Being Decent To Each Other

[Omnibus]

Linda, I agree with almost everything you say except for the tendency to assume that incompetent people are skeptics. This is clearly seen when questions are raised regarding the only experiment so far definitively proving violation of CoE. You seem to miss this important point. Please make a distinction--an incompetent person is just incompetent and nothing else. To criticize without understanding even the fundamentals isn't called application of the scientific method. Questions posed by such people need not be answered and that doesn't mean that the proponent isn't true to Science. Quite the contrary. In saying this I would again say that I'm also annoyed by the unbridled tendency to make earthshaking announcements without any real facts to sustain them. The level of tolerance is too high in this respect. The coin, however, has two sides--the level of tolerance towards people cluttering the threads with sheer gibberish disguised as "skepticism" is even higher.

[Mr.Entropy]

Honestly, I don't know what y'all are on about.Ã,  Except for one or two bad apples, I find this forum to be remarkably civil.Ã,  Really.Ã,  It's impressive that otherwise-ordinary people with such conficting innate belief systems can converse anonymously on-line without everything going to hell.Ã,  Compare this forum to some usenet group where, say, liberals mix with neo-conservatives.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[Edit: oh, I guess maybe Stefan deserves some credit here :-)]

[linda933]

Hi Humbugger

Already, the personal attacking begins!  You and Ashtweth...buddies or something?

Having read most of Humbugger's posts, I take it as a compliment to be compared and/or confused with such a person, an excellent example of a skeptic who was well-grounded in science and who was known to take the most vicious of insults and peronal attacks and still come back asking the same basic science questions that made the false-claimers writhe in agony.

In fact, I do recall a certain Mr. Mehess resorting to all kinds of rude personal insults such as "Kiss My Ass" and "Take some medication" when Humbugger got on his case for arrogantly making false overunity claims which...you guessed it...turned out to fall completely to pieces under even light scrutiny using basic scientific methods. 

Thank you Bill, for the complimentary comparison and for providing a perfect example of the hipocracy problem.  Your suggestions now, in light of your ugly personal attacks against Humbugger when he relentlessly questioned your lack of science and outrageous claims, proves my point perfectly!  Glad to hear you have seen the error of your ways!

Linda (not Humbugger, but thank you)

[nightlife]

linda933, thank you for that response.

Just because you, I and or anyone hasn't seen what someone might have and or know, doesn't give you, I or anyone else the right to ridicule, disrespect, assume or call them names. We should all respectfully agree to disagree when we feel that the other is wrong or we feel they are testing our intelligence. All we can do is ask for them to provide proof and if they decline, we should just ignore them to keep from creating hard feelings and disrespectful arguments. If you, I and everyone else continue to ignore them, they may just show proof and or stop talking about it.

There are ways to talk to each other with out hurting the others feelings. My post was used as an example to promote the response you posted.

Thank you again and I hope I helped everyone who reads this to keep from letting their anger and frustration show in replies to others dreams, comments and or replies.

[linda933]

Linda, I agree with almost everything you say except for the tendency to assume that incompetent people are skeptics. This is clearly seen when questions are raised regarding the only experiment so far definitively proving violation of CoE. You seem to miss this important point. Please make a distinction--an incompetent person is just incompetent and nothing else. To criticize without understanding even the fundamentals isn't called application of the scientific method. Questions posed by such people need not be answered and that doesn't mean that the proponent isn't true to Science. Quite the contrary. In saying this I would again say that I'm also annoyed by the unbridled tendency to make earthshaking announcements without any real facts to sustain them. The level of tolerance is too high in this respect. The coin, however, has two sides--the level of tolerance towards people cluttering the threads with sheer gibberish disguised as "skepticism" is even higher.

I am more or less in agreement, but I guess I just find it irritating as hell when people make claims with no evidence or science to support them and then refuse to put forth such when asked but, instead, launch into a tirade of personal insults.  As if extraordinary claims were to be simply believed at once by all and the mere asking for evidence and theoretical/physical/mathematical proof were some kind of personal insult.

I find the "clutter level" to contain about 99% pseudo-scientific false claims of superior knowledge and mumbo jumb and about 1% skepticism, whether gibberish skepticism or good scientific argument.  Until there is a reasonable balance between blind belief in every wild claim and any kind of skepticism, I'm a lot more concerned about the 99.

Linda