Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Nicolas

So John Titor was a hoax.

Recommended Posts

Quote
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 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
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. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
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 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
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. 👽

Quote

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.

Quote
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.

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. 😄

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 own

brain, 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. :D [/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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Reason undefined

1.Causes sadness and frustration on OP

😞

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :oops:

Besides, she started it. :sneaky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
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. :oops:

Besides, she started it. :sneaky:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
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. :oops:

Besides, she started it. :sneaky:

You just PROVED my point. If someone disagrees with you, they are labeled irrational. You wanted proof, there ya go.

[missing attachment]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually dont beleve on smthing or smone until i have some proof !!

But in Titor's case I do not take a side !!!

I only make suggestions !!

I really want to beleve cause I imagine a future where humanity have taken a big step to understanding better the time and space !!!

I think that it is easier to prove that John Titor is a hoax and almost impossible the opposite.

My opinion is that we can never say for sure that Titor was a real time traveler, not here, not in this world.

The two cases are : John Titor is a hoax and John Titor says the truth, but

I think I can simplify those two cases : John Titor is a hoax and we will never find out !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence would convince you that the person actually is a time traveler ? Lets say by accident you got place 10+ years into the future or the past. What evidence could you provide to prove that you are not a hoax or crazy. For the sake of argument lets say that you are not allowed to take anything with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
I really want to beleve cause I imagine a future where humanity have taken a big step to understanding better the time and space !!!

Wanting to believe is, sadly, the core of the problem. Just like 98% of all arguments online, Titor builds on "truthiness", as Stephen Colbert so nicely put it, the idea that something is true because it feels true, or feels good to believe. There is no hard, factual proof for or against Titor, and there likely never will be. But if any of his predictions or other information is to be taken as proof, he flopped, hard. If it's all just to be seen as a rant, and none of it is predictive (for example, if his actions completely changed everything and the info on his TT machine were just for kicks and giggles), then proof never even enters the conversation. Either he was/is a fraud, or his actions were largely meaningless to the debate on time travel, because none of what he said can be used for anything.

Quote
What evidence would convince you that the person actually is a time traveler ? Lets say by accident you got place 10+ years into the future or the past. What evidence could you provide to prove that you are not a hoax or crazy. For the sake of argument lets say that you are not allowed to take anything with you.

You should look around, this is practically 50% of the topics on these forums! The current result seems to be that there is no definite answer to it, because anything and everything can be countered,and those counterings can then be countercountered by the selfproclaimed traveller. In my personal opinion, everybody is jumping the gun on the topic. We know too little about the concept, even the *theoretical* concepts, of time travel to ask any meaningful questions. In fact, I think it would take a time traveller to teach us enough about the deeper concepts of time travel to allow us to even start on making a test. Not to mention a test that would actually mean anything. i mean, what if you proved someone was a time traveller, someone right there in the chair next to you? What then? What would absolute, undeniable proof even mean??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
You just PROVED my point. If someone disagrees with you, they are labeled irrational. You wanted proof, there ya go.

[missing attachment]

Paula, John was clearly a hoax. If he wasn't, then we would have lived through false flag attacks by our own government resulting in missing skyscrapers in NYC, false flag murder of bystanders at public marathon events, illegal search and seizure, warrantless arrest, illegal incarciration, murder by police, general injustice, fascism, and economic failure. Perhaps even wars and rumors of war. Clearly a JADEed Homeland Eradication of Local Militants hoax...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Paula, John was clearly a hoax. If he wasn't, then we would have lived through false flag attacks by our own government resulting in missing skyscrapers in NYC, false flag murder of bystanders at public marathon events, illegal search and seizure, warrantless arrest, illegal incarciration, murder by police, general injustice, fascism, and economic failure. Perhaps even wars and rumors of war. Clearly a JADEed Homeland Eradication of Local Militants hoax...

I think he was indeed a hoax, but I do tend to think he was a guy in the know about some things, possibly a government worker of some kind. His 'prophecies' could have been him trying to word information he was privy to in such a way that it hints to events that might come, but not necessarily predict them with any accuracy. The clues, mostly.

On another note, I probably should have come up with a better name, because now I feel like I'm stepping on toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Paula, John was clearly a hoax. If he wasn't, then we would have lived through false flag attacks by our own government resulting in missing skyscrapers in NYC, false flag murder of bystanders at public marathon events, illegal search and seizure, warrantless arrest, illegal incarciration, murder by police, general injustice, fascism, and economic failure. Perhaps even wars and rumors of war. Clearly a JADEed Homeland Eradication of Local Militants hoax...

You know, I'm an atheist. Being part of such group and also very interested in the human need for religions, have made me realise a few things. First, people will believe in the most random myths. For the most random reasons as well. Second, there's nothing wrong with that. The importance of a belief can only be measured by that person, so no matter what you say, you will not change someone else's belief by talking/writing to them.

It's the same thing here. People that believe in John Titor have all the right to do so. And they will not give in to any arguments.

And it's all right.

I do understand that this is a place for discussion and inquiring and questioning and all that, but to me, when I'm in any environment where someone will declare their belief in something, like for example PaulaJedi on Titor, it will do no good to either parts to clash and argue and literally fight over it.

It's very important to respect the differences and try to learn from each other. Everyone has something to add to any group.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
I think he was indeed a hoax, but I do tend to think he was a guy in the know about some things, possibly a government worker of some kind. His 'prophecies' could have been him trying to word information he was privy to in such a way that it hints to events that might come, but not necessarily predict them with any accuracy. The clues, mostly.

On another note, I probably should have come up with a better name, because now I feel like I'm stepping on toes.

That is actually the best fracking name I have ever recognized. Damn Decent of you my fine Sir/Madame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wanting to believe is, sadly, the core of the problem. Just like 98% of all arguments online

Wanting to believe is a problem if someone speaks with this in arguments!! Its not bad for the person Itself. Just for his imaginations. I mean I'm still a logical person...

What evidence would convince you that the person actually is a time traveler ? Lets say by accident you got place 10+ years into the future or the past. What evidence could you provide to prove that you are not a hoax or crazy. For the sake of argument lets say that you are not allowed to take anything with you.

The only weapon that someone who time traveled to the past have to convince the ppl, is words. But in science words are not proof. Words are just theories.Tho, as @Henry Stone said in time travel to the past real proof probably cannot exist. If for the time travel in future, you don't have to prove anything. I mean it's the future. They already know it before you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only weapon that someone who time traveled to the past have to convince the ppl, is words. But in science words are not proof. Words are just theories.Tho, as

@Henry Stone said in time travel to the past real proof probably cannot exist. If for the time travel in future, you don't have to prove anything. I mean it's the future. They already know it before you.

I think one of the least represented means of trying to prove time travel would be involved in archeology or history. In twenty years time, there's no telling what people will dig up that completely changes the entire field. If such a ground shaking discovery was tied to a single object, than going into the past (where the object will still be in its position) and informing people where to find it should suffice as advanced knowledge of some kind. Like somebody pops up tomorrow in front of the White House, tells people where to find an Egyptian hovercraft, and then waits as they dig it up. I exaggerate, of course, but that's the premise I most dwell on when I think of proof. Using the past to prove time travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...