Generally, how honest do you think us Orgahs are when it comes to anecdotes? Personally, I take most of the things said here on the .Org at face value when the poster isn't kidding.
Printable View
Generally, how honest do you think us Orgahs are when it comes to anecdotes? Personally, I take most of the things said here on the .Org at face value when the poster isn't kidding.
Mostly I beilive it.
I do not see why someone would lie. I would also like this time to say: how can people post this much? I have been sitting all day and I cannot see how one posts and posts. Cheers to all of you.
I just assume that the 'unique' posters are simply lunatics or idiots of various sorts. The bloke who uses fundementlist to describe science and the liberal conspiracy guy springs to mind.
Liberal conspiracy is simply true. I have reason to believe that they are campaigning (on television!) to get people to vote for liberals, with no other reason then getting a liberal president in the white house.
wake up neo.
Everyone here seems very open so I don't see why I shouldn't believe people.
I judge what is written after how credible it is, by reflex. As it turns out, most people here seem to hold sane opinions based on their percepts of reality and common sense logic and can discuss their arguments openly and change opinion when they were wrong because they have no hidden agenda - their opinions are based on the facts they have at hand, and they tell their arguments aloud so they can be debated. I hope I too am considered by others to be like that, however I don't always have any opinion at all and instead often end up trying to act as a bridge between the different sides in the debates, with varying results :wall:
I tend to read through and analyze even the at first sight most insane of statements, because often there are traces of reason in everything that is said, no matter how insane the summary of it sounds at first. Things that on the theoretical level have got 9 things right and 1 thing wrong can end up sounding extremely insane in it's practical application, but it still contains 9 facts worth listening to. Refuting a concatenation of statements and believing you refuted every element of the statement is against the rules of logic, btw:
not (A and B and C) does NOT imply (not A) and (not B) and (not C).
A praise of the herd mentality? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mithras
By the way if you refer to me as "the bloke who uses fundementalist to describe science" (I can't think of anyone else mentioning religious quotes in religion vs science discussions), first of all I'm not religious, I have never believed in God in my entire life, apart from acknowledging that with certain pantheistic forms of religion believing in God practically means nothing different than being an atheist, thus if such a pantheistic view is used I would have been religious all of my life, like everyone else, even the most stubborn atheist. Secondly I thought the point of using religious quotes in a science vs religion debate would be quite obvious to anyyone - 1. to show to the science side of the debate that the religion, when using the sources and not the interpretation made by over thousand years of oppressive rules from a not very religious or moralistic papacy, the religion says things that are a lot closer to the scientific claims than the interpretations made by the papacy and the religious tradition, which has changed over time. 2. to show to the religious side that the founders of the religions didn't agree with the anti-science version of the religion, created by tradition over time, and that the original version is closer to the scientific view, but more often than not the original version of the religion also refuses to give any opinion, and leaves that to the reader, in which case the reader can be a follower of the religion but still listen to the science, and 3. to show ways in which the religious faith can be combined with the claims made by science, contrary to what the papal tradition sometimes claims.
Now obviously, if it's me you are referring to, you've clearly misunderstood the purpose of the statements.
It's all a conspiracy! From the Spinach-lobbyists! Bush and Verhofstad are the leaders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
God, I hate spinache!
:nurse:
Mostly honest. I admit to changing the truth a bit to make it easier to tell. The same idea is there, just less confusing.
I take everything. Really everything I hear, read or see with a a grain of salt.
And some stuff I eat too.
It mostly depends on who it is and how the story is told. Spend some time on a gun forum and you will get good at sifting out the BS.
There will be something like this about once a month:embarassed: (this is just general thing of how they are)
i was walking with my wife and ours dogy. Some black gangs bangers got out of their car and said they were going to beat me up and mess with my girl friend. I pulled out my glock and flicked off the saftey. And pointed it at them and they rans away.!!!111!11!!11
One how did it go from wife to girl friend...
Two glocks don't have a manual safety.
(yes there is almost always something that obvious)
And you get the kids who come in and claim to own a mini gun and shoot bad guys:laugh4:
There are 3 forms of prevarication. In increasing order of iniquity, they are:
lies
damned lies,
and statistics.
One should always evaluate the messages of others without assuming they are either correct or informed. Trust but verify.
I don't see why most anyone would bother to lie in a forum. Where's the benefit? Why even do it? The closest thing to what I might call a "lie" would be when people deliberately take extreme positions to spark controversy. And that's more like vaudeville than a straight-up falsehood.
Depends on the person. There's really no gain in lying on an internet forum, but not everybody knows that :idea2:
I think the majority of people here are pretty honest, though.
I trust most folks here. So far there has been a few confirmations of frauds (plagerism of pictures and such) but mostly the folks here are honest.
I’m gullible me
You didn't believe me? I really did kill the teacher because she was such a *****. And I'd kill him again if I had the chance!Quote:
Originally Posted by ceasar010
~;)
yeah you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
DELETED