So John Titor was a hoax.

[KerrTexas]

But are people trying their very hardest, almost daily, to convince you God doesn't exist?
Besides, this is the site where the legend began. People are going to talk about Titor here for a very long time whether non-believers like it or not. They have the freedom of choice to not read about it or move to a website that suits their interests.

You mean like checking out 'that' book from the library on a subject you obviously loathe, and then choose to re-read 'that' book over and over again? And joining a 'that' book club to whine and cry all the time about 'that' book for years when you could just take your butt back to the library, turn in 'that' book and check out a NEW one?

 

[PaulaJedi]

You mean like checking out 'that' book from the library on a subject you obviously loathe, and then choose to re-read 'that' book over and over again? And joining a 'that' book club to whine and cry all the time about 'that' book for years when you could just take your butt back to the library, turn in 'that' book and check out a NEW one?

Yeah, or if you're an atheist, go to a Christian website and complain that everyone is talking about God and try to convince everyone that they are wrong because they have no proof God exists, when there are probably plenty of atheist sites out there that agree with them. (Just an example).
Another example. I don't like country music, but I'm not on country websites telling them their music sucks, nor am I forcing my views about Rock and Roll on anyone. If someone likes country, that's their prerogative and I don't feel I have a duty to convince them otherwise. I don't even have time for that.

 

[Nicolas]

Yeah, or if you're an atheist, go to a Christian website and complain that everyone is talking about God and try to convince everyone that they are wrong because they have no proof God exists, when there are probably plenty of atheist sites out there that agree with them. (Just an example).
Another example. I don't like country music, but I'm not on country websites telling them their music sucks, nor am I forcing my views about Rock and Roll on anyone. If someone likes country, that's their prerogative and I don't feel I have a duty to convince them otherwise. I don't even have time for that.

This is too subjective for me to understand.
Am I the rocker on a country music forum?

 

[Gpa]

Yeah, or if you're an atheist, go to a Christian website and complain that everyone is talking about God and try to convince everyone that they are wrong because they have no proof God exists, when there are probably plenty of atheist sites out there that agree with them. (Just an example).

Actually, that happens all the time.
It appears, some may have an assumption about this forum that, not everyone else here agrees with. This forum, (Cosmo, please set me straight if I am incorrect) is a place to debate time travel and evaluate persons that claim to be time travelers, not worship them or the offered opinions on the possibility of time travel.

Cosmo has set aside forums that exclude debate. If you want all your opinions to be unchallenged, ask for a forum where only those given to acquiescence can post. Cosmo seems respective to those positions. He may give you one.

What I find disturbing is the commonality of Titor "believers" to identify their "persecution", (being told Titor wasn't a REAL time traveler) with religious persecution. I witnessed one of his biggest (most pathetic) worshippers, (not on this site, thankfully) making him out to be messianic, comparing his pseudo-messianic "predictions" with Jesus' prophecies and making other general comparisons. I'm sure there are some here that know, of whom, I refer. Those fanatics are nescient of true persecution at best.

 

[PaulaJedi]

Actually, that happens all the time.
It appears, some may have an assumption about this forum that, not everyone else here agrees with. This forum, (Cosmo, please set me straight if I am incorrect) is a place to debate time travel and evaluate persons that claim to be time travelers, not worship them or the offered opinions on the possibility of time travel.

Cosmo has set aside forums that exclude debate. If you want all your opinions to be unchallenged, ask for a forum where only those given to acquiescence can post. Cosmo seems respective to those positions. He may give you one.

I don't see anywhere that states every conversation is required to be a debate.

What I find disturbing is the commonality of Titor "believers" to identify their "persecution", (being told Titor wasn't a REAL time traveler) with religious persecution.

It has nothing to do with being told you believe he isn't real. It's the use of words like "bullshit" and "fruitbat". It's the throwing out of evidence before even reading it. It's the automatic attack mode if the Titor name is even mentioned. Sometimes, people want to speculate, not pull out a science book, scholarly papers, and consult Stephen Hawking.
So, you can choose once in a while to just let it go and let people talk. Not every single mention of Titor has to become a huge, universe-altering debate.

There are lots of conversations I just let flow. I don't have to get my nose into every single one of them.

There are power trips involved, alpha male behavior, and other mental issues that cause people to find the need to be right, over and over, day after day.

 

[Cosmo]

Cosmo has set aside forums that exclude debate. If you want all your opinions to be unchallenged, ask for a forum where only those given to acquiescence can post. Cosmo seems respective to those positions. He may give you one.

I'd find it interesting to have a structured debate forum where two people propose to square off on opposite sides of an issue. Each side would get opening arguments, then five or six opportunities to make their case and respond with counterpoints.
There'd need to be a hard limit of how many replies are allowed so that it didn't go in circles forever, but at the end we could have a poll or something to determine the winner. The only catch there though is I'd prefer the voting be based on the merits of the presented arguments and not personal bias... Hmm... Something to think about, I'm open to the idea if you guys are.

Sorry to derail the thread ?

 

[PaulaJedi]

I'd find it interesting to have a structured debate forum where two people propose to square off on opposite sides of an issue. Each side would get opening arguments, then five or six opportunities to make their case and respond with counterpoints.
There'd need to be a hard limit of how many replies are allowed so that it didn't go in circles forever, but at the end we could have a poll or something to determine the winner. The only catch there though is I'd prefer the voting be based on the merits of the presented arguments and not personal bias... Hmm... Something to think about, I'm open to the idea if you guys are.

Sorry to derail the thread ?

And no insults or condescending remarks allowed. ?

 

[Cosmo]

And no insults or condescending remarks allowed. ?

LOL! I agree -Those don't have a place here anyways, but it's difficult to enforce as some of that could be subjective. I still need to get the community guidelines page back up - I've been a busy little Cosmo lately!
Insults or attacks in a structured debate thread would be an instant disqualifier ?

 

[Einstein]

Would I be disqualified from the debate for demanding a personal biased position of strictly adhering to the facts?

 

[Cosmo]

Would I be disqualified from the debate for demanding a personal biased position of strictly adhering to the facts?

I've not thought this all through yet, I was just responding to GPA's idea LOL. I imagine the finer details of the debate would be agreed upon by you and your opponent prior to submitting the debate thread request.

 

[Einstein]

I can't see as how there could be a debate, if only facts were allowed to be presented.

 

[Gpa]

I don't see anywhere that states every conversation is required to be a debate.

I haven't seen that statement either and I also haven't seen "every conversation" turned into a debate.Offering an alternitive view to a statement is not always debate or disagreement. It's just another opinion for readers and even the OP to consider.

When a statement is obviously incorrect, it is a "good thing" to point that out, instead of letting it go unchallenged and mislead people that wouldn't normally know it's incorrect.

It's the use of words like "bullshit" and "fruitbat".

I did a search and, while I don't think the search engine is covering every post I have made, it only returned 2 posts I used "bullshit" in, one of which I used it twice. Normally I use BS, but I do mean the same thing.bull·shit

ˈbo͝olˌSHit

vulgar slang

noun

noun: bullshit

1. stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.

verb

verb: bullshit; 3rd person present: bullshits; past tense: bullshitted; past participle: bullshitted; gerund or present participle: bullshitting

1. talk nonsense to (someone), typically to be misleading or deceptive.

Origin:

early 20th century: from bull + shit.

Use over time for: bullshit

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQhCwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fngrams%2Fgraph%3Fyear_start%3D1800%26year_end%3D2008%26corpus%3D15%26smoothing%3D7%26case_insensitive%3Don%26content%3Dbullshit&ei=B3NNVcn6As_HogT294Fg&usg=AFQjCNHiEx9duLkTrk1O2rpw9ovhfNCP6Q&sig2=0MuVZ4fa-UJqeSaz1ZAjRA

Looks like the prevalence has increased during my lifetime. Must be my fault.

Perhaps I'll use a different term that may be less... scatological.

It's the throwing out of evidence before even reading it.

If it looks like... walks like... smells like... something a steer drops on the barn floor... IT IS something a steer drops on the barn floor. (Better?)

It's the automatic attack mode if the Titor name is even mentioned.So, you can choose once in a while to just let it go and let people talk. Not every single mention of Titor has to become a huge, universe-altering debate.

This has been the modus operandi of the Titor debate since the beginning and I doubt it will be any different in 2037.

Sometimes' date=' people want to speculate, not pull out a science book, scholarly papers, and consult Stephen Hawking.[/quote']Yes, I have seen that on other sites and that is why I like it here better. People here aren't afraid to use critical thinking. I'll try to be less censorious but, I make no promise.

There are lots of conversations I just let flow. I don't have to get my nose into every single one of them.

Yea, me too. Only 345 posts counting this one. (Though, I think some are missing. I just don't know how many.)

There are power trips involved' date=' alpha male behavior, and other mental issues that cause people to find the need to be right, over and over, day after day.[/quote']I concur. I sometimes find it uncomfortable to be right all the time. Sometimes, I try to be wrong on purpose but, unfortunately, I always fail.

 

[PaulaJedi]

I can't see as how there could be a debate, if only facts were allowed to be presented.

You don't count. You think all scientists are wrong, too. ?

When a statement is obviously incorrect, it is a "good thing" to point that out, instead of letting it go unchallenged and mislead people that wouldn't normally know it's incorrect.

Please explain to me who decided that only what YOU deem correct is correct?
If someone doesn't agree with you, they automatically aren't critically thinking. You know everything, eh?

Also, I mentioned the word speculation. Like I said, sometimes people want to discuss what comes from their own brain, not what comes from a text book. It's called CREATIVE THINKING. You have a choice to to participate if you don't believe people should think from their own knowledge base, correct or not. Creative ideas lead to big things. Brainstorming and thinking outside the box lead to understanding.

I did a search and, while I don't think the search engine is covering every post I have made, it only returned 2 posts I used "bullshit" in, one of which I used it twice. Normally I use BS, but I do mean the same thing.

IMHO, I think much of what you say is BS but I don't point it out every single time you talk.

I concur. I sometimes find it uncomfortable to be right all the time. Sometimes, I try to be wrong on purpose but, unfortunately, I always fail. ?

You're not right all the time. You just like to start arguments.
Here's something you won't like at all.

I have a very intellectual friend who spent almost 2 years teaching me a lot about critical thinking (and ironically, he used the same term often. BTW, I learned a lot in college as well). He actually believes in many of the same things I do. In fact, he taught me much of what I believe. Right now, you're automatically thinking, without knowing a single fact about him, that he must be "bullshit". Because, in my opinion, it seems that you consider only YOUR known facts to the correct ones. You often don't supply "proof", either. It's either your way or the highway.

 

[Gpa]

PaulaJedi;

You seem to take it far too personal when "something you present" is pointed out as being inaccurate. If you feel that is happening far too often, perhaps you should reconsider your sources. It isn't always something "you" have said. It isn't "everything" you have posted. In fact, I have been debating Titor and pointing out inaccuracies in posts for around 3 years before "you" even came here. It really isn't "all about you".

Please explain to me who decided that only what YOU deem correct is correct?If someone doesn't agree with you, they automatically aren't critically thinking. You know everything, eh?

It has nothing to do with what I deem correct. It has everything to do with what the vast majority of educated people know is correct.I don't know everything but, I can look it up before I just "throw something out there".

Also, I mentioned the word speculation. Like I said, sometimes people want to discuss what comes from their ownbrain, not what comes from a text book. It's called CREATIVE THINKING.

When speculation in a discussion is exceedingly inaccurate, offering more "grounded" information is warranted. It's called CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. (though, some are unable to accept it)

IMHO' date=' I think much of what you say is BS but I don't point it out every single time you talk.[/quote']I suppose, I could say the same but, I'd rather, see if you can cite "one example" from the "much". Knowing, of course, it is only "your humble opinion".

I concur. I sometimes find it uncomfortable to be right all the time. Sometimes' date=' I try to be wrong on purpose but, unfortunately, I always fail. [/quote']You're not right all the time.

Of course not. I imagine everyone would recognize that as a joke... but when I am wrong, I have no problem admitting it and appreciate the corrected knowledge.

You just like to start arguments.

I had an employer that would agree with you but, he would also acknowledge that, I was usually right.

Here's something you won't like at all.

I neither like nor dislike the things you say. That really has no bearing on my opinions.

I have a very intellectual friend who spent almost 2 years teaching me a lot about critical thinking (and ironically' date=' he used the same term often. BTW, I learned a lot in college as well). [/quote']I miss the irony in someone often using the words "critical thinking" while teaching someone "critical thinking".Intellectual

[in-tl-ek-choo-uh l]

noun

6.a person of superior intellect.

(I love this one best)

7.a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.

8.an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.

(Now here I can see irony)

I prefer to get my erudition from "educated" friends.

Educate

[ej-oo-keyt]

verb (used with object), educated, educating.

1. to develop the faculties and powers of (a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.

2. to qualify by instruction or training for a particular calling, practice, etc.; train:

to educate someone for law.

3. to provide schooling or training for; send to school.

4. to develop or train (the ear, taste, etc.): to educate one's palate to appreciate fine food.

5.to inform: to educate oneself about the best course of action.

I'm going to separate these so you can look at them distinctly.

He actually believes in many of the same things I do.

In fact' date=' he taught me much of what I believe.[/quote']That says you believe him, not that he believes you.

Right now' date=' you're automatically thinking, without knowing a single fact about him, that he must be "bullshit"[/quote']If we are talking about the anonymous author of the book you so excitedly endorse so very often then, yes...absolutly.If you're talking about someone else then, of course, I don't know him and have no firm opinion of him...yet.

Because' date=' in my opinion, it seems that you consider only YOUR known facts to the correct ones. You often don't supply "proof", either. It's either your way or the highway.[/quote']Again, they are not "my" known facts. They are everyone's known facts and they are available to everyone. Whether someone chooses to "use" or "accept" them, or not, is a different story.I nearly "always" provide proof of my statements. I also often provide links to the background of my "opinions". If you don't check the links I provide, that's your loss, not my lack of proof.

Now, if you want to take this as a personal affront to you, go right ahead but, it is not intended to be. It is in response to your questions/statements. If you want to continue this discussion, I don't mind. I rather enjoy them. It's not personal unless you choose it to be.

 

[PaulaJedi]

nar·cis·sism

ˈnärsəˌsizəm/

noun

1. excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance.
   synonyms: vanity, self-love, self-admiration, self-absorption, self-obsession, conceit,self-centeredness, self-regard, egotism, egoism
   "his emotional development was hindered by his mother's narcissism"
   • PSYCHOLOGY
     extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one's own talents and a craving for admiration, as characterizing a personality type.
      
      
      
     
   • PSYCHOANALYSIS
     self-centeredness arising from failure to distinguish the self from external objects, either in very young babies or as a feature of mental disorder.
      
      
      
     

troll

trōl/

verb

gerund or present participle: trolling

1. 1.
   informal
   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.
   "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"
    
    
    
   
2. 2.
   fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.
   "we trolled for mackerel"
    
    
    
   

 

[Oternative]

A: Tastes Great!

B: Less Filling!

A: Tastes Great!

B: Less Filling!

A: Tastes Great!

B: Less Filling!

? You're oversimplifying it. Check it out ...It also includes liquor and wine, one of which is hardly filling at all but tastes like shit without mixing is with something, the other tastes great AND is less filling.

A: What kind of barley does it use?

B: What kind of hops?

? Actually, it uses things like corn and rice. The other uses fruit.

A: Liar!

B: Idiot! Everyone knows ale is made from barley and hops.

? But it's not just about beer. That's what I am trying to tell you.

A: Answer the question, fool.

? But the question is out of context.

B: Bull! I know all about beer because I come from a long line of brewery owners.

? It's not just beer, and it is fermented or distilled. The process is a little different for the others. Are you not listening?

A: Show us the barley fields or get lost, liar.

? It's not made with barley. It's made with fruit, usually grapes, and the place they grow is called a vineyard.

B: Fruity beer is for sissies.

? It's not just about the beer! It includes other things. And what does our egos have to do with it?

A: Prove it.

? I am trying to show you. If you will just indulge me long enough I will. Here, ..check this link out.

B: That's not a barley field.

A: ...and the pictures have been photo-shopped.

? No, it's just a vineyard. They're everywhere. You just have to look for them and you can see for yourself.

A: If it's not beer, I don't care.

B: I do. Make him prove it.

? Look, I have a whole shelf full of it in my cellar. I'll go get a few bottles and share so you can taste for yourself. I need a corkscrew to open them though.

A: I never heard of a corkscrew. You must be full of it.

B: Yeah, that's a dumb excuse. You don't have any fruity beer. And what's a corkscrew?

? Uhhgh! IT'S NOT BEER! IT'S CALLED WINE! ..and a corkscrew is the tool to open the bottles?

B: Why not use a bottle opener?

? Because it's sealed with a cork and not a bottle cap.

A: Bull! Ain't no beer sealed with a cork, ...even fruity beer.

? It's not beer!

B: Whatever, liar.

? I can prove it. I just need a little help finding a corkscrew. Do you mind giving me a ride to the store so I can get one, then to my house so I can get you a few bottles of it? You'll really enjoy it.

B: What's in it for us?

? I just told you. I am going to answer your questions, show you something new, and give you some delicious very little filling alcoholic beverage. I just need a little help, that's all.

A: You're talking in circles, liar.

? I AM? YOU are the one talking in circles. Geeze!

B: Ban his dumb ass! Lock this liar's account!

? Ya know what? ...never mind. I don't have to share. I'll drink it myself. Enjoy your beer.

A: Piss off, liar!

? Whatever. ...later.

 

[Nicolas]

Hav.ing.my.thr.ead.and.fol.low.ing.pos.ts.ig.nor.ed

Reason undefined

1.Causes sadness and frustration on OP

?

 

[Gpa]

Sorry if I've disturbed your thread. This is how the Titor discussion always ends up, the rational having to justify their disbelief, to the irrational disciples of The Titor.

Besides, she started it. :sneaky:

 

[Nicolas]

Sorry if I've disturbed your thread. This is how the Titor discussion always ends up, the rational having to justify their disbelief, to the irrational disciples of The Titor.
Besides, she started it. :sneaky:

I don't mind disturbing. Ignoring it is what hurts. ?

 

[Gpa]

So, back on track.

I do agree with your premise that Titor was most likely a collaboration of several persons with knowledge in different areas.

Are they still around?

Maybe... If this was some social experiment to see how people would react to threats in the future, It would appear whoever was behind it did try to make the most convincing story they could. It is also apparent, that it was falling apart very quickly. Hence, only about 4 months online interaction.

It is also just as likely, that by now, they have moved on and forgotten or couldn't care less about this.