How do you stop a skeptics board being flooded by fanatics

KCF

Hi folks,

Although this may look somewhat like flamebait, it is actually a genuine question. I should add that I am not interested in any contributions from Turley or Eriugena. However, if other people think that I am unfairly characterising them in this post, please call me on it.

Anyway, I started contributing to this board a couple of months back and in that time, discussion here has been mostly dominated by 2 (presumably) individuals who are not, imho, what most of us would consider to be skeptics, or anything similar. I think that we have established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Eriugena is a nazi-apologist, anti-semite and admirer of Hitler. He also utilises very aggressive, rude and fallacious tactics in argument which most people probably find very unpleasant to deal with. His skepticism appears to be entirely confined to the holocaust and in this field it is only applied to respectable academic historians, while anti-semitic amateurs are beyond reproach.

Turley, for his part, might also be an anti-semite. I suspect that the unnamed and shadowy cabal that is responsible for 9-11 and apparently most other things is some variation on the elders of Zion. However, his 'skepticism' is applied with somewhat broader brushstrokes. In his case he appears to be skeptical about everything that is supported by real evidence and infinitely credulous of anything that is posted on one-man-operation, zero-expertise websites run by people with similar worldviews.

Now, while I do somewhat enjoy the spectacle of these two specimens being made the object of derision by some of the more sane/intelligent posters, I do think that they are having a seriously destructive effect on this board. This is a function of the seemingly limitless time that they have available to spend posting here. Since I joined, I reckon that they have contributed over 50% of the text on the board. Both of them often post 3 or 4 messages in a row on a single thread - which kills the thread stone dead on the spot. They also have a single tune and pretty much every single one of their contributions is a rehashing of the same basic idea. There are several posters on here that I consider very worthwhile to read (eg robin, wicknight, davros, etc) and it is seriously annoying when they are forced to refute arguments umpteen times only to meet with the same argument every time.

I have a lot of experience in running internet discussion sites (one of my jobs was as a developer of their software) and this is a problem that is very common. Basically, it boils down to a feature of the communiciation paradigm on open forums such as this. A small number of determined and suitably motivated people can alter the signal to noise ratio to such an extent that interesting and constructive contributors - normally much greater in number but without the same sense of purpose - are driven away. These contributors are free to devote so much of their time here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they are pretty obviously fanatical about their particular beliefs. Secondly, they are fairly systematically excluded from all sites that have anything of a broad readership, so that when they find one that lets them post, they will devote a considerable amount of energy to it.

In terms of how to deal with it, unfortunately, excluding them or their favoured topics of conversation from the forum is the only solution. They have amply demonstrated their impermeability of their beliefs to the sea of reason and logic that other contributors have submerged their tenets in. Furthermore I think it is reasonably certain that one or both of them are using this board as a way of trawling for recruits for fascist groups. I do not think that ISS should allow its resources to be used for such noxious ends. So, in particular, I think that we should file 'holocaust denial' in the same box as creationism and essentially ban all further discussion of it on this board unless any substantially new arguments are presented.

Any comments?

pH

Hear Hear!!

Let me just say that in my opinion the admins have been remiss in not deleting/locking these threads, they are nothing to do with the Irish Skeptics Society, which as I understand in not at all skeptical about the intent or size of the Holocaust.

These (Holocaust Denial) discussions are normally reserved to particular right wing web sites. It is obvious that these sites have an agenda and casual browsers can make up their own mind.

The point (of these threads) here is to disseminate these views to 'neutral' sites like boards.ie, hoping to add to the general 'internet weight' of their views, making the views seem more rational and believable to a casual observer.

ISAW

I am a bleiever in free speech. That does not however entitle anyone to an audience. This board is being used to spam Holocaust denial stuff which had been soundly debunked elsewhere. I have only been on the board since last week and I believe Eriugenia has displayed the behaviour you mentioned. As to Turley I have only opened interchange with him but reading his posts I see what you mean.

I believe that a procedure like in the Oireachteas might help. Let the person have a chance to withdraw the remark or behaviour. After that suspend them. If they continue then suspend them for longer and finally ban them. If Eriugenia was suspended I believe he would disappear. I do not believe he would return if he had to argue using standard sceptical practices.

I am not aware if the admin can suspend for a period or ban for a particular thread. Then one could ban Eriugenia for any holocaust thread on which he did not follow standard protocols. I doubt he would have anything to contribute to any other threads though.

I did suggest to him that this probably was coming. It appears my prediction was true. Today I began to ignore him anyway since he would not enter into rational debate and refused to withdraw the unsupported claims he had made. So it appears he may have to learn the hard way.

I vote ban him. From all holocaust related threads if possible for starters.

As to Turley I don't know yet. start by banning him from some threads and pointing to a sceptic protocal for debate FAQ.

The existance of conspiracy theorists migh be a thread to get them into so they could learn to argue properly. They could then discuss theories without being able to advocate any. If such meta discussion is beyond them then they are lost I fear.

robindch

I'm not so sure that threads should be locked down, simply because airtime is being given either to extreme-right-wing views (unpleasant and all as I find those) or to any of the daft PTC's surrounding the WTC attack. In my own view, it should be the function of forum moderators to force posters to a common standard of exchange, and in the case of the Skeptics' forum, to ensure that debate is sticking to some semblance of rational enquiry. More specifically still, in the case of the two posters whom KCF mentioned, I think that the moderator can usefully point out where the posters were either repeating themselves time after time (and had ceased to contribute to a debate), or were avoiding relevant, pertinent questions, or were feigning a disingenuous ignorance. This does require much more footwork upon the part of the moderator (to whom much thanks), but I think might also produce a better forum, less given to splatter-postings and rambling tirades of one kind or another.

On the other hand, there's also a case to be made for leaving the debate unmoderated, where posters are free to take, so to speak, enough rope to hang themselves with. Some of the postings in the 'generally accepted' thread certainly fall into this category.

On a <cough> third hand -- and this is aimed either at boards.ie or maybe the vbulletin dev team -- perhaps the basic thread-rating mechanism which operates at the moment can be extended to voting for the worth of individual postings? This way, the forum can perhaps moderate itself, assuming that there are enough regular posters out there to ensure that voting can be as fair as reasonably possible.

Finally, I'm sure everybody's seen the Flame Warrior listing?

<no comment>

- robin.

KCF

robindch wrote:

...This does require much more footwork upon the part of the moderator (to whom much thanks), but I think might also produce a better forum, less given to splatter-postings and rambling tirades of one kind or another....

I think that this is the ideal solution to be honest. I think that enforcing minimum standards on the content of comments, in as objective a way as possible, rather than by banning particular individuals or topics, is by far the most effective way of ensuring a decent quality of open debate on the Internet. However, this is very time consuming. It requires the moderators to closely read each post and it relies on their abilities to objectively apply a set of impartial guidelines - no simple task. Suitably motivated 'believers' engage in ever more subtle means of disimulation in order to get their point across, meaning that the problem is never 'solved'. The evolution of trolling patterns on slashdot is a pretty interesting example, where the moderators have long engaged in an evolutionary arms race between fully fledged 'trolling organisations' and technical advances in community self-moderation.

The big problem with this solution, however, is that it essentially depends on the moderators having more time and energy to devote to the job than the trolls have. I do not believe that this is the case here and therefore, I think that temporarily banning the discussion of the holocaust is a decent compromise which means the board remains useful for the majority of genuine skeptics, while still allowing all points of view to be aired - just not one that has been aired exhaustatively recently.

robindch wrote:

On the other hand, there's also a case to be made for leaving the debate unmoderated, where posters are free to take, so to speak, enough rope to hang themselves with. Some of the postings in the 'generally accepted' thread certainly fall into this category.

I think that this fails when the trolls are happy to repeat themselves ad infinitum despite being hoist on their own petard repeatedly. If you are after recruits, a noticeable presence is often sufficent to advance your aims, meaning that there is a constant incentive to maintain your noise.

robindch wrote:

On a <cough> third hand -- and this is aimed either at boards.ie or maybe the vbulletin dev team -- perhaps the basic thread-rating mechanism which operates at the moment can be extended to voting for the worth of individual postings? This way, the forum can perhaps moderate itself, assuming that there are enough regular posters out there to ensure that voting can be as fair as reasonably possible.

The experience of the slashdot arms race has convinced me that purely technical solutions are insufficent and unsatisfactory for dealing with the problem. Some form of content-based moderation massively reduces the complexity of the user experience. It also generally massively reduces the amount of moderation that is required and while it does also generally increase somewhat the number of people taking part in moderation, the payback does not, imho, outweigh the cost.

There is a lot of excellent material on wikipedia describing the history of slashdot's troll wars: Slashdot Trolling Phenomena

davros

I should probably say something... To speak personally for a minute, I feel the ISS has a specific purpose which is, more or less, to counter anti-scientific tendencies in Ireland. Holocaust denial is a topic completely unrelated to that goal and, as such, is unlikely to appear in the ISS newsletter or in a public talk.

On this forum, however, the ISS has chosen not to rule out any topics. And I can see some point to that - it's an extra opportunity to sharpen the debating skills and it avoids an accusation of censorship. I know it's frustrating that Turley, say, never concedes that anything is true but at the same time he does force us to look closely at the nature of evidence (I'm wondering now if NASA actually faked 9/11).

As moderator, I have to admit I don't have a hope in hell of keeping up with the pace of posts around here on certain topics. I check in now and then to the Holocaust threads and I see facts, claims and counterclaims being batted back and forth and it looks like a genuine two-sided argument that should be allowed to continue. Admittedly, nobody's opinion budges an inch but I've yet to see that happen on this forum.

Anyway, there would be nobody happier than myself to see the end of threads on the Holocaust, 9/11, etc. and anything else that can't be shown to be relevant to the Irish situation.

My preferred solution to this "signal/noise" problem is that there would be more threads created of specific interest to the ISS. There are real issues in this country (alternative medicine, psychics, etc.) that nobody else is addressing. If we start discussing those issues, along with tactics, opinions on ISS lectures/newsletter articles, favoutite books, etc., perhaps we can drown out the single-issue fanatics.

Interesting thread this. All opinions are welcome.

Turley

Am I guilty of impiety to the gods.
Do you wish to vote if I should drink the hemlock now?
:eek:

davros

Turley wrote:

Am I guilty of impiety to the gods.
Do you wish to vote if I should drink the hemlock now?
:eek:

Honestly, I almost compared you to a philospher in my post above for your consistent and awkward questions on truth and perception. Socrates seems appropriate :-)

ISAW

There is ample evidence the holocaust happened.
There are court decisions acknowledging it did.
There are NONE that it didnt.

Deniers will not post items critical of them.
Those opposed to the deniers will post the deniers source documentation.
Deniers attempts at looking academic usually reveal a few websites and journals which can be traced to the same people.
Sites like nizcor however will refer to the deniers and will post other independent references.

Eriugenia has made claims that there was ground radar used at Babi Yar. He never supported that. He has posted material with odd reference numbers but when pressed did not state the numbers were from a revisionist website.
He posted material about Lachout and Muller being in the Austrian Military Police in 1948 but when pressed could not supply ANY source which even verified the existance of such a force in 1948 nor where records of members of it might be. He claimed that damages were awarded to Lachout in 1998 in the European Court of Human Rights but cant support that either.

So called revisionists are usually holocaust deniers. I state "so called" because I am a revisionist. Though I do not deny the holocaust I have written about revising Irish history in the early twentieth century for example or about revising the popular view of Galileo. So called revisionists only post about the period in and around WWII where it relates to holocaust denial and not about other events in history.

Anyone who claims there is no evidence for the holocaust and then cant tell you the police force their so called evidence comes from, but refuses to deny it, is unsupported and is operating double standards.

ISAW

oops wrong thread. Sorry.

GuanYin

davros wrote:

Interesting thread this. All opinions are welcome.

Davros, don't give me that.

Discussion is one thing. Giving people a soapbox to spew untruths with other agendas in mind is irresponsible and another thing entirely.

You allow people to cloud threads with half trruths and opinions without ever following up poster requests for facts.

Its all very nice and amusing to watch, but as far as skeptics goes, this forum is about as credible as the polar bear wearing a tux claiming he's a penguin.

ISAW

psi wrote:

Davros, don't give me that.

Discussion is one thing. Giving people a soapbox to spew untruths with other agendas in mind is irresponsible and another thing entirely.

You allow people to cloud threads with half trruths and opinions without ever following up poster requests for facts.

Its all very nice and amusing to watch, but as far as skeptics goes, this forum is about as credible as the polar bear wearing a tux claiming he's a penguin.

Would you mind stating what you mean by people who spew unthruths? I don't know which side of the debate you are referring to so I want to mark your cards before we go any further.

ISAW

The above poster PSI' board is great! If Skeptics were looking for material in Ireland to study the paranormal board is chock full of it. They even have Sollog advertising a website for "psychic readings". I wonder if this is the failed Earthquake predicting Sollog.

One poster was going to Derren Brown and hoped he would not be asked on stage since he "read Derren's book2 and knew the tricks. I was struck by the fact that he didnt realise that maybe Derren would release a book of old tricks but have a show of new ones.

Also he knew they were tricks but still believes in psychic ability? Isnt that a biy like the story of the man in the street crawling around under on his hand and knees the light. A passerby asks what his problem is. the man says he lost something out on the street. the passerby asks "whay aren't you looking over there where you lost it" The man replies "This is the only place with any light". I am a bit like that myself. I really really want to see psy powers. I just never have seen convincing evidence for a psychic.

But I am like the people who made the flying saucer poster on Mulders
office wall? You know the one? "we want to believe". Maybe I have cognitive dissonence/conflict?

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I am a bleiever in free speech. That does not however entitle anyone to an audience. This board is being used to spam Holocaust denial stuff which had been soundly debunked elsewhere. I have only been on the board since last week and I believe Eriugenia has displayed the behaviour you mentioned. As to Turley I have only opened interchange with him but reading his posts I see what you mean.

I believe that a procedure like in the Oireachteas might help. Let the person have a chance to withdraw the remark or behaviour. After that suspend them. If they continue then suspend them for longer and finally ban them. If Eriugenia was suspended I believe he would disappear. I do not believe he would return if he had to argue using standard sceptical practices.

I am not aware if the admin can suspend for a period or ban for a particular thread. Then one could ban Eriugenia for any holocaust thread on which he did not follow standard protocols. I doubt he would have anything to contribute to any other threads though.

I did suggest to him that this probably was coming. It appears my prediction was true. Today I began to ignore him anyway since he would not enter into rational debate and refused to withdraw the unsupported claims he had made. So it appears he may have to learn the hard way.

I vote ban him. From all holocaust related threads if possible for starters.

As to Turley I don't know yet. start by banning him from some threads and pointing to a sceptic protocal for debate FAQ.

The existance of conspiracy theorists migh be a thread to get them into so they could learn to argue properly. They could then discuss theories without being able to advocate any. If such meta discussion is beyond them then they are lost I fear.

This post contains gross misrepresentatiosn and outright lies - charges which I can and will easily demonstrate in detail if ISAW's suggestions are taken seriously here.

Turley

davros wrote:

My preferred solution to this "signal/noise" problem is that there would be more threads created of specific interest to the ISS. There are real issues in this country (alternative medicine, psychics, etc.) that nobody else is addressing.

The late Paul Goodman said, "In the United States you can say anything you want as long as it has not effect." I think the pursuit of truth is a worthy goal and if 9/11 or the holocaust move us in that direction so be it. If you or anyone wishes to discuss alternative medicine or psychics a discussion can be started and those interested will join in.

davros wrote:

(I'm wondering now if NASA actually faked 9/11).

I would tend to doubt this. I am sure you are joking. But if you have some evidence I am open minded.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

Would you mind stating what you mean by people who spew unthruths? I don't know which side of the debate you are referring to so I want to mark your cards before we go any further.

Doesn't really matter which side, I've seen both sides do it. I've seen rational skeptics argue based on a theory that they obviously fully understand (natural selection for example) and I've seen the fanatics come here a pump the forum full of their opinion and conspiracy theories. Both tnd to ignore any rational argument put forward and seem just to like reading their own text. If you go back through the threads, you'll probably find a good few examples. I'm not really inclined to go searching.

As for the paranormal board, erm my moderating it has little to do with this arguement, other, I surmise, than giving you the ammunition to pull cheap shot posts at me. I only moderate the board because I'm effectively neutral in the "belief stake" and I'm willing to take a rational arguement from either side. I'd imagine its mostly because I'm equally liable to ban anyone who crosses the line, I don't tolerate fools gladly.

But if you were making assumptions, its nice of you.

ISAW

psi wrote:

Doesn't really matter which side, I've seen both sides do it. I've seen rational skeptics argue based on a theory that they obviously fully understand (natural selection for example) and I've seen the fanatics come here a pump the forum full of their opinion and conspiracy theories. Both tnd to ignore any rational argument put forward and seem just to like reading their own text. If you go back through the threads, you'll probably find a good few examples. I'm not really inclined to go searching.

]

You just accused people of lying and refuse to support that? Furthermore, your "it is in the threads" answer does not help me since
1. you havent explained to whom you referred
2. It is about as helpful as saying "it is all in the Bible go read the Bible" or "it is somewhere in the Origin of the Species" go and read that book.

If you make a claim surely the onus is on you to support it?
Is nt that called rational debate?
You wouldnt want tpo flout the principles to ascribed when you arrived her now would you?

As for the paranormal board, erm my moderating it has little to do with this arguement, other, I surmise, than giving you the ammunition to pull cheap shot posts at me.

We dont tend to personally attack people here. Would you mind how my referring to that Board is a shot at you cheap or otherwise? You surmise incorrectly. Before you arrived in here I didnt know you from madam. I still really don't. I just looked at the information you had in your sig. I havent looked at the SCI one yet. If you are suggesting otherwise please back that up or withdraw it.

On an ironic pedantic note one does not "pull" posts. Unless one is a moderator that is
Joking aside, I didnt attack you. Nor do I think I referred to ANY posts you made in the Paranormal forum.

I only moderate the board because I'm effectively neutral in the "belief stake" and I'm willing to take a rational arguement from either side. I'd imagine its mostly because I'm equally liable to ban anyone who crosses the line, I don't tolerate fools gladly.

But if you were making assumptions, its nice of you.

You certainly ARE making assumptions. I rarely bring my personal belief into the debate but as it happens you have me wrong. I happen to believe so my personal bias is on one side. I just dont base ANY claims on that belief or force that belief on others or ask for money because of it. I back up my claims with evidence and withdraw those which are not supported. It is rare when I do so but it does happen. Usually because i was not clear or rushed when commenting and did not think out what I wrote. So my rational basis is objective. I have not seen ANY evidence of the paranormal which stood up to sctutiny. the closest to it in my experience was when I first examined Gauquelin. But it turns out he cooked the books and no repeat of his suggested effect has ever been found.

ISAW

Hey DBones seems to have spammed every available thread except holocaust revision ones. and just when they were being closed down. What are the chances of that happening by accident? Is some strange unseen force at work here? Maybe I am reading too many conspiracy theory stuff?

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

]

You just accused people of lying and refuse to support that? Furthermore, your "it is in the threads" answer does not help me since
1. you havent explained to whom you referred
2. It is about as helpful as saying "it is all in the Bible go read the Bible" or "it is somewhere in the Origin of the Species" go and read that book.

If you do a search for my posts on skeptics, then you'll most likely hit paydirt on the examples you seek. I gave up arguing with Davros about the likes of Turley and williamgrogan and I really don't wanna drag it all back up.

If you make a claim surely the onus is on you to support it?
Is nt that called rational debate?
You wouldnt want tpo flout the principles to ascribed when you arrived her now would you?

Well the person I made the claim to knows what I'm referring to, we've been through it often enough. What you're asking is for me to support YOU with examples for YOUR benefit. Seeing as I'm not making a case for you, nor do you have an ability to do anything beyong agree or disagree with me, I don't really see the point in entering into a debate with you on the matter. If you wish to see what we're talking about. Do the search as I suggest. If not, then its your choice, I shan't be trawling through old threads for your benefit.

I arrived here long long before you were posting on boards, this is just a cameo

We dont tend to personally attack people here.

Really? I'm pretty sure the personal attacks only stopped after I had a lengthy discussion with Davros about it via PM. Even then I see them slip through the odd time.

Would you mind how my referring to that Board is a shot at you cheap or otherwise? You surmise incorrectly. Before you arrived in here I didnt know you from madam.

Well I moderate the board, so I took it that when you followed up your post with an off topic post on a thread to slag off the board, just after I had posted, it was hardly a respectful gesture. If you can show me otherwise, then I apologise.

I still really don't. I just looked at the information you had in your sig.

I don't have a sig.

I havent looked at the SCI one yet. If you are suggesting otherwise please back that up or withdraw it.

See above.

Joking aside, I didnt attack you. Nor do I think I referred to ANY posts you made in the Paranormal forum.

See above.

You certainly ARE making assumptions. I rarely bring my personal belief into the debate but as it happens you have me wrong. I happen to believe so my personal bias is on one side. I just dont base ANY claims on that belief or force that belief on others or ask for money because of it. I back up my claims with evidence and withdraw those which are not supported. It is rare when I do so but it does happen. Usually because i was not clear or rushed when commenting and did not think out what I wrote. So my rational basis is objective. I have not seen ANY evidence of the paranormal which stood up to sctutiny. the closest to it in my experience was when I first examined Gauquelin. But it turns out he cooked the books and no repeat of his suggested effect has ever been found.

Thats a good way to be.

robindch

hmm... less than seven hours to go from a standing start to the outbreak of a flamewar. A new record for the skeptics?

Can't remember where I saw it, but there's an old one about how internet discussions go:

A: xxx.
B: yyy?
A: xxx. xxx.
B: yyy?? yyy??
A: XXX!
B: YYY!!!

<thump>

- robin.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

Hi folks,

Although this may look somewhat like flamebait

If you tell lies about someone then that is exactly what you are doing.

it is actually a genuine question. I should add that I am not interested in any contributions from Turley or Eriugena.

I think that means we don't have right to reply.

However, if other people think that I am unfairly characterising them in this post, please call me on it.

You will answer to your smears or withdraw them.

Anyway, I started contributing to this board a couple of months back and in that time, discussion here has been mostly dominated by 2 (presumably) individuals who are not, imho, what most of us would consider to be skeptics, or anything similar.

You may only speak for yourself.

I think that we have established, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Eriugena is a nazi-apologist, anti-semite and admirer of Hitler. He also utilises very aggressive, rude and fallacious tactics in argument which most people probably find very unpleasant to deal with.

This is intolerable. "Aggressive, rude and fallacious?" You might like to look at your own posts.

I think that we have established, beyond all reasonable doubtthat Eriugena is a nazi-apologist, anti-semite and admirer of Hitler.

This is a slander and you know it. Produce the evidence or withdraw that.

Turley, for his part, might also be an anti-semite.

A smearing inuendo. But Turley is more than a match for you so I will leave it to them to respond in detail.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

hmm... less than seven hours to go from a standing start to the outbreak of a flamewar. A new record for the skeptics?

Can't remember where I saw it, but there's an old one about how internet discussions go:

A: xxx.
B: yyy?
A: xxx. xxx.
B: yyy?? yyy??
A: XXX!
B: YYY!!!

<thump>

- robin.

I'm not actually flaming, I already said that if I mistook him I apologise, however I do think he was being slightly disingenious.

robindch

> gross misrepresentatiosn (sic) and outright lies
> If you tell lies [...] You will answer to your smears
> [...] This is intolerable [...] This is a slander [...]
> A smearing inuendo

I've certainly heard enough of Eriugena to last me a lifetime. Anyone else concur?

- robin.

Eriugena

robindch wrote:

> gross misrepresentatiosn (sic) and outright lies
> If you tell lies [...] You will answer to your smears
> [...] This is intolerable [...] This is a slander [...]
> A smearing inuendo

I've certainly heard enough of Eriugena to last me a lifetime. Anyone else concur?

- robin.

I would like those charges to be demonstrated or withdrawn.

GuanYin

Eriugena wrote:

I would like those charges to be demonstrated or withdrawn.

I'd like to win the lotto and buy an island and set up my own dictatorship. Oh and a singing frog.

Who's gonna grant all these wishes?

Eriugena

psi wrote:

I'd like to win the lotto and buy an island and set up my own dictatorship. Oh and a singing frog.

Who's gonna grant all these wishes?

The ones who make them. Cowards thinks that internet anonymity enables them to say things they know they would never say in the open. All it does is allow them to advertise their cowardice.

GuanYin

Eriugena wrote:

The ones who make them. Cowards thinks that internet anonymity enables them to say things they know they would never say in the open. All it does is allow them to advertise their cowardice.

The ones who make the wishes are gonna grant them?

That makes no sense.

Incidently, I suggest anger management

Obni

Great topic for a thread, well done KCF!

It is clear that Eriugena and Turley (hereafter ET) have dominated the board for the last few months.

In addressing the original point of the thread, I would have to admit that part of the reason for so much time and effort being expended by all posters in debating the holocaust or 9/11 with ET is that they are fascinating subjects. Why else would so many conspiracy and revisionist sites exist, and the ones that exist get such a volume of hits?

Davros hit the nail on the head pointing out that really there is no-one to blame but ourselves if we spend all our time locked in fruitless debate with ET.
By all means let everyone contribute to threads, but let's launch some threads of more relevance to the activities of ISS.

For my own part, I must admit I have actually learned something from Turley and Eriugena about my own (lack) of debating skills. Take someone who's been living in a cave since they were born (not Bin Laden ) and sit them in a room with myself and ET, and I doubt I could put forward as apparently robust a case as ET in terms of volume of argument, references, and indeed the history of the debate to date. That is not to concede that they would be more convincing because their arguments have any basis or value, I'm simply comparing their e-oratory skills. After a few weeks it becomes apparent they also use the old and effective tactic of pounding away at the same points again and again, but despite that they are interesting examples of how it is virtually impossible to convince someone with a deep belief (however fallacious) to change their stance (and I'm sure they believe the same about most of us). I think that's something that has to be accepted; when you debate with a creationist or CAM merchant your going to get nowhere. In a lot of cases all that ISS can acheive will be simply getting the ISS point of view into the public arena.

If ET were to banned from any thread it would be because....
1. Turley: his banishment would suspended, subject to his agreeing to stop mentioning James Forrestal and to stop quoting Mr Martin's doggerel. :rolleyes:
2. Eriugena: I would ban not for his views but for the following posting style

Eriugena wrote:

You

Ah, when you say YOU do you mean the second person singular or plural.

Eriugena wrote:

may

May or must?????

Eriugena wrote:

only

Why do constantly liimit yourself with these terms?

Eriugena wrote:

speak

It's very hard to follow this sort of post...

Eriugena wrote:

for

I'm getting bored with this...

Eriugena wrote:

yourself

Everyone's probably stopped reading at this point...

Eriugena wrote:

.

Don't try to tell me when to stop with your politically correct full-stop. I'll stop when I'm ready, and may even decide a participle is a valid term to end a sentence with. :rolleyes:

Turley

One might think if people gathered for a discussion they might at least be polite and respectful of others.

These boards are not unlike William Golding's "Lord of the Flies."

Eriugena

Obni wrote:

2. Eriugena: I would ban not for his views but for the following posting style

Ah, when you say YOU do you mean the second person singular or plural.
May or must?????
Why do constantly liimit yourself with these terms?
It's very hard to follow this sort of post...
I'm getting bored with this...
Everyone's probably stopped reading at this point...
Don't try to tell me when to stop with your politically correct full-stop. I'll stop when I'm ready, and may even decide a participle is a valid term to end a sentence with. :rolleyes:

Well that's all very impressive I'm sure, but the point is surely not to be lost. Each of us may only speak for ourselves. One is not entitled to express one's views in the second person plural - unless you are a monarch or have privileged access toother people's minds: but then that would make you a psychic and I think the Irish Sceptics Society has certain strong views about that.

Eriugena

Obni wrote:

Great topic for a thread, well done KCF!

It is clear that Eriugena and Turley (hereafter ET) have dominated the board for the last few months.

Speaking for myself, this is patently untrue. I have confined my postings to the the relevant threads so I don't know how you can say I have dominated the board.

I joined because I saw the thread on holocaust revisionists. I saw that an interesting and lively discussion was taking place but there was something missing: the subject of the thread, i.e. a revisionist voice. The thread suffered from a one sidedness in that there was no one representing that viewpoint. I came to this discussion in order to rectify that deficit. Now I am being pilloried and even slandered for doing just that. Now we are at the point where a lynch mob is being formed! I find this attitude most bizzare coming from people who pride themselves on being sceptics.

I quote from the homepage of the ISS:

Put very simply, a skeptic is someone who is committed to logic, reason and critical thinking when making assessments or decisions.

Yes, that is the kind of thing I agree with completely, that is why I research the primary sources for the holocaust story because the received story can not have my belief.

Skeptics understand all knowledge to be tentative and data dependent.

Absolutely right. The data in this case is the primary sources; documents, testimonies on the one hand, technical and scienitifc data on the other. or example, if someone claims that a human corpse can be burned in a crematory muffle in less than 5 minutes with technology from 60 years ago, but state of the art technology can nly do that in an hour or so something is seriously wrong. It is not possible to ignore such problems and continue to claim to be a rational human being. This is what revisionism boils down to, these kinds of problems which the court historians glide over for one reason or another, someof which I ahve suggested in the relevant threads.

No matter what we may believe to be true, if the data contradict that belief, it is wrong.

I couldn't put it better myself. The known properties of HCN and the impregnanted pellets (Zyklon do not allow for release times of 3 minutes. If you wish to believe an "eye-witness" over the science of chemistry then you have parted company with reason and have entered the territory of quasi-religious myth-making and the realms of the miraculous.

Skeptics are sometimes accused of closed-mindedness, a criticism which is strongly rejected. The skeptic is open to the possibility of refutation of favoured ideas.

Certain people here should read this as an admonishment for their behaviour recently.

Without this position of openness, we cannot hope to move forward and we risk rejecting ideas which are potentially accurate and useful. If however, we are too accepting and not questioning enough we may end up spending a lot of time and energy on nonsense.

Yes indeed. Nonsense like 700-800 people fitting into a space of 25 sq meters to a height of 1.8m (about 6ft)! Yet it is claims like that which the holocaust story is woven from. That particular claim comes form a witness whois evry significant for exterminationist historians, so much so that no less a figure than Sir Martin Gilbert felt he needed to falsify this data to make it appear more credible, or isthere another explanation for his alterig the figure of 25 to 100 and then changing it again to 93?

I have documented all this on the relevant threads not in order tohave a discussion about the holocaust but merely to demonstrate that revisionism is based on real concerns about serious discrepancies. Concerns about scientific impossibilities and out right fraud in some cases. The price for skepticism in the mater of the holocaust is vilification and smear as has been evidenced in the relevant threads. But this is quite nothing in comparison to what has been meted out to other more promininet heretics than this poster.
I mean the jailing of people who have questioned the gas chambers, the slandering, the destruction of careers and reputations, and even the violence.

In an important sense, the ISS, insofar as it is represented by this board, is facing an important challenge. Does it stay true to its own expressed ideals which I, for my part, agree with, or, does it cave in under pressure from certain people who have joined this board after I have and break out the pyre and stake? Science or superstition? That is the choice. What I am not asking anyone to do, is to adopt the revisionist position. What I am asking, is for holocaust revisionism to be taken as something serious and founded on very real problems, some of which I have demonstrated in the relevant threads

Turley

Obni wrote:

After a few weeks it becomes apparent they also use the old and effective tactic of pounding away at the same points again and again, but despite that they are interesting examples of how it is virtually impossible to convince someone with a deep belief (however fallacious) to change their stance (and I'm sure they believe the same about most of us).

"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day."
-Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays (1928), "Dreams and Facts"

Naturally, you and the rest of the mob here would never actually hold a fallacious deep belief. Government prosecutors would not accuse someone of a crime if they were not guilty. There are no innocent men in prison, because they have all been found guilty.

landser

to tell you the truth, you are pretty much all the same in this thread when it comes to discussing the Holocaust. Neither side is ever willing to concede an inch. One side says that the holocaust may not have happened at all or at least not to the extent that is commonly accepted, while the others states that it did and that 6,183,242 people (or whatever the current revised figure is)were killed and if you deny this then you are a Nazi and an anti-semite. The threads remind me of the big-enders and little-enders from Robinson Crusoe. In the end, neither side will be satisfied with the others "evidence" and the whole argument descends into name calling and running off to the moderators to complain that the other boys won't play fair.

I have been looking at these threads for a while, and would rather argue with an ape than get involved in one of these "it did happen/didn't happen" fracas.

However, more worringly, this thread seeks to stop somebody questioning anything re the generally accepted matters concerning the holocaust, and this is a serious matter. Holocaust denial should never be illegal. To stifle debate and interpretation of history is dangerous. to say that one interpretation of history is legal and another illegal can lead to a slippery slope. I can say that WW1 did not happen, but i would clearly be wrong. I can say that german concentration camps did not exist, similarly i would be wrong. But to make it a crime for me to say the latter and not the former is abhorrent.
No one can say for certain how many died in the german camps, no more than they can say how many died in the gulags or in china under Japanese control, and herein lies the basis for both arguments, both for and against the extent of, or even the existence of, the holocaust. I do not say that the arguments put forward by those who question the extent of the holocaust have a strong or even defnsible argument, but i certainly believe in their right to argue the point, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to others.

KCF

landser wrote:

to tell you the truth, you are pretty much all the same in this thread when it comes to discussing the Holocaust. Neither side is ever willing to concede an inch. One side says that the holocaust may not have happened at all or at least not to the extent that is commonly accepted, while the others states that it did and that 6,183,242 people (or whatever the current revised figure is)were killed and if you deny this then you are a Nazi and an anti-semite.

I think that this is an extremely inaccurate description of the discussion. If you'd like to present an example of _anybody_ standing over a particular number of people killed, you're free to do so. Otherwise, this is simply just a scattergun 'insult everybody' comment which hardly helps your bid for the moral high ground.

landser wrote:

However, more worringly, this thread seeks to stop somebody questioning anything re the generally accepted matters concerning the holocaust, and this is a serious matter. Holocaust denial should never be illegal. To stifle debate and interpretation of history is dangerous. to say that one interpretation of history is legal and another illegal can lead to a slippery slope. I can say that WW1 did not happen, but i would clearly be wrong. I can say that german concentration camps did not exist, similarly i would be wrong. But to make it a crime for me to say the latter and not the former is abhorrent.

Once again, it would be useful if you were to anchor your arguments in reality. I do not recall anybody suggesting that we arrest Eriugenia or anybody else. The point of this thread is about people dominating discussion and directing everything towards a particular favoured topic of theirs which is essentially outside the interests of this board. If you were to repeatedly start threads denying the existance of WW1, I believe the reaction would be similar. Similarly, if I was to post umpteen comments expressing 'skepticism' over whether it _really_ was a penalty in the 1992 Cup Final, I would expect people's patience to run out eventually.

landser wrote:

No one can say for certain how many died in the german camps, no more than they can say how many died in the gulags or in china under Japanese control, and herein lies the basis for both arguments, both for and against the extent of, or even the existence of, the holocaust. I do not say that the arguments put forward by those who question the extent of the holocaust have a strong or even defnsible argument, but i certainly believe in their right to argue the point, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to others.

Your commitment to freedom of speech is all very noble and all very irrelevant. I have no problem with holocaust deniers discussing their ludicrous theories in suitable places, I simply think that they are abusing this board by doing so here to such an extent.

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

The point of this thread is about people dominating discussion and directing everything towards a particular favoured topic of theirs which is essentially outside the interests of this board.

The thread on holocaust revisionism was not started by me. Take it up with the person who started it.

If you were to repeatedly start threads denying the existance of WW1, I believe the reaction would be similar.

No it wouldn't because denying the historicity of WWI would be insane. Holocaust revisionism addresses a small set of very specific claims.

Similarly, if I was to post umpteen comments expressing 'skepticism' over whether it _really_ was a penalty in the 1992 Cup Final, I would expect people's patience to run out eventually.

Not if the thread was specifically about the 1992 Cup Final.

Your commitment to freedom of speech is all very noble and all very irrelevant. I have no problem with holocaust deniers discussing their ludicrous theories in suitable places, I simply think that they are abusing this board by doing so here to such an extent.

Again, the discussion has been confined to the relevant threads.

landser

KCF, the number suggested by me supra, is clearly not an "actual" figure, merely represntative of the many pointless arguments prusued in the Holocaust/9-11/man on the moon/whatever threads.

I know you never said that E & T shoukd be arrested, but your attempt to stifle them comes from the same stable. They might dominate a thread... so what? get off the thread if you don't like what they say or how often they say it. You say that they don't listen to what you say... Mr. Pot, may i introduce...

ISAW

psi wrote:

If you do a search for my posts on skeptics, then you'll most likely hit paydirt on the examples you seek. I gave up arguing with Davros about the likes of Turley and williamgrogan and I really don't wanna drag it all back up.



Well the person I made the claim to knows what I'm referring to, we've been through it often enough. What you're asking is for me to support YOU with examples for YOUR benefit. Seeing as I'm not making a case for you, nor do you have an ability to do anything beyong agree or disagree with me, I don't really see the point in entering into a debate with you on the matter.

You are entirely wrong here! I have no idea WHO you meant. If you meant an exchange on holocaust denial I had no idea whether you meant whether I Eriugenia or somebody else was behaving in the way you suggested. If you are accusing me then please post where I did as you suggest.

If you wish to see what we're talking about. Do the search as I suggest. If not, then its your choice, I shan't be trawling through old threads for your benefit.

You made the claim. You provide the evidence. I only arrived here last week and have no idea what you are talking about.

I arrived here long long before you were posting on boards, this is just a cameo
[/QOUTE]

So what? I am older than you or I am bigger than you or I am smarter than you is not a basis for claiming anyone is right.

Really? I'm pretty sure the personal attacks only stopped after I had a lengthy discussion with Davros about it via PM. Even then I see them slip through the odd time.

Well I wouldnt know about that. I admit I only arrived. But am involved in skeptical debate for years. I meant that argument ad hominem is fallacious.

Well I moderate the board, so I took it that when you followed up your post with an off topic post on a thread to slag off the board, just after I had posted, it was hardly a respectful gesture. If you can show me otherwise, then I apologise.
[/QOUTE]

It is not up to me to show you that. You cant shift the burden of proof onto me. However if you apologise I accept that you assumed in the wrong and I accept your apology. I dont even know you, but at least you have shown some degree of honesty and respect for rational discussion in doing that.

For my part I have no extensive knowledge of the history of debates here lest I be accused of being a necromancer. I only learned how to Quote yesterday:)

Eriugena

KCF wrote:

I think that this is an extremely inaccurate description of the discussion. If you'd like to present an example of _anybody_ standing over a particular number of people killed, you're free to do so. Otherwise, this is simply just a scattergun 'insult everybody' comment which hardly helps your bid for the moral high ground.

"Insult everybody"? Funny that, I don't feel insulted by that comment.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I only arrived here last week . . .

That's right, and already you are trying to lay down the law and stir up trouble.

KCF

landser wrote:

KCF, the number suggested by me supra, is clearly not an "actual" figure, merely represntative of the many pointless arguments prusued in the Holocaust/9-11/man on the moon/whatever threads.

I think it is merely representative of your own prejudices and is not an accurate reflection of anything that has been written here.

landser wrote:

I know you never said that E & T shoukd be arrested, but your attempt to stifle them comes from the same stable. They might dominate a thread... so what? get off the thread if you don't like what they say or how often they say it. You say that they don't listen to what you say... Mr. Pot, may i introduce...

I have gone to some lengths to answer the 'so what' question on this thread. I believe that you have made no attempt to understand my point and are merely being wantonly insulting. You have a very poor understanding of the concept of freedom of speech. If I opine that a particular person's presence is destructive to the aims of a particular forum, that does not translate into an attack on their freedom of speech. No more than opining that a person deciding to play rugby in the middle of a soccer match is destructive is an attack on their freedom to play sport.

I suggest that you properly read the preceding text and comment upon it rather than whatever pet straw-man you are currently arguing with.

landser

KCF wrote:

I think it is merely representative of your own prejudices and is not an accurate reflection of anything that has been written here.


I have gone to some lengths to answer the 'so what' question on this thread. I believe that you have made no attempt to understand my point and are merely being wantonly insulting. You have a very poor understanding of the concept of freedom of speech. If I opine that a particular person's presence is destructive to the aims of a particular forum, that does not translate into an attack on their freedom of speech. No more than opining that a person deciding to play rugby in the middle of a soccer match is destructive is an attack on their freedom to play sport.

I suggest that you properly read the preceding text and comment upon it rather than whatever pet straw-man you are currently arguing with.

Entertaining sporting analogies aside, I was not aware that i was arguing with anyone in particular, and certainly, did not intend to insult anyone, unlike your goodself in your most recent emission.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

You are entirely wrong here! I have no idea WHO you meant. If you meant an exchange on holocaust denial I had no idea whether you meant whether I Eriugenia or somebody else was behaving in the way you suggested. If you are accusing me then please post where I did as you suggest.

I addressed my post to Davros, not you. Don't worry your pretty little head about who I'm referring to, its not your concern.

You made the claim. You provide the evidence. I only arrived here last week and have no idea what you are talking about.

No, because, quite frankly, its none of your business and you're not answerable. If you want to know, do the work, if you don't, then stop wasting my time.

Well I wouldnt know about that. I admit I only arrived. But am involved in skeptical debate for years. I meant that argument ad hominem is fallacious.

Well you did start to tell me how people behave around here, so if you only just arrived, I find that presumptious in its own right. Even still, there is no arguement.

You just expect to be involved in a point I made to Davros that has nothing to do with you.

It is not up to me to show you that. You cant shift the burden of proof onto me.

Then I stand by my original comment.

For my part I have no extensive knowledge of the history of debates here lest I be accused of being a necromancer. I only learned how to Quote yesterday:)

Well then don't get involved in matters you know nothing about.

ISAW

landser wrote:

to tell you the truth, you are pretty much all the same in this thread when it comes to discussing the Holocaust. Neither side is ever willing to concede an inch. One side says that the holocaust may not have happened at all or at least not to the extent that is commonly accepted, while the others states that it did and that 6,183,242 people (or whatever the current revised figure is)were killed and if you deny this then you are a Nazi and an anti-semite.

[/QOUTE]

This is patently not true. I am willing to revise my poiition when evidence is presented. I didnt suggest ANY figures. Nor did I call anyone a Nazi or an Anti semite. But in addition to this you posit a false dichotomy.

[QOUTE]
The threads remind me of the big-enders and little-enders from Robinson Crusoe. In the end, neither side will be satisfied with the others "evidence" and the whole argument descends into name calling and running off to the moderators to complain that the other boys won't play fair.

I think you mean BIG and LITTLE -endians and the book was Gullivers Travels.
Robinson Crusoe lived ALONE on his Island until he discovered Friday.
You metaphor is about a relevant as your understanding of the topics as they were discussed.

[QOUTE]
I have been looking at these threads for a while, and would rather argue with an ape than get involved in one of these "it did happen/didn't happen" fracas.
[/QUOTE]

First you just have got involved in a meta discussion. Second, the dichotomy is false. If someone started a thread on the famine didnt happen or The Stardust fire didnt happen it is not a simple question of two equally acceptable positions. One is a historic FACT with masses of evidence the other is gainsaying what is known and using fradualent and concocted evidence to support nitpicking arguments in specific sub topics.

[/QOUTE]

[QOUTE]
However, more worringly, this thread seeks to stop somebody questioning anything re the generally accepted matters concerning the holocaust, and this is a serious matter. Holocaust denial should never be illegal.
[/QUOTE]

I never claimed it should be!
As it happens I actually spoke to the Minister of Justice about this.
You are creating an argument I never made. Indeed I made the opposite of that.

No one can say for certain how many died in the german camps, no more than they can say how many died in the gulags or in china under Japanese control, and herein lies the basis for both arguments, both for and against the extent of, or even the existence of, the holocaust. I do not say that the arguments put forward by those who question the extent of the holocaust have a strong or even defnsible argument, but i certainly believe in their right to argue the point, no matter how ridiculous it may seem to others.

Rubbish. the point isnt how many died. the point being made is it never happened! The deniers get into sthe habit aying that they are not deniers but cant see any evidence because that is illegal in other countries. But to a skeptic ther is no difference between nbo evidence of a Dragon and No Dragon.

If someone arrived claiming that there is no physical evidence that Fr Smith abused children and mayby nobody ever abused children and on that basis we should consider revising child pornography laws I suppose you would be claiming they deserve equal treatment and respect for being a true skeptic?

KCF

landser wrote:

Entertaining sporting analogies aside, I was not aware that i was arguing with anyone in particular, and certainly, did not intend to insult anyone, unlike your goodself in your most recent emission.

A helpful tip: when you express a particular position in an argument, which is opposed to the positions of other participants, you are "arguing with" them.
Another: when you express inaccurate summaries of particular points of view that you disagree with and claim that those who disagree with you are doing things like attempting to 'stifle debate', those people who feel that their views are misrepresented might feel insulted or some similar emotion.

Eriugena

psi wrote:

The ones who make the wishes are gonna grant them?

Unless they want to be seen as cowards then they must demonstrate their allegations.

That makes no sense.

It does if you understand simple fair play.

Poisonwood

How the heck did i miss 45 posts? ... I've only been gone for a few hours?!?!

(PS I agree generally with KCF)

robindch

> How the heck did i miss 45 posts? ... I've only been gone for a few hours?!?!

Wonderful -- in less than a day, 47 messages posted to a thread concerning board flooding!

Good heavens, doesn't anyone have a fulltime job?(*)

- robin.

(*) I'm replying in between lengthy compiles...

landser

KCF wrote:

A helpful tip: when you express a particular position in an argument, which is opposed to the positions of other participants, you are "arguing with" them.
Another: when you express inaccurate summaries of particular points of view that you disagree with and claim that those who disagree with you are doing things like attempting to 'stifle debate', those people who feel that their views are misrepresented might feel insulted or some similar emotion.

I said "in particluar" in that post... keep up old boy.

secondly, I never summarised anything at any time. I made a comment as to the nature of the debates in general in this thread and others on these general subjects.



ISAW, i wasn't talking to or about you, when i originally posted, so relax. Most of your "reply" is a bit of a rant tbh, and not relevant to the point i made initially.

your point re Gulliver's travels is well founded however, and i admit that i mis-quoted... have alexander selkirk on my mind of late, hence the slip up.

The Corinthian

KCF wrote:

Your commitment to freedom of speech is all very noble and all very irrelevant. I have no problem with holocaust deniers discussing their ludicrous theories in suitable places, I simply think that they are abusing this board by doing so here to such an extent.

That’s an opinion, to which you’re entitled. Don’t confuse that with fact.

Landser brought up a good point. You can go to racialist sites, such as Stormfront, and find people there dismissing the Holocaust on the basis that it’s apparently been proved not to have occurred and it is irresponsible to discuss it further. And oddly people are suggesting the same thing here.

Of course, I could take their word for it, but I’m not. And oddly the same goes for you.

KCF

landser wrote:

I said "in particluar" in that post... keep up old boy.

You were arguing with those people who were disagreeing with you _in particular_.

landser wrote:

secondly, I never summarised anything at any time. I made a comment as to the nature of the debates in general in this thread and others on these general subjects.

How is it possible to make "a comment as to the nature of the debates in general" without "summarising" them in some way? (okay it's a rhetorical question - it's not possible)

No more semantic pedantry please, please, please.

KCF

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s an opinion, to which you’re entitled. Don’t confuse that with fact.

And that's an opinion too, so don't confuse it with fact. * starts infinite recursion of pointless statement *

The fact that I have accompanied my opinion with a long list of arguments might have led you to believe that I was aware of the fact that it was an opinion that would not necessarily be agreed with by everybody. If you disagree with the opinion, argue your point. But please spare me the platitudes.

The Corinthian wrote:

Landser brought up a good point. You can go to racialist sites, such as Stormfront, and find people there dismissing the Holocaust on the basis that it’s apparently been proved not to have occurred and it is irresponsible to discuss it further. And oddly people are suggesting the same thing here.

Again, why not try accuracy when repeating what has been said? Nobody has suggested that it is irresponsible to discuss the holocaust and I think the notion is ridiculous.

The Corinthian wrote:

Of course, I could take their word for it, but I’m not. And oddly the same goes for you.

Rats, I was hoping that you'd autmatically recognise my authority as an anonymous idiot on the internet. I somehow failed to factor in your obviously elevated intellectual integrity.

Please, please, please address what was said. There is no point in having arguments with the censorious straw men that you would like to imagine that you are arguing with.