Hatred of Skeptics

[Muppets]

I find the naked hatred of skeptics often displayed here to be quite frankly, disturbing.
Though I'm sure this will attract howls of derision from some quarters, but it is over the top and unnecessary.

The skeptics that have posted here have all in my opinion (and I'm sure that wont count for a great deal) behaved just as well if not better than anyone here.

Repetition is one thing I see they are accused of.
They have hardly had chance to repeat themselves.
What of the stories that have elements of repetition? When was the last time that genuinely new information was discussed here?
Another reported, unconfirmed, inconclusive sighting. Another reported, unconfirmed, inconclusive sighting. Another reported, unconfirmed, inconclusive sighting.
Not that it matters, but the same criticism can be leveled at the site as a whole. Its a matter of interpretation.


People have different opinions. You like to express them as you see fit, provided it is within the rules.

Here, I see a lot of ad homenim attacks against those who do not tow the company line. Sometimes from site admin. If you disagree, please link. I may have missed it.
Though I have not seen every skeptical post, the ones I have seen in the Dean v yowie thread have no personal attack.
Again, if you disagree, don't just rail against skepticism in general, but draw my attention to something I may have missed, or something that you think is ad hom attack, and we can discuss it like grown ups.

Onwards.


I am not going to pussy foot around here, nor am I going to be obnoxious and rude. I am going to say what I believe needs to be said, and if you think that is "trolling" then we might just as well end our relationship before it begins.

In order for Yowies etc to become accepted mainstream taxonomy, they must be approached as any other new organism, that is scientifically, with thorough peer review.
Don't you want your beliefs vindicated? Don't you want to come in from the margins? Am I repeating what others have said?

I am coming from the position of "Null Hypothesis" that is, I see something, then look for the root cause. For what is the best explanation as directed by the best evidence..
I am not coming from the "yowies exist, so I am going to look for evidence that backs that up" They well might, but I would prefer to arrive at that decision using the former method.

In closing i will say that I am not here to "Belittle", "patronize"
or any of the other things that other skeptics have been accused of. That would be a fair thing, were they doing it ( in my humble opinion, which may well be described in less than flattering terms perhaps) or were they alone in that behavior.
I am here for reasonable debate.
I hope that is possible.

[iwanttobelieve]

I totally agree.

There is nothing I saw that warranted banning someone and I don't recall anyone being offended by what was being said.

Personally I'd prefer to have the choice to ignore a sceptic's point of view rather than have the decision made for me.

At the very least they should have been warned they were "trolling". Not even sure what that is but in this case it seems to be a convenient excuse to remove a valid point of view from the forum.

I think Marius in particular added some good constructive points and it's a shame to lose that input for no apparent reason.

Like any opinion put forward here you don't have to read it, you don't have to agree with it and you don't have to comment on it.

At the very least you should be able to make your own choice.

[_Daniel_]

who hates sceptics?

[Yowielover1]

I think Marius made good contributions - even though he lacks personal experience that would move him into the realms of possibility those people must exist to have someone to prove it to. From experience I know they exist and would like to prove it to others and say "I told you so"

I think it was irresponsible to remove him from the forum as he provided great thought provoking questions. Anyone want to ban me for saying that?




P.S. The audio file will go on Youtube in a week or so - so if i get banned and will be called "Deans Yowie Attack" part 1 etc...I have had real bad back problems and it has spasmed tonight so i can hardly walk...maybe Dean will be able get a report up during this time.

[stickyfingers]

...hey guys... I just posted a rather lenghty opinion on the... "Dean/Yowie confrontation" thread... "Marius" is in fact James Randi... a well known worldwide skeptic... see this link below...

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/abo ... randi.html

...Iwanttobelieve... every post that you have commented on regarding the ban on Marius and Opus... I agree 1000% with you... good on you my friend!!!... and Yowielover1... imagine taking James Randi on an expedition and he actually saw one ???... imagine how his world would turn upside down eh??? ... I hope that your back gets better real soon my friend... we need you all back out doing research!!!! ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

[mikka]

I dont hate skeptics one bit, heck most of my mates dont believe in Yowies, just like I dont agree in some of their beliefs. Doesnt mean we cant debate each other in a friendly fashion and at the end of the day agree to disagree in a respectful manor. Over the internet that does not happen.


What is starting to grind my gears though are posts with this (and no offense to you Muppets)

In order for Yowies etc to become accepted mainstream taxonomy, they must be approached as any other new organism, that is scientifically, with thorough peer review.
Don't you want your beliefs vindicated? Don't you want to come in from the margins? Am I repeating what others have said?

No kidding, I knew this before I got interested in this phenomenon and I know why from a scientific point of view. I know what it would take for a yowie to be proved real to science.

The first few hundred times I got told what it would take (which I already knew and agreed with) it was ok. But it seems every new skeptic seems to think that I dont know it would take a body to prove Yowies.

From my point of view someone that has a James Randi avatar and asks if a body has been bagged already knows the answer to that. If a body had been bagged we all know we would be in a biology class talking about this (I know this and a damm hope someone with a Randi Avatar knows the same)


How is that not Trolling ? or are we all stupid believers that dont understand or know science ?

[iwanttobelieve]

who hates sceptics?

Apparently, whoever banned them.

I'm not siding with their viewpoint but I didn't encounter anything that warranted a ban.

My understanding was that all points of view that are delivered in a polite fashion are welcome on this forum.

Sceptics are to be expected when delving into this subject and Marius and Opus were a couple of the better ones in terms of the questions they posed.

At worst they were only putting forward questions that we should have all asked ourselves at some point.

[stickyfingers]

...please disregard the "Marius" and "James Randi" connection that I made earlier within this post... it's since come to light for me that I was wrong in them being one and the same... and thankyou to my friend that pointed that out to me ... cheers... Stickyfingers.

[iwanttobelieve]

How is that not Trolling ?

I'm sure it is "trolling" Mikka.

But, so what?

Remember, no one of this forum has to respond to sceptics any more than they have to respond to any other member.

Personally, I've got no intention of ever trying to debate a sceptic to the point of conversion.

However, if someone gets baited to a point where they want to try and convince a sceptic then so be it.

At least give them the option to make their own decisions on how to respond.

If one valid point of view can be removed from the forum then where does it end?

[_Daniel_]

Mikka,
You pretty much hit the nail on the head with this post and said (with much more tact and clarity) what i was trying to say in another thread. Couldn't agree more.
cheers,
Anonimust.

[Muppets]

I dont hate skeptics one bit, heck most of my mates dont believe in Yowies, just like I dont agree in some of their beliefs. Doesnt mean we cant debate each other in a friendly fashion and at the end of the day agree to disagree in a respectful manor. Over the internet that does not happen.


What is starting to grind my gears though are posts with this (and no offense to you Muppets)

In order for Yowies etc to become accepted mainstream taxonomy, they must be approached as any other new organism, that is scientifically, with thorough peer review.
Don't you want your beliefs vindicated? Don't you want to come in from the margins? Am I repeating what others have said?

No kidding, I knew this before I got interested in this phenomenon and I know why from a scientific point of view. I know what it would take for a yowie to be proved real to science.

The first few hundred times I got told what it would take (which I already knew and agreed with) it was ok. But it seems every new skeptic seems to think that I dont know it would take a body to prove Yowies.

From my point of view someone that has a James Randi avatar and asks if a body has been bagged already knows the answer to that. If a body had been bagged we all know we would be in a biology class talking about this (I know this and a damm hope someone with a Randi Avatar knows the same)


How is that not Trolling ? or are we all stupid believers that dont understand or know science ?

I think you might have actually answered the question there. So no-one has shot a yowie.