[jonbravo]

there should be a ban on the word 'proof'

[zaraba]

Originally Posted by Kama

With respect, asking for proof on a CT forum is kinda like asking for love and faithfulness from a Lady of the Night...pointless, and not what you came for.

+1 to 6th on asking why someone has the belief being much more interesting than demanding proof.

Evidence is great, proof almost irrelevant...jumping up and down crying 'proof' when someone is talking about why the Sidhe are colluding with Great Cthulu to cause a run on the Euro...seems more rhetorical than anything else. Tbh, anything that had a sufficient standard of proof (flagship papers, peer-journaled etc) would not be on the forum.

Seriously though, no proof or evidence, take it creative writing.

People come on here and post pure ****e sometimes. However, often people post quite interesting material and have some form of evidence. I don't believe most of it, but it still makes interesting and entertaining reading.

However, I was pm'ed by a mod here (current, not MC) who said essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster. That, IMHO, is not on. If you want to vent your spleen, get a blog. If you want to make up stories with no evidence or proof, go to creative writing. Because that is exactly what you are doing. You may even learn to make up better stories there.

[jonbravo]

Originally Posted by zaraba

Seriously though, no proof or evidence, take it creative writing.

People come on here and post pure ****e sometimes. However, often people post quite interesting material and have some form of evidence. I don't believe most of it, but it still makes interesting and entertaining reading.

However, I was pm'ed by a mod here (current, not MC) who said essentially that you can slag off any group you want here as long as you don't slag off a poster. That, IMHO, is not on. If you want to vent your spleen, get a blog. If you want to make up stories with no evidence or proof, go to creative writing. Because that is exactly what you are doing. You may even learn to make up better stories there.

if a thread doesnt come with some kind of evidence i feel relates to the post, i take it that, its of the posters opinion ... and not proof, as it is most come with valid evidence to call them ct ... BUT creative writing or not,opinions/ct's are storys in a way,just my opinion

[Kama]

Seriously though, no proof or evidence, take it creative writing.

Problem then being, define what is acceptable standard of proof, or more plausibly, evidence. Proof is unattainable in science proper (at least if you swing Popperian) so the request for it in CT is somewhat risible, to me anyway, while evidence is more of a possible condition.

Taking the problematic anti-semitic issue, for one side the ADL is a credible source, for another they are partisan propaganda, with presumed Mossad links. Same with anything else. A standard orthodox source almost by its nature won't be accepted, or can be easily rejected, by a dissident, much as a dissident source won't be accepted by a orthodox poster. It's quite symmetrical.

Proof requires faith, the credo in credibility, and this faith, broadly speaking, won't be there, on either side.

On slagging groups, imho, any CT implies an enemy, someone (or multitentacular Thing) doing something nasty to someone, it's the nature of the discourse, wther the enemy is Zionist, Islamic, or Cthulu-capitalist. I'm unsure if accusation = slagging here; if it does, then you're talking about annihilating the forum by moderation; a conspiracy requires a group, who are accused of a wrong. This (to me) is somewhat distinct from a racist screed of Stormfront standard...

[Kernel]

+1 for the 'why do you believe this' rather than 'show me definitive proof' bull****.

I think we need to get a handle on the mutual masturbation society - aka the 'Thanks' button clickers. After certain posts we get the usual crew thanking each other, without fail. I know the thanks button has caused consternation across boards, but for me the button should be used when someone provides you with something that you asked for, or is helpful (eg. an interesting video.. or an interesting thread being started).

[Time Magazine]

Of course there's no proof for any CT, but there's a huge difference between a plausible, coherent theory with some evidence and "THE JEWS ARE STEALING OUR INTERNETS!"

Unfortunately, about 90% of the CTs on this forum are the latter.

[Sofa_King Good]

Just my thoughts,

I have no problem with being corrected, I welcome it, even when I am wrong.

The whole CT area is for me at least more of an interest rather than an actual belief which I take with a pinch of salt.

However what bugs me is not the refutations of the "skeptics" but the pointless ego-trips of some of the pointless posters on this forum which turns each thread into a pointless tit-for tat bitchfest.

Rather than discuss any topics or issues the automatic response is to not to discuss any points of interest but rather to pick holes and focus on the weakest points at the disregard of valid points.

Some posters narcissistic tendencies seem to me to find any point of view objectionable to their own. They are not interested in actual CT's rather inflating their own self-importance and affirming their own point of view and where better than to mix it with the crazies? Fish in a barrel comes to mind.

Which begs the question - why are you here?

Some people here may think I am referring to them, when I am not.

I have a grudging respect for the knowledge if not the approach of Diogenes ( though seriously man the misplaced anti-semitic slurs as an offense/defence need to stop, especially in light of the fact the last 2 threads you started i.e. holocaust denials and the protocols invite responses to twist). King Mob does it quite well for me, likewise the commander, civil and neither patronising generally nor antagonistic on the whole.

Edit: Thought I should add Bonkey to this who seperates any emotive or personal bias he may have from his posts and always addresses the issues at hand rather than personalising any post.

Snide unfunny one line comments are childish and not at all constructive such as thanking the post of Kernel's making a serious point on the use of thanking posts. Further than that asking someone if they are on medication is systemathic of the better than you attitude, unneccesary and vile elitist snobbery.

As for the issue of proof, either some people don't actually understand what a conspiracy theory is or they don't understand the definition of proof.

[Sofa_King Good]

and just to add it is my view that any hostility is initally generated from the "skeptic" side.

[Kernel]

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

[Veni Vedi Vici]

Originally Posted by Kernel

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

Yep. A lot of aggression from rude folk on this forum.

[Mahatma coat]

Originally Posted by Kernel

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

True,

“Hath not a CT'er eyes? Hath not a CT'er hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Skeptic is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”

[6th]

Ok so looking at this so far a couple of things that need to be addressed are stricter moderation and how everyone deals with each other.

People do need to back up statements they make if they are putting them across as anything other than just their personal opinion.

With the move to Soc (as well as the growth of the forum) I think the old charter needs a bit of updating.

[6th]

Ok theres a new charter in play. Please read and hopefully it will address some of the issues.

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Kernel

I would say a lot of problems are caused by simple lack of manners when disagreeing with someone. I guess it's easy to forget that there's a person at the keyboard on the other side.

The flip side is, the CTers are often making really, really vile accusations with a shred of proof. Larry Silverstein gets called a Zionist who helped murder 3,000 people on 9/11 because of a misquoted tv interview. SKG accused George Soros of being involved in people traffiking and another poster suggested he was an international criminal mastermind controlling the european heroin trade. Both of these accusations were completely unsubstantiated. These are real people who you are accusing of genuine crimes, and you are affronted when people get annoyed with you for asking for proof? Really?

Mahatma has made sweeping racist remarks, and complains that his feelings get hurt. Am I in a Arthur Miller play? Is this the sodding crucible? People on this forum are casually accusing people of the most heinous crimes on planet without a shred of proof, and the have the temerity of bemoaning that people are a bit terse with them when they ask for proof.

The audacity of one side of this argument is frankly breath taking.

[Time Magazine]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

The audacity of one side of this argument is frankly breath taking.

Hear hear. 'Twould be nice if the CTers didn't jump down every skeptic's throat accusing them of being NWO agents etc.