We are talking past each other a bit. I understand that you feel that your actions were justified. I also understand that you and others sometimes feel frustration when talking to me and other people here. I also understand that you have an impression of "use of demagogue and other manipulative tactics" from me. I would like you to understand that your perspective isn't privileged in this regard. I also feel that my actions are justified. I also feel frustration when talking to you and others (probably the same people). And I also start to build negative impressions of others, which may or may not be valid. I'm not trying to claim that my perspective is privileged either. Mostly I simply would like some recognition that whatever you feel is likely also felt by your opponent in any argument (i.e. empathy). And that your negative impressions may not be valid - that they are possibly based on mis-remembering, misunderstanding, or too much dependence on people making stuff up.
At the very least, double-checking whether you've remembered something correctly by revisiting a thread, helps to address this issue. But more importantly, I have already changed my behaviour substantially based on previous criticism. When people are able to point to specific examples, it clarifies what they are taking issue with, and gives me insight or gives me concrete direction in what I have to change. At the moment, all I have been provided with are vague references to behaviour that, as far as I can tell, I haven't actually engaged in (or behaviour which is as common as mud here and there's no reason to single me out). In some cases, I have already specifically looked at whether the claim is valid and have discovered that it is false. Continued reference to claims which I already know to be false does not help me buy the idea that there is something wrong with me.
No, you made Bill's hoax "our" problem by randomly jumping in. I was doing my part to help the people that were already getting suckered in by his BS and trying to save whatever reputation that man may have. You had no place there whatsoever, you did not know Bill's background nor mine.
As I said, I also felt my actions were justified. I was doing my part to help someone who seemed vulnerable and hurt, which seemed a much more directly relevant problem than the trivial effect on a psychic's reputation. I'm not arguing over which of us was correct in our justifications. You could be right and I could be wrong. I'm just showing you that I'm not much different from you or others with respect to our motivations and actions, once you take perspective into account.
Again, I have no issues responding to Alex if there is a disagreement in our postures. But, his issues with Krauss have nothing to do with me,...
I understand that. I just wanted to make the point that there are plenty of opportunities here to "help people that were already getting suckered in by his BS" (insert whomever you want into "his"). And if this is a justification for you, it is also a justification for me.
Seriously? How long have you been here? It doesn't take long to notice where he posts if you follow the updates, which you obviously do or otherwise your name would not be everywhere.
Again, you are depending upon a claim which is untrue. My name obviously isn't "everywhere". Even if I weren't inclined to only participate in those areas of the forum which are interesting to me (some sections I find deadly dull), I am banned from posting in some parts. Therefore you must have a mistaken impression. And I have no way of knowing which areas Alex reads, even if I had any interest in keeping track of his activities (which I don't).
A- Do you really want me to post a link to that thread? We had a long discussion there, didn't we?
We did? I can only find two posts to you, both of which address your concerns. Yes, I want you to post a link and to specify what I said that supports your claim, and singles out my behaviour out as different from the behaviour of proponents, because I can't find anything like that.
I dropped the topic because some of the skeptics tried to justify its existence because several of you are unable to post in some sections, but the fact that you randomly post about the postures of a sysop and don't feel the need to notify him shows that you intended to dissect them behind his back.
First, it wasn't about Alex, per se. It was about the issue that he raised. And second, Alex banned us from his podcast threads specifically so that he wouldn't feel obliged to address criticisms coming from non-proponents (as he regards them as generally "stuck on stupid"). He also specifically told me, in the past, not to waste his time with notifications. I understand that you think he needed special notification, but nobody notifies me when they are going to talk about an issue I've brought up, and I don't care. It's up to me to pay attention, or not.
As far as demagogue goes, your little rant in defense of Bill combined with all of the posts still trying to defend it now (knowing that he had a history in other pages and having seen the original source of his "personal experience") is more than enough.
A demagogue is a "
rabble-rouser is a political leader in a
democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears,
prejudices, and
ignorance of the lower
socioeconomic classes in order to gain power and promote political motives". That doesn't apply to my defense of Bill. At worst, it was an appeal to the emotion of sympathy for someone who seemed hurt and vulnerable. But it had nothing to do with gaining power or promoting political motives. It didn't assume anything about whether or not the psychic in question was a fraud. It was about showing sensitivity and caution when we are unsure about something.
B- I know that you are not "sure", that is why it's known as "cognitive dissonance".
Except that you haven't shown where there is any dissonance in my perspective. I was "not sure" how you are seeing dissonance, when there doesn't seem to be any. All I'm asking is for you to be specific.
By the time that you randomly jumped into that thread, I had taken the time to both note the skeptic slant present in all of Bill's posts (leading up to that thread) and even bothered to post an external link to the original version of the story that he was trying to pass as "personal". He had also declined providing any proof that this event actually happened, which is exactly the kind of thing that usually leads to a libel case in our legal system.
Like I said, I saw plenty of room in the information you presented for a different interpretation (certainly enough room not to be comfortable with being nasty). It's entirely different when proof is asked for during legal proceedings, so the comparison isn't apt. To be honest, I also would be very reluctant to provide any personal information to something who was behaving like you were. Especially since that never seems to settle the case anyways (publishing the email exchange to show that I never said the things Tim claims certainly didn't shut him up or do damage to his credibility, like it should have).
Before posting your rant... Did you even consider the possibility that the medium was unrepresented in that discussion?
I did. I have scads of empathy. But like I said, weighing the potential harm seems to settle squarely on erring on the side of Bill.
Linda