Civility Out?

[T'ai Chi]

Who is rude? You are rude. Because of this, I will not even entertain the notion of being polite to you, bizatch!!

You've already demonstrated you're a cynic and not a skeptic. You really don't need to provide more evidence.

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

For an alleged Skeptical forum, the only skeptical, calm, rational, balanced, reasonable arguments and points i see are the one's asking the hard questions!

The True Believer type Skeptics seem to make as much Rational sense as the response one gets when asking a fundamentalist Christian to consider perhaps that Jesus was not Divine.

I realize its just a few Angry "Skeptics" who like to "try and be right" that are spoiling the broth. That is not rational skepticism. Its just a psychological problem.
I would be interested to see how many alleged skeptics are actually capable of putting together a proper, balanced, rational argument, and not just an emotional knee-jerk reaction!

Well, it is the internet!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Simply asking bleevers for evidence is the only "hard" question a skeptic needs.

 

[dann]

Not all questions deserve an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

And since not all questions deserve an answer, all the questions you've been asked, but haven't answered, are of the kind that don't deserve an answer, right?

Asking questions or asking for evidence isn't rude, but it can be done in a way that is rude.

And whenever you have been asked for evidence, but haven't answered, it was merely because the one asking for evidence added "you f**ing b**ch!"???

Hmm. I haven't used the most egregious example. And I prefer brief quotes with links to supporting material. Just my preference. You're free to bring up more context and more evidence.

It's probably rude of me to say so, but I seem to remember you bringing brief quotes with absolutely no links to supporting material, but I could be wrong. Hmmm! ..... No, I'm not:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beth
In regard to the whole civility issue and how it affects the purpose of JREF, I'll quote a bit of a private correspondence from a different applicant, one who has never posted here, and let you draw your own conclusions.
"With regard to the Randi Challenge, I do not trust their intentions, their integrity, and their motivation. Every correspondence with them thus far has resulted in pure rudeness?"
Is this really how the JREF challenge wants to be perceived by people outside the community?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, of course the real Beth, the one that she likes to imagine she is, wouldn't do a thing like that. Never. That's just the way she is. That's her preference.

Is criticism of Randi or JREF not allowed? Is anyone who does automatically anti-Randi?

Yes, of course it is! No, of course they aren't! Why don't you start criticizing instead of simply quoting people who claim that they have been abused by Randi and the JREF? Could it be because criticism is so much more demanding than simply quoting people who have allegedly been treated with rudeness?
You don't find your own behaviour in this respect rude at all?

Come on, Beth! Which of my unanswered questions did not deserve an answer because it was too rude? When did I ask for evidence in an abusive way?

 

[jmercer]

I do understand the fallacy. However, I don't agree that using that particular question as an example is doing anything more than trying to pick a fight. Another factor that I've taken into consideration is the fact that she did NOT give specific examples of these fallacious questions that she claims people have asked her.

Oh - ok, then, as long as it wasn't a misunderstanding. By all means, proceed.