Complain about Zzyzx

[Zzyzx]

[bernee51]

[Zzyzx]

[lao tzu]

[Zzyzx]

.

Chill, dude. Yeah, it's a debate forum. That shouldn't be confused with a "wipe your opponent's beaten, battered, bloodied and snotty nose across the cameras for all the folks at home" forum.

If someone goes out of his way to provoke confrontation in a debate forum, what do you recommend?

I find no reason to "turn the other cheek" -- but leave that to pacifists to do and Christians or others to talk about.

I far prefer to debate capable representatives of theism -- those are, in my experience, Non-Christians or Moderate / Liberal Christians (who do not tend to throw bibles or insults at those who do not accept their "gods", dogma or worship rituals).

Fundamentalists / Literalists often engage in "bloody combat" wearing "the armor of god" -- bible tales and religious dogma -- with nothing more to verify pronouncements, conjectures, opinions and claims. It is not surprising that they often incur the debate equivalent of a "bloody nose" or worse.

[Zzyzx]

.
In a different forum someone once likened one of the "Crusaders for Christ" as a "punch drunk fighter staggering out at the sound of the bell, getting thoroughly trounced once again and staggering back to his corner."

That seemed like an apt description. What is his "opponent" to do -- have "mercy" on the unfortunate would-be pugilist -- and "pull punches"? Perhaps those in "his corner" should advise him to "throw in the towel" and admit that he is not capable of "defending his title" or his "gods" as the case may be.

What happened then (and often elsewhere) is that he simply failed to show up at future "matches" or declined to fight (or debate).

I make no claim to be an expert at debate (or an invincible "fighter"), but I challenge ANY Fundamentalist to defend ANY of the supernatural tales of the bible as true and accurate descriptions of characters or events that actually, literally existed or occurred in the real world.

[JohnnyJersey]

.

Oh, that's right - I forgot I am dealing with someone who has a master's in Wikipedia.

Do you resent having me cite correct information and references to point out your mistakes?

No; what I resent is your pretending to know things when in reality it's wikipedia (or often another dubious source) that knows and you simply regurgitate it. That seems to be your modus operandi in every thread, every post.

You mean, he actually backs up his claims?? Wikipedia is a good source to show you aren't making things up. Showing a source for a claim is far better in debate that making things up, don't you think?? Does he 'simply regurgitate it'?? I would say that showing a legit source for a claim is not regurgitating things, it is showing that you aren't pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

He simply regurgitates what he finds in his various google/wiki sources. This is another example. In this case, the details we are talking about are trivial and irrelevant, anyway. The fact of the matter is that "Zzyzx" is a place in california to which Zzyzx, the poster, is not connected. The details provided through his referencing Wiki are really not relevant to that fact. In other cases, however, he does simply regurgitate the same old things I've heard elsewhere, even if I've googled or wiki'ed them myself, and that doesn't do me (or anyone else) much good at all. If I want to debate google or wiki, I can do so without posting anything on this site.

I like it when people show a source for their information. It allows me to evaluate not only the claim, but the source, and to see if the source has any overt bias. I would judge wikipedia as a source in one way, and someone who uses 'storm front.org' as a source in another way. I would judge a source differently if it is the princeton university verses the ABC bible college in a different manner too.

Interesting...you like when someone shows a source, and you have apparently deemed Wikipedia a "good source".... Yet the fact remains that Wikipedia is not what would be considered a "good source" by anyone scholarly. It is open to virtually anyone for editing and alteration. Take the wiki entry on Zzyzx, for example; while I don't dispute what it says (because it's too trivial for me to care to), I only accept what it says with the knowledge that it is someone else's own idea (or several others' ideas fused together by themselves or yet another person). I take it on faith only that it is correct. So, for providing an answer where I don't care how accurate my source is, it's fine. But if I were providing an answer to another person, and I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd find another source; if I couldn't find another source and DID use wiki, I'd make it clear that it IS Wiki and therefore not a truly reliable source - it is only as reliable as the sources of those who posted there.

And here's what wiki says about itself (probably the only subject for which they are truly qualified to be the best source, by virtue of their entitlement to self-define):

The open nature of the editing model has been central to most criticism of Wikipedia. For example, a reader of an article cannot be certain that it has not been compromised by the insertion of false information or the removal of essential information. Former Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Robert McHenry once described this by saying:[61]

The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him. Wikipedia [is a] faith-based encyclopedia

[emphasis mine]

And, I judge someone who makes claims and doesn't back them up with either logic, or a source in yet another way.

In debate, it is the difference between supporting a claim with a reasonable legit source, and making claims you can't back up.

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

[Goat]

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

It is not the end all of sources, but it certainly attempts to have a non-biased point of view, and give it's sources.

That is better than making 'unsupported claims'. People who love to pull rabbits out of hats, and make unsupported claims are frustrated at people who actually back up what they say.

[JohnnyJersey]

In the age of the internet one of the greatest things life presents is the easy ability to search for answers to questions. While one may not immediately know something, the ability to seek out that knowledge is a form of knowledge itself. One does not necessarily "pretend" to know something when they present supporting data, so much as they present supporting data.

I personally would prefer one refute the data, moreso than whether a poster possessed that data (knowledge) prior to presenting it.

But, since this is a thread dedicated to picking on Zzyzx, I say Zzyzx asks too dang many uncomfortable questions

In the age of the internet, the greatest danger is that of misinformation taking root and being propogated not by valid, scholarly, academic processes but rather virally via the "interwebs" and other dubious sources. The Republicans discovered this years ago and to this day enjoy using it to their advantage.

A famous example is when they pumped out the misinformation through internet, talk radio, and other sources about Al Gore claiming to have "invented the internet". In reality, Al Gore rightfully took credit for "During [his] service in the United States Congress, [taking] the initiative in creating the Internet." There is a big difference between what he rightfully claimed credit for and what was later attributed to him to have said. But, as was evidenced in Bush's terms, that administration believed in the propaganda technique of the Big Lie, the idea that a huge lie which is always defended, even to the point of ridiculousness, will be more likely believed by the masses.

It's ironic, I'll point out, for Al Gore on more than one level: The internet he took initiative to create was responsible in large part for the viral spread of the misquote wrongly attributed to him, and that very same internet held the key for people to discover the fact that it was a misquote, yet it did him no good as the viral spread of the misquote had most people, even his own supporters, believing he made such an incredible claim as to have "invented the internet".

The internet slices both ways; it can be a great tool for research and finding factual data that serves as a legitimate source for proof, and it can be a minefield of misinformation which all too often becomes accepted through viral means, and wikipedia embodies the latter. We are sadly at the point where Wikipedia, while a great tool for personal research and investigation, is NOT a credible source but is accepted as a credible source by many. Indeed, in this thread alone, several of you have shown yourselves to believe that Wiki is a "legitimate" source; in reality, Wikipedia is only as legitimate a source as the sources from which its writers pull. The same can be said for any encyclopedia, but other encyclopedias limit contributions to those writers who are vetted appropriately and whose work is reviewed by people with proper academic authority.

[JohnnyJersey]

Going by this, the fact that you consider Wiki to be a "reasonable legit [sic] source" makes your judgment suspect. It appears to me that your response is biased.

It is not the end all of sources, but it certainly attempts to have a non-biased point of view, and give it's sources.

That is better than making 'unsupported claims'. People who love to pull rabbits out of hats, and make unsupported claims are frustrated at people who actually back up what they say.

It is not better than "unsupported claims" when its own claims are unsupported. For the Zzyzx entry, locate the sources; you'll find two, neither of which provide the bulk of the information that is presented in the article.

If you're going to try defending Wikipedia as a reasonably legitimate source, you will be hard pressed to prove it.

[JohnnyJersey]

So let me understand this....

When McCulloch tried "subtle provocation" with me by trying to use me and something personal about me as an example, it was "WIN!!!" in your opinion....

When I used an example that you took as "subtle provocation", it was not "WIN!!!!"???? Instead it was "trying to get [you] to jump into a debate" or "trying to antagonize [you]"???

Let's recap.
McCulloch was trying to provoke you by simply stating that (while you accused Zzyzx of usurping a name) you live in a place that is named after another place?
You accused someone of usurping and then someone else pointed out that the name of the place where you live could also be considerer "usurped". I found it funny so I pointed that out.

But he was wrong, so what was so funny?

Or were trying to antagonize me by piping in with "WIN!!!" for McCulloch over something that he wasn't even right about and was personal about (against) me, and if so, why the double standard??? Cry me a river...

No, i wasn't trying to antagonize you, I was laughing at the irony

But there is no irony, as he was inaccurate in saying I 'usurped' a name.

And do you really consider the name of your town and it's origins "personal"? As terrible and hurtful as a war? Would it sit well with you if I made fun of Vietnam as a response of you laughing at a simple observation about my hometown (which is also named after another place by the way)?

What was personal was the mistake that you perceived me to have made. It was at that mistake - the irony that I mistakenly used the term "usurp" so as to make myself a hypocrite - at which you laughed. I don't see you laughing at others' hypocrisy, which you (conveniently) don't notice.

]You presented yourself as a respectful poster earlier, I hope you can prove that to be true despite this incident.

I don't see any disrespect from my part, I see you blowing me laughing at an observation out of proportion.
I hope you can prove to be a respectful poster after this and after your introductory post.

I see the disrespect from you, as well as the generalizations about fundamentalists that you and others so ignorantly hurl.