Skepticism and The Normal

Gnu Ordure said:

Can I ask the same question of the rest of you ? By my estimate 8 of you (flim, the professor, mojo, jimbob, pv+, jqh, zooterkin, and sinnikal - have I missed anyone ?), having successfully hounded Bubb out of badscience, chose to come here to continue the argument, and to complain about him some more.

Please tell me why you did this.

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that I "hounded Bubb out of badscience"? And what's with this "chose to come here"? I've been here all along. I realise that you are just repeating claims that Bubblefish has made, but if you've read the rest of the thread you ought to be able to see that he's not always the most reliable source.

Gnu Ordure said:

(Me, I'm looking for a girl-friend; so every post I read or write is filtered through that prism. Is that against the rules ? Am I going to be expelled because I didn't come here for 'Education' ? Does that agenda invalidate my ramblings on the nature of reality ?

Click to expand...

What would the lovely Edith say?

But anyway, that's nothing. My long initial post, on my spin-off thread on consensus reality, was addressed directly to both you and z, and neither of you came over there to talk to me.

I cried myself to sleep for many nights because of that.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it wasn't something I found interesting. I can't explain why, it seemed like someone posting for the sake of it, with no real interest in the answers; maybe it's just your style, but I find it offputting. I wish I could put my finger on why, I could give you constructive feedback on that. I really couldn't understand what you were getting at, and why you had apparently misunderstood the points which had already been made in discussion of the subject that happened here.

I don't believe I hounded BF out of BS. I think I did finally say that I wouldn't object to him being banned, but that was after he'd had numerous chances to actually respond to the arguments presented to him. I can't be bothered to review my initial posts to remember why I eventually registered here, and continued the discussion. I'd been following it for a while, and obviously something he said annoyed me enough to register; I've previously noted that he does have the ability to press the right buttons to keep people engaged, at least for a while. He gives the impression that he might just be on the point of understanding what's been said to him (all prior evidence to the contrary notwithstanding).

I know how Mojo feels, as I've got to the point when new people join the discussion of wanting to warn them to leave this alone, but given that I didn't listen when he said that, it would perhaps be hypocritical to do so. Time to go to work; I may return to the subject of exactly why I continue to respond to BF (apart from financial gain), but on the other hand that would inflate his ego further, so I might decide not to.

I don't believe, as Flim says, that Bubb is irrational ie deluded/crazy.

Click to expand...

Steady on! My belief is that Bubb’s actions are completely irrational. All I have to judge him by are his posts here, which have the consistent theme of being completely immune to reasonable, well-stated, logical, fact-base arguments. That is, by definition, irrational behaviour. If Bubb also actually believes what he writes then he is, in addition, deluded; if he doesn’t believe what he writes i.e., this is a wind up, then he is just an oxygen thief.

My suggestion is that Bubb's agenda is to put on a show. And if that means arguing that black is white, or that true is false, he will do that.

Flim, if you believe that his agenda is to present a concept for examination and feedback in a rational manner, this belief leads you to frustration and anger, because none of his threads proceed on that basis....

Click to expand...

Well given that Bubb consistently posts to skeptic-heavy fora, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that his agenda is a serious discussion. My frustration comes partly prom his persistant irrationality , but, independent of my expectations, my frustration also comes from the fact that this is a completely inappropriate place for it. Actually I’ve no doubt that he chose these specific boards just because there is no less appropriate place and therefore his pointless drivel is bound to create a certain amount of heat. Think of my distaste for Bubb as similar to the distaste you would feel for someone who persistently farts in a lift, or keeps using a mobile phone through an opera despite having it explained to him why it’s completely out of order. In either of these cases, eviction would be pretty reasonable.

So I don't understand your complaints, Flim. You've read previous episodes; you've already sparred with Bubb before; and now you complain he's unreasonable ? What did you expect ?

Click to expand...

If you read back, you’ll notice that I didn’t actually post to the first pages of this thread because others were doing such a good job of dismantling him. When it became clear that he was as immune to reason here as he was at bs.net, but that there were also some clever people here, I joined in to discuss things with them, and to warn them off getting involved with Bubb. I’m glad that I’ve communicated with them, but, as pointed out before, that could have happened quite happily without long tedious detours every page to explain idiot-level logic, language, philosophy and physics to Bubb.

In any case, the fact that I expected Bubb to be unreasonable does not in any way excuse the fact that he is. That’s like saying that you can’t re-convict persistent offenders because, hey, what did you expect? My complaint on that issue is really straightforward and the fact that I “followed” Bubb over here doesn’t change it either.

Oh and Gnu, lay off the return key. Text is still perfectly legible if it’s on successive lines, and it requires a lot less scrolling.

ETA: I'm sure we all have our agenda's for posting here. For most I guess it's to discuss and learn (no sign of that from Bubb) and because it's nice when people compliment you for your insight or writing. Bubb's agenda appears to by purely to wind people up, insult them and waste their time. Zoo put it well, he appears just rational enough for people to keep engaging with him and just civil enough for people to stay. Having that agenda is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfectly good reason to ban someone and is perfectly summed up by the word "troll".

Gnu Ordure said:

By my estimate 8 of you (flim, the professor, mojo, jimbob, pv+, jqh, zooterkin, and sinnikal - have I missed anyone ?), having successfully hounded Bubb out of badscience, chose to come here to continue the argument, and to complain about him some more.

Click to expand...

Actually, this highlights one of my main reasons for responding to Bubblefish. These are (as far as they relate to me, at least) unsupported assertions that he made earlier in this thread, which I couldn't be bothered to challenge at the time, and which you (a non-participant at the time) as a result consider to be factual.

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that I "hounded Bubb out of badscience"? And what's with this "chose to come here"? I've been here all along.

Click to expand...

Apologies, Mojo; I was aware that you were here before, but I couldn't be bothered to make the distinction...

.... but what I'm saying does apply to the other seven; they all (except jqh) joined here this year, and they all (except jimbob, who still posted to this thread on the same day he made his first post elsewhere) made their first post to this thread.

Given these facts, I assume that (most of) you therefore joined this Forum in order to converse with Bubb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In which case, I stand by my choice of the verb 'pursue'.

I realise that you are just repeating claims that Bubblefish has made,

Click to expand...

Not so, Mojo. The fox and hounds metaphor is of my own choosing, and it still seems apt. I admit I don't know exactly what happened at badscience; I do know that discussions were held away from the main thread about whether Bubb should be banned, and I know that some people wrote to the mods asking for this to happen. I also know that the mods declined to formally ban him.

In my opinion, this is hounding. And it was all competely unnecessary, as Bubb has demonstrated previously that if he is ignored, he goes away.

(I should say that in using this 'hounds' metaphor, I'm not trying to imply that you all have exactly the same atttitude towards Bubb....).

But it seems that there was a concerted effort to silence Bubb on badscience. So my question remains - once that goal was achieved, why continue to engage with him here ?

(I'm not being critical here - I just don't understand and I'm curious).

What would the lovely Edith say?

Click to expand...

I imagine she'd be well pissed off, zoot, but luckily for me she's a figment of my imagination invented for rhetorical purposes.

it seemed like someone posting for the sake of it, with no real interest in the answers

Click to expand...

That's weird, because I am interested in the subject; (interested enough to start an off-shoot thread on it).

I could give you constructive feedback on that.

Click to expand...

Constructive feed-back welcome, zoot, fire away. Remember that style is a matter of taste, though. (One of the first replies to my own thread was 'Gnu, I like your style' - and that was in response to a very long post (with lots of gaps between sentences, Flim)).

(The first two responses, however, implied that I was both a loony and a wanker - you can't please everyone, evidently).

I don't believe I hounded BF out of BS.

Click to expand...

There's no need for any of you to get too defensive about this - please remember I don't know what names you were using on badscience, so it's difficult to get a clear picture of what happened and who said what (and who is saying what on this thread).

Well given that Bubb consistently posts to skeptic-heavy fora, it’s pretty reasonable to assume that his agenda is a serious discussion.

Click to expand...

As I said, Flim, I think that assumption's wrong, and that's why you're frustrated.

Bubb's agenda appears to by purely to wind people up, insult them and waste their time.

Click to expand...

re the insults. In this respect I think Bubb is more sinned against than sinning. He responds to how people treat him; he's polite if they're polite. He's sarcastic if they're sarcastic. And so on.

(And actually, when he was subjected to a hail of abuse from pv in this thread of such intensity that the mods had to step in, he refused to respond in kind, and let it go over his head).

Are the threads a waste of time, though ? I don't feel I wasted my time in reading them - possibly the people contributing to them feel differently. But they should have listened to Mojo's warnings, and/or read the other threads to see what they were getting into.

If Bubb also actually believes what he writes then he is, in addition, deluded; if he doesn’t believe what he writes i.e., this is a wind up, then he is just an oxygen thief.

Click to expand...

Or an entertainer*.

As I said, 35,000 views in 3 months.

Someone's interested.


Gnu.



(* edit plus - actually I don't Bubb himself very entertaining (sorry, Bubb); it's the threads that are entertaining)

Gnu Ordure said:

Not so, Mojo. The fox and hounds metaphor is of my own choosing, and it still seems apt.

Click to expand...

Where did you use this metaphor? So far I only see the verb "to hound", an English word in standard usage, the use of which implies nothing to do with foxes. Bubblefish has used similar concepts, such as his claim that I follow him around the web (as far as I'm aware, we have interacted on two forums, both of which he joined some time after I did).

I admit I don't know exactly what happened at badscience; I do know that discussions were held away from the main thread about whether Bubb should be banned, and I know that some people wrote to the mods asking for this to happen. I also know that the mods declined to formally ban him.

Click to expand...

I wasn't one of those who requested that he be banned, but he seems to have assumed some sort of monolithic approach on the part of all the other members of badscience. For someone who goes on so much about his "third value", he seems remarkably prone to take a binary "me or them" view of the rest of the world.

In my opinion, this is hounding. And it was all competely unnecessary, as Bubb has demonstrated previously that if he is ignored, he goes away.

Click to expand...

But if he is ignored, there is a real risk that people will assume that what he says is true, as the assumption you made above demonstrates.

(I should say that in using this 'hounds' metaphor, I'm not trying to imply that you all have exactly the same atttitude towards Bubb....).

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but you certainly seemed to in your previous post.

But it seems that there was a concerted effort to silence Bubb on badscience. So my question remains - once that goal was achieved, why continue to engage with him here?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that I should cease to participate in a forum merely because he has arrived on it?

Gnu Ordure said:

Constructive feed-back welcome, zoot, fire away. Remember that style is a matter of taste, though.

Click to expand...

If I can work it out, I will, but as I said, I can't put my finger on it right now.

There's no need for any of you to get too defensive about this - please remember I don't know what names you were using on badscience, so it's difficult to get a clear picture of what happened and who said what (and who is saying what on this thread).

Click to expand...

Not defensive, just stating my opinion. As I used the same name in both places, it's easy to check.

re the insults. In this respect I think Bubb is more sinned against than sinning. He responds to how people treat him; he's polite if they're polite. He's sarcastic if they're sarcastic. And so on.

Click to expand...

That's what he'd like you to believe, but it's not true, as has been pointed out in this thread.

(And actually, when he was subjected to a hail of abuse from pv in this thread of such intensity that the mods had to step in, he refused to respond in kind, and let it go over his head).

Click to expand...

If you think that was intense abuse, you obviously have not read the badscience threads.

Where did you use this metaphor?

Click to expand...

In my first post in this part of the discussion, Mojo (May 16th):

Shenanigans ensue.

The discussions range far and wide, often detouring into interesting areas involving knowledgeable contributions from experts in their fields - other times merely exploring the precise limits of personal abuse for each Forum.

And in each case, there is the thrill of the chase.

The pack has been on Bubb's heels sooo many times..

... but he's never been caught.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, Mojo ?

Look, I'm not trying to be derogatory by using the word 'hounds', (though I do think that secretly complaining to mods is going a tad too far). Bubb sets himself up as the fox. He invites people to chase him.

So I'm saying that it's a bit rich to accept the invitation, and then to complain at the end that it was a wild-goose chase. (Whoops, I'm in danger of mixing my metaphors). Especially when a little research (or accepting the advice from someone such as yourself) would have made it clear what was in store for the pursuers.

Are you suggesting that I should cease to participate in a forum merely because he has arrived on it?

Click to expand...

Of course not, Mojo. You were here already. My observations are more relevent to the other seven; they came here specifically to continue the chase.

And Flim, for one, now thinks Bubb should be banned from this Forum :

Having that agenda is, as far as I'm concerned, a perfectly good reason to ban someone and is perfectly summed up by the word "troll".

Click to expand...

So the chase continues...



Tell me, people, are you going to pursue him to the next Forum ? I might come along for the ride, if so... (We gnus like a good gallop).

Given these facts, I assume that (most of) you therefore joined this Forum in order to converse with Bubb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

I think you’re wrong. I, and I guess many others, came here to warn others about Bubb and to converse with the other forum members, pv came here purely to abuse Bubb. I later decided to give Bubb’s suggestions a really thorough thinking through to see if they were being unfairly derided, as far as I can tell, it was completely fair.

In my opinion, this is hounding. And it was all competely unnecessary, as Bubb has demonstrated previously that if he is ignored, he goes away.

Click to expand...

I did agree that Bubb should be banned, but ultimately I don’t think that any hounding was really necessary. There is a semi-formal rule at bs.net that you don’t start threads with multiple ridiculously long posts. Bubb also had a habit of “summing up” threads along the lines of “What have we learnt here? I’m right, you’re all wrong, blind and stupid.” When faced with such blatantly inflammatory material you don’t need much further justification for banning him, and, as mojo said “if he is ignored, there is a real risk that people will assume that what he says is true, as the assumption you made above demonstrates.” People on skeptics’ fora are inquiring, curious people. They want to engage with new arguments and they should be able to do so in the context of a reasonable discussion. Mostly they’re happy to tolerate ideas that they think are nonsense, but not irrational, insulting behaviour.

As I said, Flim, I think that assumption's wrong, and that's why you're frustrated.

Click to expand...

My assumption was, indeed, wrong, but I was not frustrated because my assumption was wrong. At the time (at least on bs.net) it was a reasonable assumption. I was frustrated because Bubb is such an irredeemably irrational, illiterate, pompous, offensive git. If somebody mugs you in the street it’s likely that your annoyance at being mugged will far outweigh your annoyance at having your assumption (that you weren’t going to be mugged) proved wrong.

re the insults. In this respect I think Bubb is more sinned against than sinning. He responds to how people treat him; he's polite if they're polite. He's sarcastic if they're sarcastic. And so on.

(And actually, when he was subjected to a hail of abuse from pv in this thread of such intensity that the mods had to step in, he refused to respond in kind, and let it go over his head).

Click to expand...

So you’ve just contradicted yourself there, and in any case Bubb has been warned on this thread too. I think that Bubb has one aim, and that is to push people’s buttons as much as possible while not actually being ignored. Even if he is not being actually insulting he simply goes into martyr mode, and he will pick up on any personal trait or their beliefs in order to make his insults more offensive, Z being a good example of Bubb escalating the situation.

Are the threads a waste of time, though ? I don't feel I wasted my time in reading them - possibly the people contributing to them feel differently. But they should have listened to Mojo's warnings, and/or read the other threads to see what they were getting into.

(* edit plus - actually I don't Bubb himself very entertaining (sorry, Bubb); it's the threads that are entertaining)

Click to expand...

I think you’ve basically answered your own question there. There have been many interesting contributions to the thread, but because of Bubb’s idiocy we’ve had to wade through a lot of rubbish to get to it. To give Bubb any credit for the valuable parts of this thread is like giving Hitler credit for the VCs won in World War II [/godwin]

And Flim, for one, now thinks Bubb should be banned from this Forum :

Click to expand...

No, I was referring to bs.net, where his behaviour was probably worse than it is here. I certainly wouldn’t complain if he was banned from this forum. I think that starting two, pretty much, identical threads two years apart on the basis of an idea which you believe to be nonsense and behaving in a way that is specifically designed to create unpleasantness gives the mods reasonable grounds. But frankly, having thought his ideas through and established that (i) he never had any intention of actually presenting anything in sufficient detail to be critiqued and, (ii) what he did present was grade-A bollocks, I couldn’t really give a toss about Bubb. I’m not going to follow him anywhere else, and I don’t think it’s worth wasting any more words discussing him here.

What happened to Bubblefish, anyway?

Have you forgotten? He's "snowed under with work", or something.
If he really has just slunk off, does that mean he has failed to advance his arguements (sic) past us?



I'll admit that I followed BF here from Bad Science. I just enjoy arguing with idiots, thats all. Never asked for him to be banned there, though I didn't oppose the idea, since he seemed to be annoying the hell out of most people there.

ditto

What happened to Bubblefish, anyway?

Click to expand...

I just did some googling to see what I could find, Jonny.

I discovered that a little while ago, he started a thread on his own web-site to discuss you : "Bubblefish and the James Randi crowd: A Discussion".

By the way, if any of you have high blood-pressure, don't sue me for providing this link if you get too angry and have a heart-attack when you read it....

Actually, this gives me an idea for the next episode of the Bubb Show: why don't you all go over to his site, storm the citadel, and try to blow him out of the water once and for all ?

(damn, mixing my metaphors again)

Now that would be entertainment....

(And it'd be fascinating to see how the power dynamic panned out, what with him being the Moderator and you all having to avoid giving him a reason to ban you... pv wouldn't last five minutes)



http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about162.html


Gnu.

Um - his forum is mostly a vanity site, with one or two loyal but rare visitors.

Dull.

Gnu Ordure said:

re the insults. In this respect I think Bubb is more sinned against than sinning. He responds to how people treat him; he's polite if they're polite. He's sarcastic if they're sarcastic. And so on.

Click to expand...

This is how he claims to behave. In fact, he's rude and sarcastic no matter how others behave. For example, in this thread he was rude and sarcastic to me because I asked him a question he didn't want to answer, and repeated the question when he was evasive. If you think this is just me being oversensitive here, his behaviour was pointed out by another poster. I'm thick-skinned enough not to worry about a bit of sarcasm; it's just a specific example of his behaviour not being as he claims it is.

The thread starts, by the way, with him being typically disingenuous with regard to the ownership of his website.

Mojo said:

If you think this is just me being oversensitive here, his behaviour was pointed out by another poster.

Click to expand...

Oh, what a fine analysis of BF's modus operandi. I had scanned that old thread before, but obviously hadn't read those posts too closely. One of the frustrating things is that BF doesn't move on, at badscience.net he started from the same position as he did that thread from 2005; I guess that just confirms that he is a troll.

Mojo said:

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that I "hounded Bubb out of badscience"? And what's with this "chose to come here"? I've been here all along. I realise that you are just repeating claims that Bubblefish has made, but if you've read the rest of the thread you ought to be able to see that he's not always the most reliable source.

Click to expand...

Likewise, Gnu. I had been lurking on this site for nearly a year before I started posting. Check my membership details if you dispute this. Nobody "hounded" Bubb/TM from badscience, his posts were deleted because he preferred to be abusive rather than engage in argument, a trait he has continued here. Interestingly, Bubb also accused me of "following" him from badscience. If you're not Bubb, why do you repeat his tripe so uncritically?

Gnu, I disagreed with the others that thought you were Bubblebrain until now. But with that last post you are doing a pretty good job of convincing me I was wrong.

If you are BF, I have no illusions that you will confirm it, but if so it would settle the question in my mind about whether BF is more intelligent than he is letting on, and the bad spelling, lack of logical thought and argument etc are all just part of his little game - ie that BF is just a character being played out by Rome because he thinks it is fun.

Gnu Ordure said:

Apologies, Mojo; I was aware that you were here before, but I couldn't be bothered to make the distinction...

.... but what I'm saying does apply to the other seven; they all (except jqh) joined here this year, and they all (except jimbob, who still posted to this thread on the same day he made his first post elsewhere) made their first post to this thread.

Given these facts, I assume that (most of) you therefore joined this Forum in order to converse with Bubb. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In which case, I stand by my choice of the verb 'pursue'.

Click to expand...

ie both Mojo and I joined prior to this year, jimbob did not make his first posting here. Your "pursue" argument is falling apart. Incidently, do you monitor everybody to see where they posted first, or are we eight special targets?

Gnu Ordure said:

But it seems that there was a concerted effort to silence Bubb on badscience. So my question remains - once that goal was achieved, why continue to engage with him here ?

Click to expand...

No, there was a concerted evidence to get him to engage in discussion rather than threaten to sue everybody who disagreed with him.

Gnu Ordure said:

re the insults. In this respect I think Bubb is more sinned against than sinning. He responds to how people treat him; he's polite if they're polite. He's sarcastic if they're sarcastic. And so on.

(And actually, when he was subjected to a hail of abuse from pv in this thread of such intensity that the mods had to step in, he refused to respond in kind, and let it go over his head).

Click to expand...

Actually, he accused pv+ of getting backrubs and "reach arounds" from his students, me of being a drunkard, and another poster here of being a satanist.

Professor Yaffle said:

Have you forgotten? He's "snowed under with work", or something.

Click to expand...

Oh. I still have him on ignore, and don't plan to take him off. I was just curious, as I noticed a distinct lack of spamming posting.

Gnu Ordure said:

Actually, this gives me an idea for the next episode of the Bubb Show: why don't you all go over to his site, storm the citadel, and try to blow him out of the water once and for all ?

Click to expand...

Bah. I've had him on ignore for about a month now, after he refused to stop with the ridiculous ad hominem argumentation, among other things. He clearly demonstrated he's incapable of either evaluating (or even acknowledging) competing ideas, or arguing without insulting other posters with his stupid "tit for tat" style.

As far as I'm concerned, he blew himself out of the water with his childish behavior.