More replies
Hey since I'm new could you u2u me those who you think are pseudo skeptics or paid dis-info agents? I promise not to harass or anything, that's not
my style
Im not going to start pointing fingers. That would be unfair because you can never be sure. I dont think there are many here anyway but I do think
there are some.
People demanding proof of theories? Has to be paid debunkers. Couldn't be that an internet site can attract real jerks and pseudointellectuals. Also
couldn't be that some members are fed up with some of the subject matter (see: Banning of Reptilian Videos in A &U
Im certainly not talking about the reptilian threads and deflective nonsense. We all know that there are some serious and very revealing and well
researched threads here that are being targeted with "
cause confusion" tactics.
Quiz: How do we know there is a 9/11 conspiracy? Because there is so much confusion thrown into the mix. Its an old counter-propaganda tactic.
It is useful to remember though that this is the dawning of the age of "asymmetric warfare." When things start going inexplicably wrong it might be
wise to keep that in mind. You might be at war without knowing it...
Excellent overall post. And with the dawn of cyberwarfare, viral marketing, guerilla-cyber-marketing, information-wars it is helpful to have a very
close look at what one is reading.
no problem with genuine skepticism, but I do have a problem with debunking. One involves a critical and analytical look at a given situation, the
other is derailing the message/situation at any cost... and if the message can't be derailed then attack the messenger.
Thats exactly how it is. I like the ATS-Term
Respected Foe...emphasis on "respected". There are some foes that have a different bias than
you. And thats great because you learn a lot from the other side of a discussion. But that has an entirely different feel to it than having someone
who wants to destroy discussion at all costs.
How hard is it too ignore posts you don't like?
Its easy until someone starts using unfair means and attacking you personally as has happened to me on numerous ocassions. I once had a thread where
five skeptics "ganged up" on me with rapid-gunfire for several pages and forced me to jump ship (give up posting). With that much heat I must of
finally touched on something significant for a change.
Personally the people on the board that seem to post for the single purpose of derailing a thread through making fun of other posters, or starting
petty arguments and baiting posters to make them mad is not the same as someone disagreeing with you.
Yep. The difference between a true skeptic and a pseudoskeptic.
For example, if someone posts a NASA picture from Mars showing say, an apple or even a skull, instead of admitting that the object does indeed look
like an apple(skull), but may be something entirely different, they will state with conviction that it is just light and shadows. OK, so it may be
light and shadows, but the question is, does it not LOOK like an apple (skull)? Why refuse to admit the obvious when anyone with a normal vision can
see what the object looks like? To prove what it actually is may require further photographic evidence, but that is never suggested by these skeptics.
They already know what can or cannot exist on Mars (or whatever the topic) and that is their position.
Ive especially noticed the behaviour we are talking about on the
Mars threads. Thanks to the totally bizzare attacks and painfully unconvincing
"debunks" I have come to believe that there really is something being covered-up on Mars. Someone posts something unusual and you´ll immediatly
have five people come in and say "no its not!" without any discussion or consideration whatsoever.
Suspicious behaviour there.