When did the C+S designation become worthless?

#42
Do you think you are talking to children?
No. But I want to be certain I've spoken in such a manner they there is no *misinterpretation.
But sci's reply implies he or she may not fully appreciate why that statement can be incorrect.

* Such as occurred recently by you when you thought I was characterizing members participating in a particular thread to be Christian fundamentalists.
 
Last edited:
#43
Whilst we're on, I'm having a problem with all the resource threads in CD.

They are all modded, and unavailable for discussion. Sci updates all these resource threads so often, that sometimes I've found new threads that I put on CD, are relegated towards the bottom of the page in just a few hours.

When Sci is really on fire, and updating lots of resource threads, I've seen discussions on the first page of CD almost totally smothered by modded resource only threads.

That's not having a go about Sci's resource threads themselves, it's just that it's like some weird inversion is going on, where CD is now full of Mod threads, and - so called - skeptics are posting in all the other forums. :)
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#44
Whilst we're on, I'm having a problem with all the resource threads in CD.

They are all modded, and unavailable for discussion. Sci updates all these resource threads so often, that sometimes I've found new threads that I put on CD, are relegated towards the bottom of the page in just a few hours.

When Sci is really on fire, and updating lots of resource threads, I've seen discussions on the first page of CD almost totally smothered by modded resource only threads.

That's not having a go about Sci's resource threads themselves, it's just that it's like some weird inversion is going on, where CD is now full of Mod threads, and - so called - skeptics are posting in all the other forums. :)
Hmmm....we could pin all the Resources threads, or I could update only one a week, once per week.

I'm fine either way.

The Resources threads were originally made so people (admittedly mostly me) didn't paste links into a discussion thread so yeah if they are interfering with discussion still we should find a work around.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#46
Nah, I think that having as many resources as possible is good, we should not impose limits on those threads.
Ah but the number of resources wouldn't be diminished, just when they are posted.

It's a bit of a challenge because the Resources threads keep the discussion threads more on track & vice versa. It's also IMO better to have some organization in posted links - have the Resources threads also keeps CD or any other forum from being flooded with threads for every new link.

Even a relatively shorter Resources thread like say Time would flood the CD forum if those links were separate.
 
#47
Hmmm....we could pin all the Resources threads, or I could update only one a week, once per week.

I'm fine either way.

The Resources threads were originally made so people (admittedly mostly me) didn't paste links into a discussion thread so yeah if they are interfering with discussion still we should find a work around.
I was starting to suspect that you had a cunning plan to force all the skeptics back into CD, and then saturating the CD forum with regularly updated threads - which did not allow discussion. Effectively shutting down CD.

I don't know what the solution is tho... because I don't want you to stop creating, and freely updating resources.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#48
I was starting to suspect that you had a cunning plan to force all the skeptics back into CD, and then saturating the CD forum with regularly updated threads - which did not allow discussion. Effectively shutting down CD.

I don't know what the solution is tho... because I don't want you to stop creating, and freely updating resources.
Heh that would've been a good plan!

Actually I made the Resources threads at the request of skeptics who felt posting lots of links in discussion threads was interrupting conversations.

For now I'll go with updating the threads on a schedule. I cross-post most of those links into different places anyway, so waiting to post them here at a certain time isn't hard. :)
 
#49
Heh that would've been a good plan!

Actually I made the Resources threads at the request of skeptics who felt posting lots of links in discussion threads was interrupting conversations.

For now I'll go with updating the threads on a schedule. I cross-post most of those links into different places anyway, so waiting to post them here at a certain time isn't hard. :)
I don't expect you to schedule updates... but I'm pointing out that CD no longer works properly, it's a discussion forum that is filled with regularly updated threads where you can't discuss anything.

With the main protagonist/s which CD was set up for, gone, or near to silent, it's original purpose is now pretty much redundant as far as I can see. Taken with David's more liberal moderation (which I agree with), it's dead for discussion.

That said, my threads ain't designed to be controversial... just informative, so they don't stir people up and attract replies. I tend to think I'm just talking to myself when I post in CD anyway... either due to the content, or because nobody see's em
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#50
I don't expect you to schedule updates... but I'm pointing out that CD no longer works properly, it's a discussion forum that is filled with regularly updated threads where you can't discuss anything.

With the main protagonist/s which CD was set up for, gone, or near to silent, it's original purpose is now pretty much redundant as far as I can see. Taken with David's more liberal moderation (which I agree with), it's dead for discussion.

That said, my threads ain't designed to be controversial... just informative, so they don't stir people up and attract replies. I tend to think I'm just talking to myself when I post in CD anyway... either due to the content, or because nobody see's em
Hmmm I guess I disagree. I think CD serves a useful purpose as it keeps every thread from degenerating into the same sort of debates. Increasingly any long post by a skeptic I just skip over, I'm no longer that interested. But there is still much debate even among those who accept (or are willing to consider), for example, that NDEs are taking place while the person is functionally deceased.

Finally, I do read your threads but I'm just not always smart enough to add anything of substance. :)
 
#51
Ah but the number of resources wouldn't be diminished, just when they are posted.

It's a bit of a challenge because the Resources threads keep the discussion threads more on track & vice versa. It's also IMO better to have some organization in posted links - have the Resources threads also keeps CD or any other forum from being flooded with threads for every new link.

Even a relatively shorter Resources thread like say Time would flood the CD forum if those links were separate.
That sounds good in theory, but with the volume of links that you post in these threads, you will get backlogged in a hurry. And with podcast threads slowing down, the forum will become, well, more boring. I spend a lot of my time browsing what is posted in these threads, and also those of EC&S (because I don't have any religious background and often learn something new in them), and am sure that several users do as well.

This is without taking the symbiosis between the CDs and the resources under consideration.

I was starting to suspect that you had a cunning plan to force all the skeptics back into CD, and then saturating the CD forum with regularly updated threads - which did not allow discussion. Effectively shutting down CD.
It all makes sense now!!!
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#52
That sounds good in theory, but with the volume of links that you post in these threads, you will get backlogged in a hurry. And with podcast threads slowing down, the forum will become, well, more boring. I spend a lot of my time browsing what is post in these threads, and also those of EC&S (because I don't have any religious background and often learn something new in them), and am sure that several users do as well.

This is without taking the symbiosis between the CDs and the resources.

It all makes sense now!!!
I think the challenge is finding some reasonable compromise. For example I could open the Resources threads to discussion but everyone who reads the Resources threads seems - based on feedback - to like them precisely for the fact they aren't filled with long pages of debates by forum members.

But discussion forums are meant for discussion, so I get the complaint that CD's first page dominated by threads where you aren't supposed to have discussions is also a problem.

Maybe pinning the threads is a better idea? That might also fill up the first page...

So let's see how scheduled updates work. Also my free time is possibly going to shift over to different hobbies so there honestly might not be as many updates from me...
 
#54
I think the challenge is finding some reasonable compromise. For example I could open the Resources threads to discussion but everyone who reads the Resources threads seems - based on feedback - to like them precisely for the fact they aren't filled with long pages of debates by forum members.

But discussion forums are meant for discussion, so I get the complaint that CD's first page dominated by threads where you aren't supposed to have discussions is also a problem.

Maybe pinning the threads is a better idea? That might also fill up the first page...

So let's see how scheduled updates work. Also my free time is possibly going to shift over to different hobbies so there honestly might not be as many updates from me...
Oh we don't want you disappearing, you're one of the most interesting and more logical posters on here...
 
#55
I agree that "stuck on stupid" was an unfortunate and derogatory term but I think I remember why it was coined. It was to do with the repetition of certain stock explanations for NDEs, etc., usually along the lines of Blackmore and Wiseman. Perhaps that's why Small Dog was not very well received when he (let's face it) arrogantly pursued a similar line of argument. And by arrogantly, I mean that his accusations of the lack of intellectual or professional faculties were directed at the proponents.
I think its more than that. It is designed to make skeptics feel diminished and small to be sure, but also to deter proponents from giving any serious thought to what someone who is identified as a skeptic is saying. It is a tactic that may be unconscious, and no doubt the person doing it feels like they are doing the good work, but the effect is to shut down discourse. Skeptics like Randi use the same tactics, and also believe they are justified. Both sides are wrong here. It is intellectual poison.

Just look at a number of posts in this thread. I'm sure the posters have a moment of self-righteous superiority as they post, patting themselves on the back for fighting the good fight and making sure us no-good skeptics know how little they respect us - but what it really does it hurt feelings and harden points of view - both in the poster and the recipient. As well there have been posts from some skeptics painting a similar air of superiority. Every time someone makes this kind of comment they get more and more wedded to it. They feel more and more need to stick with it and find less and less reason to really think about what the other side is saying, or question their own views.

I get why people feel this way, and I get how hard it is to break through the barriers that have been erected over the years. But I still believe strongly it is something worth pursuing.

Incidentally, I have probably been your biggest critic yet we have had private conversations which ended up with civility. Others have been much more accommodating when it comes to the avenues you prefer to explore. I really don't think that you are generally regarded as dim, if fact I - your big critic - usually defer to your superior education and debating skills.
I appreciate that, but please don't defer to me! Agree with me or not based on my arguments, not my education! :)

Like you said, you and I have been able to work some things out through civil discussion - even though we remain apart ideologically. But we're listening to each other and trying to understand one another and that's the whole ballgame in my opinion. If we could all do this the world would be a different place. But forget about the world, I'm happy to see even a small bit of progress just on this forum!
 
#56
I would say that was a curious thing. But what I would not do ever, is assume it was precognitive. I would remain in an indeterminate state. One curious thing cannot be conclusive in my point of view. Do you understand?
Doesn't it depend how complicated the curious thing was? I mean, suppose you had dreamed the whole 9/11 saga, would you shrug your shoulders and say, "What a curious coincidence?"

David
 
#58
Actually, though there is a genuine issue here, I don't think it has ever been clearly understood. In the early days of this forum there was a lot of whining from certain members about being treated as outcasts, and in effect complaining of being considered second-class citizens.

On the old forums (a few years ago) there was a zone called 'the haven', which seemed to work rather better. Maybe it was simply more strictly moderated, but it seemed to exist, and have its own conversations quite happily without apparent dissent. (Or maybe I missed the dissent, I'm a relative newcomer myself).

I suppose that when this new forum was set up, in effect it was considered that all of it was like the old haven, and then a special area was set up to allow more broad discussions. Perhaps simply that restructuring didn't quite serve the same purpose. In a lot of ways it was working ok, but I've found that private conversations are perhaps serving the purpose which the old haven did, which in a way is ok, but sometimes I think it's a shame that discussions are driven underground like that, it's a kind of failure somewhere - though I don't place the responsibility for this on anyone in particular, it's more to do with the physical structure or layout perhaps.
The Haven was also invisible to non-haven members - so it was really like a private conversation with a fixed set of members.

I hope that the forum taken as a whole can be useful roughly as it is. I mean I think we are wise to some of the idiots that arrive here (possibly simply under a range of guises) and we get rid of them fairly quickly. I tried to engage SD, because I think it is interesting to see how sceptics answer the evidence, but I suppose there are people who want to enlarge their horizons, and those who fear having to do that.

David
 
#60
Oh but if I do that I end up wondering how, with all that education, you still can't see the obvious. ;)
Ha! Me too! How do people not get what is so crystal clear to me?

Seriously though, you don't have to wonder as to my thought process - I usually set it out in details that go way beyond the attention span of most people - to be assessed or ignored as you will, but at least it is out there for the world to see!

From my experience anytime I think something is obvious that is a pretty good sign I need to give it a good strong second look! Far too often I have found that it only appeared obvious because I had missed something or not given it enough thought. So beware the obvious!

My education didn't teach me much specifically relevant to the topics here, but it did teach me how to think through a problem and to always consider issues from different perspectives. I learned that few issues are black and white and there are almost always different sides to a story - each with their pros and cons. In my assignments you wouldn't be marked down for choosing a side but you would be for not addressing the weaknesses of your argument or the strengths of other arguments!
 
Top