discussing and correcting the pseudoscientific nonsense, too.
I don't think there's any good reason to do so. Personally, I want sciforums to attract people who are interested enough to search for "UFOs" but who are open-minded enough to be interested in reading a discussion in which a skeptic viewpoint sits alongside the standard run-of-the-mill woo that can be found in so many other places on the internet.
Thanks for the reminder, Magical Realist! All members should bear these guidelines in mind.
So being a hostage is the one thing you take from the analogy, is it? Not that you use him as a punchbag? Well, that speaks volumes, doesn't it. Abhorrent behaviour for a mod. Truly.
No, what is strange is that you're incapable of recognising your own motivations. You said: "But I believe there is value to be had in showing how this sort of person operates. Like I said, he is an excellent example." This is your motivation, as you have stated it, word for word. To show how "this sort of person operates" requires you dissecting it to highlight it - aka his posts are nothing but a punchbag for you. You only do this because you think his is the example not to follow - hence you want to show how superior you are than him.
And again with the irony. Will you never learn. It's almost as if you're too stupid to recognise it in yourself. Or too stupid to stop yourself from doing it. And yes, I am being deliberately ironic in parrotting your approach. If you're also referring to your pathetic and weasily lack of apology for calling me a bigot, no, I haven't forgotten, but it is not influencing my posts.
And using MR as a punchbag to do so. I get it. Thanks. It's abhorrent behaviour for a mod to keep someone around for that.
You don't do that by continually throwing punches at someone, someone you have kept around just for that purpose. All you really end up doing is show how pathetic you are.
I have thought about that, thanks. Prejudiced in that, by your own admissions, you treat him differently because you want him around to make a point for you about how not to act on this site, so you can continue to throw punches at him. Tell you what, JamesR, you do you, eh!
Where did you think I asked you to? Perhaps you're referring to where I said that "if you want to put up cases, no noone is stopping you"? That is not asking you to, is it. So, please, where did I ask you?
What is relevant is that he puts forward cases, not the quality of them. What is relevant is that we analyse those cases that he does put forward, not whether those cases represent the "best of the best". What you said, therefore, about your thoughts of MR's filtering, is irrelevant. Again, stop me if I'm going too fast for you.
Whatever, JamesR. Whatever. Does your patheticness know no limits?When given 2+2, I am of course free to conclude that the answer is 4. If you're trying to claim now, though, that you didn't mean to imply what you did, and that the conclusions I have drawn aren't the ones you intended, well, that's another matter. As it is, you have implied that you are more interested in the meta-discussions.
On topic, yes. But tangential. I suggest you re-read the site rules.
If you don't like what MR says, don't engage with him!! Moderate him, yes, but don't engage with him! See how that works, yet?
Well, I'm not accusing you of deliberately lying, so yes, it is obvious that something I have said has led you to that conclusion since it is a conclusion you have reached regarding what I have said. What that something is, however, is really only for you to establish, as I am not privy to where your mistake has been made. Or are you trying to lay your mistake at my door. But you reaching incorrect conclusions is not unusual.
Of you reaching wrong conclusions of what someone has said? Because wrong conclusions are irrelevant to what was said, perhaps?
I don't believe I know everything or have all the answers, JamesR. That is just you coming up with an ad hominem to avoid having to address the issues, a pathetic attempt to try to argue the person rather than what has been said.
Oh, I wish I did. But no, I don't, although thank you for thinking it seems like that.
It should be bleeding obvious to anyone with a reasonable grasp of English, JamesR. But your comprehension is demonstrably lacking, given the number of incorrect conclusions you've already reached. But let's see if you get it, eventually, shall we...
Well, you're starting to. Although you still only glance at it, and by way of trying to throw another punch. But you're getting warmer...
Why do you think that might be?
Or, just maybe, you can apply some good ol' common sense to the situation?
Sure, what's the point of the meta-discussion if the... oh, right, it's not a meta-discussion you're after, is it, but just a desire to throw punches under the guise of "a warning for all!" A warning that noone will actually see.
You really do need to learn to spot rhetorical questions.
The ones you don't want to. I've already pointed out one, and MR has added some others.
Why do you knowingly argue a strawman (and it's not the first time!)? I referred to a lull in a "thread" and you argue against a lull in a "forum". Why? Do you have no counter to what I have said about a lull in the thread?
The rhetorical questions you reply to, you mean?
I did, but you're struggling to spot the difference between rhetorical and non-rhetorical questions. Have another go.
I don't think I do. And even if I did, there's nothing wrong in asking so as to be sure, is there?
Clearly. And you have to wonder why this site is in the mess it is, with the low activity it has. You keeping MR around as a punchbag is a symptom of a much larger problem here. Stick your head in the sand all you want, up until the point your alone on your deserted island. At least it will be an "island of rationality in the vast internet seas of stupidity, politics and vested interests."
There's no strawman here, JamesR. Your desire for post-count and activity on threads might go some way to explaining your desire to keep letting MR through the door to be a punchbag.
No, JamesR, I am better than I was, because now I am not only more aware of people's hypocrisy and patheticness, but also now more willing to point it out to them.
Whether you think it a hobby of yours is irrelevant. It is hypocrisy on your part to tell people to "you do you" when you can't stop "doing them", so to speak. And while you may "study", you really don't seem to be learning much.
Spectacle, as in wanting my points to be noticed, sure. Is being a spectacle relevant to what I'm saying, though? No. But, hey, whatever it takes for you to ignore the points, right!
I wonder how long you'll continue to be a pompous and pathetic poster who really only posts to try to make themselves look better than others, and to blow their own trumpet. "Look at me! Look how great I am! Look how much better I am than him, and him!". I guess we'll both have to continue watching this space to find out, eh?
I'd have thought all posts make us feel better about ourselves. That's surely why we post. It would be an odd person indeed who posted because it didn't make them feel better.
No, it really isn't. Certainly not the "illuminating tutorial on how to conduct a UFO investigation properly" (but rather 16 pages of inanity punctuated by the occasional pertinent bit of analysis) which is possibly why I overlooked it, but then it's not recorded as being started by you, either. Seriously, the one DaveC linked to was the one I thought you meant as that really was a good bit of analysis. Not by you, of course, as your only real involvement was, once again, to throw punches at MR, but analysis by DaveC in particular. But since you also didn't start that one I didn't assume you meant that, either.
