It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by doctormcauley
The people asking for names are doing this thread a disfavor. They already Know that the mods will edit any post that does this and leave behind an edit tag saying something along the lines of "we can't have you starting a witch hunt"
This is suspicious behavior. Sadly, I won't be giving names... because I CAN'T.
Originally posted by darcon
you want to see some Derailment Skyfloating, visit the "Americans need to go on strike!" thread by stellawayten. There is a member on there that goes by SaviorComplex, the fight starts on pg 2, a mod steps in at pg 8, fight ends on pg 9. SaviorComplex got outnumbered, didn't even leave another post after that. Hope you check it out...But in the end he folded.
Originally posted by Cythraul
Good on you skyfloating. An extremely vital thread. I actually woke up to the reality of disinfo agents in one of your threads about the possibility of ancient civilisations. I don't think I need to name any names, but needless to say, the disinfo agent in question demonstrated pretty much every trait you've identified in your OP. Imparticular, I was convinced that she/he was absolutely a disinfo agent when they began personally attacking intelligent, rational participants in the thread. After a google search of that persons screenname, I discovered page after page of results linking to discussion forums where this person had done nothing more than debunk and derail. Surely no-one could get their kicks by systematically destroying discussion, unless they have an agenda.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
What it proves is that you have an agenda. This is a witch-hunt by proxy, to label anyone and everyone who may not agree with you as a disinformation agent, simply on the basis they do not agree with you. So what if someone doesn't believe in UFOs, or that the government was behind 9/11, or that the moon isn't made a green-cheese? That basis alone isn't enough to label someone as a disinformant, which is exactly what you are trying to do.
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by undo
You don't honestly believe ATS would allow it's Skeptic population to be compromised? Ain't gonna happen. Methinks you're protesting too much.
Not outright. However, if people like SkyFloating can create an atmosphere where skeptics are not tolerated.
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
these people have a psychological and intellectual need to defend conventional wisdom
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
Very clever, mixing 911 truth with blue cheese, I bet no one noticed at all. Very clever.
I bet you didn't even consciously do it.
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
Agnostics don't make ridiculous negative claims(eg, "there is no evidence for UFOs"), and I never witnessed one saying something as irrational as "anecdotal evidence is irrelevant", a canned line of debunke- um, I mean "skeptics".
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
...But when you place yourself on the side of "science"(scientific orthodoxy) and "reason"(a set of rigid belief systems) it might be tempting to pretend you enemies are just
mindless sheep who can't think critically.
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
SkyFloating said no less than three times is this thread that he has no problems with skeptics, but debunkers who pretend to be skeptics(not in so many words), and he gave specific reasons why. But you simply hand waived his reasons away as if you were dismissing a waiter, an all to common move for fake skeptics.
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
If you actually listened to the arguments of your opposition, you know it's you behavior that we have a problem with.
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
Not only are you pseudo-skeptic, but you know you are, why else would you be so defensive, even after SkyFloating said he wasn't referring to real skeptics? You can't be so delusional to think your neutral can you?
Originally posted by CallMeBlu
Pseudoskeptic= a debunker who calls himself a skeptic because he convinces himself that skepticism means defending orthodoxy.(They also tend to be overweight and emit a unpleasant smell)
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I spelled out exactly what my opposition to SkyFloating's claims where. I was defending skepticism as I felt it was an attack on skepticism as a whole.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
You felt that an attack on Pseudoskepticism equals an attack on Skepticism as a whole?
Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Originally posted by Skyfloating
You felt that an attack on Pseudoskepticism equals an attack on Skepticism as a whole?
Ah, the twisting of words. Engaging in the exact same behaviors you accuse skeptics (or whatever you wish to call them) of.
Originally posted by titorite
I see no twisting of words.. I read the posts and that is EXACTLY what you typed.. Although you did not use the italics.
.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
* It provides a thread you can link to the next time a pseudoskeptic tries to derail your thread or confuse readers not familiar with the depth of a topic.
Originally posted by Razimus
Can't the IP's be tracked?
Originally posted by eaglewingz
I'm shocked that this suggestion came from a member of staff.
Originally posted by eaglewingz
I'm shocked that this suggestion came from a member of staff.