Love him or hate him - his second collection of transcripts is out

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Respenus

On a final note, I must say that I am shocked and disturbed by the increase in hostility against Skybird in the past couple of years. I realise that his comments put him on the wrong end of many a debate, but at least he was engaged in discussions in the past. Today he has been made into a pariah, an unworthy and undeserving position for such a long-standing and active member of Subsim.

It isn't the other members that changed, it was Skybird that changed. He's grown into the belief that it is his role to bring the enlightenment of fringe politics to the masses, and while that in itself is not particularly contemptible, he then treats the forum like it is his personal blog. He belittles those that disagree with him, and goes as far as telling people that they need to kill themselves. Given the contempt that he has dished out, particularly over the past few years, I can't see how member reaction against him would be shocking or disturbing at all. Sometimes contempt is earned.

On a final note, I must say that I am shocked and disturbed by the increase in hostility against Skybird in the past couple of years.

Its all down to the content, sometimes he writes very good stuff sometimes he writes what could best be be described as paranoid deranged rubbish.
On this particular subject, while I agree with many points Skybird tries to make about the EU he regularly falls into misreprestation, or worse, arguements which are clearly and demonstrably entirely false which he will still repeatedly maintain are true long after the definitive contrary evidence is shown in black and white.

So to your earlier point.

I do object rabid opposition without looking more deeply into the subject matter.

Do you really think people don't look into the subject matter?

[Respenus]

Caveat: I apologise if I sound off-putting in the post below, it's just been that sort of day.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do you really think people don't look into the subject matter?

Seeing how the GT has always been known for its disparate views and considering that I have been as active so I might have missed a couple of Sky's important posts, I will skip directly to your question.

The answer is a simple one. Considering how many times I've seen the same amount of expressed on the question of European integration and that I have intervened several times in making sure the truth was told, I would say that YES, people do not look into the subject matter, especially when it comes to the EU. Part of it is its own doing. Right now I'm doing my Master's at the top educational institution on the EU and even here we have to put together so many different elements, from so many different sources in order to come to some sort of a coherent picture, that it makes our heads hurt. Sure we understand it, both on the legal/technical, political and practical level, but the devil's in the details and every single time we get a guest lecturer from the "den of the Beast" as some would call it, we learn something new to add to our puzzle.

On the other hand, a lot of the ignorance concerning the EU is no longer excusable with the internet. If you see good-old Bruno doing his shtick, you Google what piece of legislation he's put into his sights and you check if what he's saying is true. Anyone remember the "prevents dehydration" rant Waterfield (pun not intended) raised when the European Food Safety Authority said such a statement cannot be printed on water bottles as it is untrue? Well, after everyone got their panties in a bunch, I was the one who searched for the EFSA decision, the Directive in question and more precisely, the article invoked in the decision. Guess what happened afterwards? People for the most part calmed down and entered a rational discussion, as simple as that.

In short, yes people do not look into the subject and the GT is a prime example of some people having a knee-jerk reaction. Sometimes I'm part of it, sometimes you are, sometimes Skybird is. However, the reaction to such posts is not hostility towards the poster, but a calm and objective approach to the issue at hand. Whether or not the poster in question takes it up, well, that's their problem, what's important is for others to see the truth and learn from it. If you get to help someone along the way, all the better.

I see what you are saying Respenus, however it is aimed in the wrong direction.
There are a multitude of examples on this forum covering everything from ballons or water to toys religion voting and immigration.
What you have is someone who takes the latset rant from Ganley, Farange or Condell and insists it is true without looking at the details and then still insists it is true after all the details have been posted which show it to be false.
It even happens with him posting links to Daily Fail stories where the story he is posting finishes up by saying the story isn't true.
So you are correct that some people go into one without looking deeply(or even briefly) at the subject matter, but the person you are trying to defend just happens to frequently be a prime example of that very thing you are complaining about.

[andritsos]

[ maybe a bit Off-topic, but dont think i should open a new thread.
Basically a comment.
Regardless of how some discussion end(are they supported well, or are false? are they informative too? or ''paranoid deranged rubbish''?etc
ofcourse we want to keep it civilised and for extremes there are forum rules so we dont end with insults ),
I want to say that i am happy that such discussions take place, that there is that dialogue between forums users , exchange of information, critique/complaints and, for me at least, lots of different comments and points of view of the various topics . One of the things that make me visit these forums quite often, i have to say.]

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you are correct that some people go into one without looking deeply(or even briefly) at the subject matter, but the person you are trying to defend just happens to frequently be a prime example of that very thing you are complaining about.

Perhaps I should have paid more attention to how I structured my argument, as my previous post was not directed at anyone. It was merely a reply to your question whether or not I think people look into the subject they discuss. Since the EU was the issue at hand, I said that the majority of posters I see here in fact do not and let's not even enter into the eternal confusion between the Council of Europe and the EU with their respective courts (this is especially emblematic of individuals coming from the UK).

As concerns Sky, I'm not defending his arguments or where he gets them. If you go back to my first post in this thread, you will see I mention my favourite EU-critical journalist and how obsessed the man is with attacking the EU. My problem was with people attacking Skybird just because he posted something he read, but could not find the link. Hell, I spent an hour searching for it and I would had found it, but I have to study for my exams. I wanted to show that Skybird's credibility, as much as someone may question, is not completely without reprieve. I followed that sentiment in my second post, where I said that each time something like this appears, an objective and distant position has to be taken. As for everyone's experience with Skybird, well, I admitted not having followed closely the discussions here, so I am not aware of any specific posts people had in mind.

I personally consider this issue closed. Skybird, love him or hate him, is as much a member of this community as everyone else. If we can still interact with some amount of decency with yubba, there is no reason why Sky shouldn't be privy of the same respect. Disprove his statements, don't attack the person.

As for Pat Condell, well I haven't listened to him in a while. Perhaps I should check up on his latest work.

I wanted to show that Skybird's credibility, as much as someone may question, is not completely without reprieve.

Yes, and as I said in my first response.....Its all down to the content, sometimes he writes very good stuff sometimes he writes what could best be be described as paranoid deranged rubbish.