Sci Forums question

[Kittamaru]

You did imply you wished to have the rules more strictly enforced - the "pseudo science" and "woo" sections generally were relaxed in their interpretation of the rules as they are just that - woo-woo. You wanted, by your own posts, to have the rules about trolling enforced more strictly. I think it would be quite foolish, frankly, to selectively enforce only some of the rules, so as I stated - they will, as a result, be more strictly enforced.

As I showed in the OP of the Defining Trolling thread, trolling is acting like a prick because you can. It is intentionally insulting someone or saying something inflammatory against someone, either sarcastically or directly. Trolling has absolutely nothing to do with not posting evidence for a claim. And it certainly IS NOT failing to provide evidence AGAINST a claim.  So obviously you just used my thread as an excuse to ban me. Simple as that. It's what you do. As for your renewed zeal to enforce the "evidence for a claim" rule, you'd better be doin that for everybody then. Did you infract Spidergoat for not providing evidence for HIS claim that the voice could've come from a human-sounding dolphin in the river? Did you infract Bells for not providing evidence that the 4 rescue workers were all lying just to make the evening news? Did YOU provide evidence for a noise coming from the car that could be mistaken for a female voice? No you haven't have you? You wouldn't DARE enforce your new rule against your buddies. You only enforce it when it is to your advantage. IOW, when you want to get rid of someone you can't effectively argue with. Because that's just the kind of person you are: a vindictive and immature abuser of moderator power.

And once again, you have proven my point - you are bound and determined to be the victim.

No - Spidergoat's comment about a "human sounding dolphin" was a tongue-in-cheek poke at your absurd claim it was some kind of supernatural phenomenon in order to prove a point - that your claim was absurd.
No - Bells already provided evidence to show how the rescue workers could easily have been lying to make the news - evidence YOU were entirely incapable of refuting.
I did provide evidence as to how ambient noise (note - I never dictated it to be a noise from the car itself) could EASILY be mistaken as a voice - it happens all the goddamn time.


You, however, could not back the following claims/statements YOU made in the slightest:

Every normal person in the world who hears this story understands this as a supernatural event. 

No..it was about the color of the dress, not the photo. Nobody doubts that the dress is black and blue.

In addition, when you could not deflect or otherwise hand-wave away arguments that showed just how full of holes your theories were, you decided to throw a tantrum and ignore the people in question!

Ignored...When you actually educate yourself on what you are talking about, I might listen. Till then you are a waste of my time.

You ALSO make the claim that one type of sensory confusion/manipulation is somehow vastly different than another:

LOL! This wasn't a picture of a black and blue dress in deceptive lighting. It was a voice distinctly heard by 4 rescue workers. Not even remotely comparable..

You made this claim:

Wanting someone to be alive doesn't make 4 rescue workers suddenly hear a voice. Just doesn't happen..

Which I disproved (with citations and evidence):
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-o...st-3283700

Which you promptly dismissed with a hand-wave.

You claimed there was NO NOISE coming from the car:

Pareidolia is when an already extant noise is mistaken for something else. There was no noise coming from the submerged car to confuse with a woman's voice. None at all. Here's the video of the rescue at the point of trying to overturn the car. Reports say their adrenaline kicked in when they heard the voice. Makes perfect sense.

Yet the video you posted had PLENTY of background audio!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morni...ecked-car/
Not to mention that the camera feed cuts away!

Face it Magical Realist - your arguments have more holes than a goddamn sieve... and you got mad that you were called out on it! 

On SciForums, if you want to make an extraordinary claim, then you damn well better have extraordinary evidence to back it up. It's a simple rule - if you can't figure it out, that's your problem.

Now, as the simple and obvious TRUTH has been posted here for all to see, I bid you adieu - arguing with a fool is a fools errand, and so I see no further point in attempting to reason with you.

[Magical Realist]

No..spidergoat's claim wasn't a joke. It was a claim meant to explain away the voice that 4 recue workers heard. One for which he provided no evidence.

No...Bell's did not provide any evidence that the rescuers were lying about what they heard. None whatsoever. But since she's your buddy, you overlook that.

And no...there was no sound coming from the car that sounded like a woman's voice. None. And no ambient noise that sounded like a woman's voice either. You failed to back that claim with evidence, as you did your claim that they were all hallucinating the same thing.

And by the way, since you have a new personal rule that says you have to disprove someone's claim with evidence, where's your evidence that the paranormal doesn't occur? Where's your evidence that it is impossible? Remember, this is YOUR new rule. So either abide by it yourself, or quit enforcing it on just me. As for the dress, newsflash, the dress was proven on the news to be black and blue. So indeed noone doubts now that it is black and blue. Just that it was in bad lighting.

As for evidence for extraordinary claims, 4 rescuers hearing the same voice IS extraordinary evidence. That's why nothing any of you said in that thread could refute the story in any way. Because that IS solid evidence that the paranormal happens and DID happen on that day, despite all your ad hoc denials and unevidenced claims. You all failed miserably to refute that one fact.

Anything else you wanna lie about? Didn't think so. You have no excuse for your selective enforcement of a made up rule. None whatsoever. So run back to your little treehouse where you get to play God over the club members. Where you can censor others from even bringing up complaints about your mistreatment of them. Because here you have no power. How does that feel, not being able to ban someone who pisses you off? Where you can't cut somebody off in mid sentence simply for disagreeing with you?

[Kittamaru]

No..spidergoat's claim wasn't a joke. It was a claim meant to explain away the voice that 4 recue workers heard. One for which he provided no evidence.

No...Bell's did not provide any evidence that the rescuers were lying about what they heard. None whatsoever. But since she's your buddy, you overlook that.

And no...there was no sound coming from the car that sounded like a woman's voice. None. And no ambient noise that sounded like a woman's voice either. You failed to back that claim with evidence, as you did your claim that they were all hallucinating the same thing.

And by the way, since you have a new personal rule that says you have to disprove someone's claim with evidence, where's your evidence that the paranormal doesn't occur? Where's your evidence that it is impossible? Remember, this is YOUR new rule. So either abide by it yourself, or quit enforcing it on just me. As for the dress, newsflash, the dress was proven on the news to be black and blue. So indeed noone doubts now that it is black and blue. Just that it was in bad lighting.

As for evidence for extraordinary claims, 4 rescuers hearing the same voice IS extraordinary evidence. That's why nothing any of you said in that thread could not refute the story in any way. Because that IS solid evidence that the paranormal happens and DID happen on that day, despite all your ad hoc denials and unevidenced claims. You all failed miserably to refute that one fact.

Anything else you wanna lie about? Didn't think so. You have no excuse for your selective enforcement of a made up rule. None whatsoever. So run back to your little treehouse where you get to play God over the club members. Where you can censor others from even bringing up complaints about your mistreatment of them. Because here you have no power. How does that feel, not being able to ban someone who pisses you off? Where you can't cut somebody off in mid sentence simply for disagreeing with you?

I backed the claim for sound with plenty of evidence - it doesn't have to sound like a womans voice after the fact or on recording - that's exactly what Pareidolia is!

My evidence that the paranormal doesn't exist? Interesting... I never claimed it "doesn't exist" in this debate, but I'll bite - evidence that it doesn't exist is situational, and unique to every encounter - however, I have yet to see anything that cannot be sufficiently explained by mundane methods. However, you are once again trying to twist the truth - I do not have to disprove your claim - you made the claim, you have to prove it.

Pathetic... absolutely pathetic MR. All you have are distortions and falsehoods, and terrible ones at that. As I said - you have already decided you want to be the "poor widdle victim" regardless of the facts... so to continue to debate with you is a folly... but at least now anyone who reads this thread can see your lies for what they are.

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

[Magical Realist]

No..spidergoat's claim wasn't a joke. It was a claim meant to explain away the voice that 4 recue workers heard. One for which he provided no evidence.

No...Bell's did not provide any evidence that the rescuers were lying about what they heard. None whatsoever. But since she's your buddy, you overlook that.

And no...there was no sound coming from the car that sounded like a woman's voice. None. And no ambient noise that sounded like a woman's voice either. You failed to back that claim with evidence, as you did your claim that they were all hallucinating the same thing.

And by the way, since you have a new personal rule that says you have to disprove someone's claim with evidence, where's your evidence that the paranormal doesn't occur? Where's your evidence that it is impossible? Remember, this is YOUR new rule. So either abide by it yourself, or quit enforcing it on just me. As for the dress, newsflash, the dress was proven on the news to be black and blue. So indeed noone doubts now that it is black and blue. Just that it was in bad lighting.

As for evidence for extraordinary claims, 4 rescuers hearing the same voice IS extraordinary evidence. That's why nothing any of you said in that thread could not refute the story in any way. Because that IS solid evidence that the paranormal happens and DID happen on that day, despite all your ad hoc denials and unevidenced claims. You all failed miserably to refute that one fact.

Anything else you wanna lie about? Didn't think so. You have no excuse for your selective enforcement of a made up rule. None whatsoever. So run back to your little treehouse where you get to play God over the club members. Where you can censor others from even bringing up complaints about your mistreatment of them. Because here you have no power. How does that feel, not being able to ban someone who pisses you off? Where you can't cut somebody off in mid sentence simply for disagreeing with you?

Pathetic... absolutely pathetic MR. All you have are distortions and falsehoods, and terrible ones at that. As I said - you have already decided you want to be the "poor widdle victim" regardless of the facts... so to continue to debate with you is a folly... but at least now anyone who reads this thread can see your lies for what they are.

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

You have no power here. So run along now before someone drops a house on YOU! 

[Image: tumblr_n3cqecqIbh1snk8gto3_500.gif]

---

My evidence that the paranormal doesn't exist? Interesting... I never claimed it "doesn't exist" in this debate, but I'll bite - evidence that it doesn't exist is situational, and unique to every encounter - however, I have yet to see anything that cannot be sufficiently explained by mundane methods. However, you are once again trying to twist the truth - I do not have to disprove your claim - you made the claim, you have to prove it.

Not according to you. You said I had to disprove your claims or show them to be impossible based on evidence. But suddenly YOU can't do that regarding my claim that it was paranormal? What's wrong? Is your new rule turning out to be impossible to obey? lol!

[Kittamaru]

No..spidergoat's claim wasn't a joke. It was a claim meant to explain away the voice that 4 recue workers heard. One for which he provided no evidence.

No...Bell's did not provide any evidence that the rescuers were lying about what they heard. None whatsoever. But since she's your buddy, you overlook that.

And no...there was no sound coming from the car that sounded like a woman's voice. None. And no ambient noise that sounded like a woman's voice either. You failed to back that claim with evidence, as you did your claim that they were all hallucinating the same thing.

And by the way, since you have a new personal rule that says you have to disprove someone's claim with evidence, where's your evidence that the paranormal doesn't occur? Where's your evidence that it is impossible? Remember, this is YOUR new rule. So either abide by it yourself, or quit enforcing it on just me. As for the dress, newsflash, the dress was proven on the news to be black and blue. So indeed noone doubts now that it is black and blue. Just that it was in bad lighting.

As for evidence for extraordinary claims, 4 rescuers hearing the same voice IS extraordinary evidence. That's why nothing any of you said in that thread could not refute the story in any way. Because that IS solid evidence that the paranormal happens and DID happen on that day, despite all your ad hoc denials and unevidenced claims. You all failed miserably to refute that one fact.

Anything else you wanna lie about? Didn't think so. You have no excuse for your selective enforcement of a made up rule. None whatsoever. So run back to your little treehouse where you get to play God over the club members. Where you can censor others from even bringing up complaints about your mistreatment of them. Because here you have no power. How does that feel, not being able to ban someone who pisses you off? Where you can't cut somebody off in mid sentence simply for disagreeing with you?

Pathetic... absolutely pathetic MR. All you have are distortions and falsehoods, and terrible ones at that. As I said - you have already decided you want to be the "poor widdle victim" regardless of the facts... so to continue to debate with you is a folly... but at least now anyone who reads this thread can see your lies for what they are.

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

You have no power here. So run along now before someone drops a house on YOU! 

[Image: tumblr_n3cqecqIbh1snk8gto3_500.gif]

---

My evidence that the paranormal doesn't exist? Interesting... I never claimed it "doesn't exist" in this debate, but I'll bite - evidence that it doesn't exist is situational, and unique to every encounter - however, I have yet to see anything that cannot be sufficiently explained by mundane methods. However, you are once again trying to twist the truth - I do not have to disprove your claim - you made the claim, you have to prove it.

Not according to you. You said I had to disprove your claims or show them to be impossible based on evidence. But suddenly YOU can't do that regarding my claim that it was paranormal? What's wrong? Is your new rule turning out to be impossible to obey? lol!

Not at all - several mundane explanations were offered for what was observed - you rejected them with a simple wave of your magic wand. 

Feel free to post whatever drivel you want, just keep it off of SciForums. That, or learn to follow the rules. Those are your two (and only two) options.

PS - drop a house on me, hm? Now you are saying that because you cannot win an actual debate, you are going to "get rid of me", hm? I do believe that feels like a personal threat.

[Magical Realist]

No..spidergoat's claim wasn't a joke. It was a claim meant to explain away the voice that 4 recue workers heard. One for which he provided no evidence.

No...Bell's did not provide any evidence that the rescuers were lying about what they heard. None whatsoever. But since she's your buddy, you overlook that.

And no...there was no sound coming from the car that sounded like a woman's voice. None. And no ambient noise that sounded like a woman's voice either. You failed to back that claim with evidence, as you did your claim that they were all hallucinating the same thing.

And by the way, since you have a new personal rule that says you have to disprove someone's claim with evidence, where's your evidence that the paranormal doesn't occur? Where's your evidence that it is impossible? Remember, this is YOUR new rule. So either abide by it yourself, or quit enforcing it on just me. As for the dress, newsflash, the dress was proven on the news to be black and blue. So indeed noone doubts now that it is black and blue. Just that it was in bad lighting.

As for evidence for extraordinary claims, 4 rescuers hearing the same voice IS extraordinary evidence. That's why nothing any of you said in that thread could not refute the story in any way. Because that IS solid evidence that the paranormal happens and DID happen on that day, despite all your ad hoc denials and unevidenced claims. You all failed miserably to refute that one fact.

Anything else you wanna lie about? Didn't think so. You have no excuse for your selective enforcement of a made up rule. None whatsoever. So run back to your little treehouse where you get to play God over the club members. Where you can censor others from even bringing up complaints about your mistreatment of them. Because here you have no power. How does that feel, not being able to ban someone who pisses you off? Where you can't cut somebody off in mid sentence simply for disagreeing with you?

Pathetic... absolutely pathetic MR. All you have are distortions and falsehoods, and terrible ones at that. As I said - you have already decided you want to be the "poor widdle victim" regardless of the facts... so to continue to debate with you is a folly... but at least now anyone who reads this thread can see your lies for what they are.

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

You have no power here. So run along now before someone drops a house on YOU! 

[Image: tumblr_n3cqecqIbh1snk8gto3_500.gif]

---

My evidence that the paranormal doesn't exist? Interesting... I never claimed it "doesn't exist" in this debate, but I'll bite - evidence that it doesn't exist is situational, and unique to every encounter - however, I have yet to see anything that cannot be sufficiently explained by mundane methods. However, you are once again trying to twist the truth - I do not have to disprove your claim - you made the claim, you have to prove it.

Not according to you. You said I had to disprove your claims or show them to be impossible based on evidence. But suddenly YOU can't do that regarding my claim that it was paranormal? What's wrong? Is your new rule turning out to be impossible to obey? lol!

Not at all - several mundane explanations were offered for what was observed - you rejected them with a simple wave of your magic wand. 

Feel free to post whatever drivel you want, just keep it off of SciForums. That, or learn to follow the rules. Those are your two (and only two) options. 

You know what you can do with your impotent threats and ultimatums. 

PS - drop a house on me, hm? Now you are saying that because you cannot win an actual debate, you are going to "get rid of me", hm? I do believe that feels like a personal threat.

You have far more issues to worry about if you somehow take a quote from the Wizard of Oz as a real threat to your life.

[Magical Realist]

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

Like he really needs to take advice from you who are single-handedly reducing a once lively discussion group to a deserted ghost town where nobody can post anything interesting or original without expecting to be banned for it.

Not at all - several mundane explanations were offered for what was observed - you rejected them with a simple wave of your magic wand.

Didn't even merit a hand wave. Nobody in their right mind takes seriously ridiculous and unevidenced claims of talking dolphins, collective hallucinations, and conspiratorial lies just to be on the news.

[stryder]

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

A more laid-backed forum for discussion with less arguments, is/was the intention.

One of the main problems with forums that have a lot of arguments (Especially between members and moderators), has always been escalation. It either causes the membership to sore towards those that originally are there to support the community (moderators) or causes those that originally intended to help to be embittered towards particular members. When such extreme positions are taken, it's rare for there to be any way to reconcile both parties actions and usually leads to one or other group trying to triumph over the other out of principle and stubbornness.

MR can be just as amicable as you Kittamaru, as long as both of you are treated with respect and I'm pretty sure if either of you feel mistreated you could be equally as stubborn (This can be said for most people in general). It would be nice if you guys could come to some arrangement without escalating your interactions with one another and causing forums or other places of internet related social interaction to be littered with fallout from continued hostilities.

Your both welcome here since I've had no problem with either of you, I would just suggest to both of you of perhaps refraining from creating a soap opera out of dirty laundry that actually belongs on a different washing line altogether.

Sciforums over the years has had a lot of sites created by those that want to bash it and those are all searchable online.
No matter the truth to whatever the argument was, it's only the discordia that carries weight over time.

[Kittamaru]

Stryder, I don't know what kind of forum you want this to be... but good luck - it seems some of the more malevolent rapscallions have found their way here.

A more laid-backed forum for discussion with less arguments, is/was the intention.  

One of the main problems with forums that have a lot of arguments (Especially between members and moderators), has always been escalation.  It either causes the membership to sore towards those that originally are there to support the community (moderators) or causes those that originally intended to help to be embittered towards particular members.  When such extreme positions are taken, it's rare for there to be any way to reconcile both parties actions and usually leads to one or other group trying to triumph over the other out of principle and stubbornness.
 
MR can be just as amicable as you Kittamaru, as long as both of you are treated with respect and I'm pretty sure if either of you feel mistreated you could be equally as stubborn (This can be said for most people in general).  It would be nice if you guys could come to some arrangement without escalating your interactions with one another and causing forums or other places of internet related social interaction to be littered with fallout from continued hostilities.

Your both welcome here since I've had no problem with either of you, I would just suggest to both of you of perhaps refraining from creating a soap opera out of dirty laundry that actually belongs on a different washing line altogether.

Sciforums over the years has had a lot of sites created by those that want to bash it and those are all searchable online.  
No matter the truth to whatever the argument was, it's only the discordia that carries weight over time.

My big concern is with having someone spread falsehoods and fabrications about my actions. I have tried to be respectful, but as the trail of threads at SciForums will show, MR becomes belligerent and hostile whenever people point out the issues with his evidence regarding supposedly supernatural events... in particular when he started his anti-vax soapbox. Not only was it blatant misrepresentation of actual facts interspersed with absolute lies, he was advocating ideas that are outright dangerous for the general populace.

Regardless - I have said my part and put the facts of the matter out for people to see - anyone who wants to believe MR is free to do so. Anyone who wants to look into what actually happened now has the ability to do so.

[cluelusshusbund]

Thanks for you'r imput Kitt... hope to see more of y0u soon