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.

 

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

page: 20
70
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

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.


And yet, I feel that is the very purpose of calling someone a disinfo agent, to start a witch-hunt, to cast doubt on everything a member does, and to insulate yourself from having your beliefs and claims challenged. It is an attempt to derail the conversation when the weak-minded are unable to defend their claims. It is arrogant and immature to assume someone cannot have a legitimate or reasonable disagreement without being a disinformation agent.

And saying you cannot give names is, frankly, a cop-out. Otherwise, you would have to defend your claims, for which there is typically no proof for other than you have a nasty disagreement with someone. I find it quite suspicious that members have no problem calling someone a disinfo-agent during a discussion, but during a thread about that very subject, those members are scared to name names.




posted on May, 21 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   

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.


You are lying. That was not derailing, I was on topic the ENTIRE post. Only in your immaturity do you think that disagreement is "derailing." You wanted an echo-chamber, wanted everyone to agree with you, and when they didn't (I wasn't the only one disagreeing) you demanded they leave, called them materialistic (in the face of your own materialism and hypocracy), ignorant, disinformation agents, etc and now claim they were trying to derail.

You suggest the mod stepped in solely because of me. He didn't. You are right, I did leave the conversation, but I did not "fold" as you suggest (or rather, lie about). Folding implies that I gave in and agreed with you. I left because the personal attacks did not stop after the mod stepped in, and because much like you claimed about me over and over, I saw your minds were made up and continued discussion was pointless.



[edit on 21-5-2008 by SaviorComplex]

[edit on 21-5-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

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.


The thing about pseudo-skeptics/debunkers is that they don't need to be paid, these people have a psychological and intellectual need to defend conventional wisdom. They are happy to do it all day and all night with smile on their face and a fat chubby.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

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.


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.





[edit on 1/18/2009 by CallMeBlu]

[edit on 1/18/2009 by CallMeBlu]



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

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.


No one has a problem with agnostics, no one, and you now why? Agnosticism is a neutral position. Randi and Dawkins didn't get together and change the definition of neutral did they?

No? Good.

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".

How long must the act continue? How long are you going pretend that people have a problem with you and you ilk because you demand evidence from them? If you actually listened to the arguments of your opposition, you know it's you behavior that we have a problem with. 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.

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.

Not only are you pseudo-skeptic, but your 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?

You can? Oh...

Skeptic=Agnostic
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)



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CallMeBlu
these people have a psychological and intellectual need to defend conventional wisdom


Good thing too....'cause unconventional wisdom is often considered delusions, insanity, or a lack of reasoning skills. What many skeptics try to avoid is the hare-brained connecting of ephemeral dots into unlikely scenarios.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

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.


I also mixed in UFOs, you didn't notice that one.

And no, it wasn't unconscious. I meant do to it. It was a stand-in for the myriad ridiculous claims that are made here, not an indictment of UFOs or 9/11 per se.


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".


Since you are specifically addressing me, it would seem you are accusing me of this particular behavior. Would you care to point out when and where I have done this?

How long must the act continue? How long are you going pretend that people have a problem with you and you ilk because you demand evidence from them?


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.


Again, you seem to be making a claim about my behaviors. Could you provide evidence of this? While I will admit that I have referred to specific individuals as unable or unwilling to exercising their criticial thinking abilities, that is not an accusation I cast over the entirity of "believers."


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.


I would recommend you take your own advice...


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.


Actions speak louder than words (and yes, I realize the irony inherent in this claim given the medium). I did not simply dismiss his reasons; I gave my reasons for disagreeing.


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?


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 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)


How wonderfully mature.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

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.



You felt that an attack on Pseudoskepticism equals an attack on Skepticism as a whole?




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

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.


I see no twisting of words.. I read the posts and that is EXACTLY what you typed.. Although you did not use the italics.

Don't use disinformation tools to win debates. We all know the 25 rules of dis-informationalists here.

What your trying to do is Flip the script. It does not work here in print because we can all scroll up and read what you typed.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

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.


I apologize. I "misspoke." It should have been a twisting of meaning. Perhaps the meaning is a bit more clear?

Which, come to think of it, is still a twisting of words. I have been very clear regarding my feelings of Skyfloating's argument; that it was less an attack on "pseudoskeptics" but on skeptics as a whole.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

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.
.

I'm shocked that this suggestion came from a member of staff.

Skyfloating said, "Im not going to start pointing fingers".
Yet the result of posting specific threads to such a forum would undoubtedly result in individual members being called out.

Has the culture of ATS changed so much that witchhunts are condoned or even supported?

Edit : Reading a couple of previous and subsequent posts, I see the threats and calls of "She's a witch!!" have already begun.


[edit on 1/19/2009 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I agree, psudo-skeptics-disinfo-agents are on here, they register right before they post, and when they post they sound like raging lunatics, that either act very serious, too serious and make personal attacks for no reason, or they act like little kids, posting with poor grammar on purpose.

Can't the IP's be tracked? Don't want to point any fingers but if I see one posting again I will call them on it.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
Can't the IP's be tracked?


So you want to track people due to things they post on the internet.

Are you sure you aren't a paid Government Agent?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Yeah I was gonna say all this is a good step towards dictatorship...who monitors the so-called disinfo agents? Who decides who they are and how harsh their 'infraction' was?

The issue is around here if you disagree with someone, you're a disinfo agent...I can't handle one person being judge, jury, and executioner. These ideas of how to spot a disinfo agent could practically anyone here. I see this turning into the following...as it has already in some areas

"This is my point"

"I disagree"

"You are a disinfo agent"

Bam...now I am branded because I didn't agree with what some thought was incredible proof.

-Kyo



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz


I'm shocked that this suggestion came from a member of staff.



I wasnt a member of staff when I started this thread.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I would invite everyone to go back to the Original Post of this thread and read it again.

I feel it has value now as it did then.

I matters not that it was written by Skyfloating or Joeblow. The ideas are for the benefit of the community to allow us to be more informed about particular patterns.

It was never intended to be a witch hunt or some of the other shallow directions it took.

I for one am glad to see the thread revived.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
I'm shocked that this suggestion came from a member of staff.


These aren't the only allegations he has made about members on these boards. In another thread he makes the allegation skeptics are using sockpuppets.

He just wants to shut down dissent. He should not be a mod.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


So how do you distinguish a pseudoskeptic from someone merely pointing out something they feel is ridiculous?



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Pseudoskeptics, I like that. A catchy little buzz word to call those who question pseudoscience.

I made approximately $1.42 for making this post. You need to put a lot of time into being a professional pseudoskeptic, but it's good work if you can get it.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join