spin

Insensitive bastards.


spin

Amaleq13

This happens on a regular basis.

Amaleq13

Agreed, unfortunately.

Please.

I appreciate the sentiment though you are certainly not part of the existing "problem".

Ben C Smith

Very recently spamandham, whom I consider to be very left of center, said pretty much that very thing (though perhaps in more polite terms) to aa58-I-can-never-remember-the-numbers, who is so far left he cannot even see left of center from his position, over the course of numerous posts. Toto and Amaleq13, both skeptics, also very frequently (but again usually politely) ask other skeptics which planet they are from. There is also spin, who can get downright grouchy with one and all, skeptic or believer, sinner or saint.

Ben.

Casper

Sheshonq,

regarding your your frustration with what often becomes the "broken record" syndrome, I understand your frustration and praise your patience.

If it is any consoloation, however, I'd like to point out the daniel thread as an example; I have several pages of notes derived from just that thread, and many of those notes are based on your contributions.

I guess what I am saying is that you may be discounnting the lurkers who are deriving a considerable amount from what on the surface appears to be a waste of time. Perhaps the frustrations might be lessened some if those of us on the lay end expressed our thanks more often. I attempted to do so, and I'm sure the sentiment was not limited to myself.

And no, I'm not calling for a group hug. But I will take a Bud Light

Doug Shaver

It would be disturbing, if it were happening.

You seem to be confusing attention with acceptance. The most aggressive posters do get the most attention. I have seen no evidence at all, though, that people are more inclined to believe them than they are to believe other posters.

Sheshbazzar

It is quite natural that skeptics, by their very nature of being skeptical, would find ourselves often in a general overall agreement on our respective assessments of many Biblical subjects.
But this certainly is no "mutual admiration society" and we DO quite often give to each other a tough row to hoe.

In regards to your complaint, I would like to remind you of the recent thread
"Did Jephthah kill his daughter? " to which you yourself contributed some 8 posts.
I strongly opposed the position of my fellow skeptics throughout the entire 140 posts in that thread, and yes, at times the rhetoric did become rather strong, as each side thought the other to be in error, and being "full of crap". It now rests, evidently unresolved, with neither side being capable of entirely persuading the other.

Mountainman, the one here who is most often charged with holding a "crank theory" has been challenged daily, and literally thousands of times in these forums by his fellow skeptics. I know that I've "went a round or three" with him myself. And although he certainly has not fully persuaded me into the acceptance of the extremes of his position, he has been quite successful in contributing significantly to my education as to what did actually transpire in the third century AD.
The mountains of quotations and references that Mountainman has here supplied, supplemented with my own store of knowledge, has compelled me to modify a good many of my previous ideas and positions.
Even Chili, one well known here for his "abstract flights of fancy" and "odd interpretations and understandings" of Biblical texts, oft times reveals a gem of original insight that provides a valuable contribution to the life of this forum.
"Experts" who come here with their carefully constructed analysis of the "meaning" and "sequence of events" of various texts, become frustrated when it is pointed out to them that those texts into which they have invested so much, are not even worth the paper that they are written on, and are no more trustworthy for establishing of historical facts, than would be The Book of Mormon.

GakuseiDon

My 2 cents: The problem is where posters push their monomania into threads that start out with nothing to do with that poster's monomania. I'm thinking of posters like Johnny Skeptic, mountainman, aa_____. Perhaps a solution may be to have one thread for each of them and their ideas, and then move posts from other threads into those threads when necessary. Also, I'd like to add to the credos being offered to the moderators on this board.

Sheshbazzar

All of us skeptical "cranks" have at times had our posts, some of which we have invested hours of reasoning into "MOVED", or sent off to "Elsewhere".
The "monomania" is a survival tactic, if you are the only one, or of a small minority, your voice and opinion will never receive an equal hearing, unless you repeat it over and over and over.

youngalexander

I wanted to know how others perceived Doherty's MJ ideas, Googled - and thus found IIDB!:wave:

Now wasn't that productive?

MM's ideas are not so easily dismissed, and in the process you can indeed learn a good deal. I discovered Early Christian art and archeology and a whole non-literary view of Greco-Roman life in the early centuries.

I like odd - always have. Seems to me that J.B.S. Haldane dribbled a bib-full when he wrote

Now my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than
we suppose, but queerer than we *can* suppose. I have read and heard
many attempts at a systematic account of it, from materialism and
theosophy to the Christian systems or that of Kant, and I have
always felt that they were too simple.

Let us have more cranks, not less.:devil3:
(but let them provide evidence)