Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail From: JTEM Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Cite! Show me a cite! Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:30:52 -0400 Organization: Eek Lines: 62 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: Reply-To: jtem01@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="69147"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:kQ+tz8c+Ks/7Td63lwB2BRCYJiA= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id D6C1722976C; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:27:18 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDDE229758 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:27:16 -0400 (EDT) id 7DB467D122; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 03:30:56 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDA57D009 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 03:30:56 +0000 (UTC) id 62DB9DC01CC; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 04:30:55 +0100 (CET) Content-Language: en-US X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19G1Gp592Y2N1noSkIjaAaC4u9YXXTSGLA= Bytes: 3467 The collective, being of questionable parentage and dubious intellect, has made a career out of shouting "Cite!" at random and almost always inappropriate intervals. What do I mean? Someone will lay out a position, bring up many points, arrive at a conclusion and the jackass posting as the collective will react with: "Cite!" To what? What would the be disputing, specifically? What would they NOT be disputing? Nobody ever has a clue, certainly not the collective. The issue here is "Deconstructing the problem." To know WHAT to challenge, WHAT you are disputing, you have to be able to deconstruct the argument. "Prizes," like Randi's or Hovind's, are ambiguous. Intentionally. They exist to help people NOT think. In the case of Randi's prize, I was disgusted by it, convinced that Randi was performing a HUGE disservice to the world. Online "Skepticism" had quite literally degraded to to the point where mouth breath would cry out; "Win da million! Ifs you realz den winz da prize!" Randi's prize was an excuse not to think. If anything sounded the least bit off, like someone somewhere might call it "Paranormal," then you never had to think. They'd just tell the person to win the million AND THEN come back and talk about it. Hovind's prize existed for the exact same reason. It performed the exact same role. THAT is what "Prizes" do, why they exist. They don't further science or discussion, they stop it. ...just like the collective's mindless call for "Cites" when it doesn't know what it wants cited, and wouldn't be capable of altering it's view even if you gave it I cite. I know. Because the collective even calls for "Cites" after they've been given one. -- http://jtem.tumblr.com