credibility on a2k

Look who's talking!!!

yeah, I know I have close to zero credibility.

Credibility is directly proportional to the size and the color of the letters one uses.



WAit, or is that the definition of dementia? I gotta tell you that Im a little fuzzy on this.

I wouldn't say you've "close to zero credibility" dys - just being a kook doesn't mean one isn't credible. You strike me as being pretty much solidly believable - but then mebbe I'm just gullible.

Personally, I think credibility is directly based on the number of threads reiterating the same topic that one starts. Ergo, repetition clearly begets credibility. Bonus points are apparently awarded for working the newest "tragedy of the week" into your topic.

This reminds me of the thread started, I think, by nimh, re which person in various governments do you trust, in which order of ranking.

I answered that question a little differently from other posters, in that I attempted - if not succeeded - to rank them solely on whether their behavior was predictable.

So with posters on a2k I feel the same - based on a level of consistency, not so much in rigidity of opinion or level of playfulness, but patterns of thought.

What sort of credibility is being discussed?


Osso seems to be thinking of it as consistency, if I get her correctly...how much we seem to be presenting a persona that is stable over time.


Or do you mean factually belieable, Dys?

Or something else?

Yes, deb, that's what I meant.

By Osso's standard of predictability/consistency both Dys and I are very credible. I don't know how many times I've denounced the delusion of ego-perception or the non-existence of races. I guess I'm just afraid that someone will not see them.
Did anyone miss Kicky's wonderful joke? Two flies sitting on a pile of dung. One passes wind and the other exclaims "Do you MIND, I'm trying to eat?"
Kicky's very credible.

incredible

Predictablyl, Dys told me to tell you to piss off.

Well, credibility is one thing I don't lay claim to. I make too many mistakes, for one thing.

I don't think there are many A2Kers with global credibility. I find Slappy highly credible on the Auto forum, for instance, but I seldom agree with him on Relationships. Dys' opening statement of some having it and some not should be qualified with some having it some of the time.

hehe, So, where would I fit in this spectrum?

Seriously, he told me by telepathy. I guess I've lost my credibility, if there was any to lose.

No really, Dys, I DO appreciate the seriousness of your question. It would make a very good "small group" sociological study, as you would know (being trained in sociology).

On a credibility scale, I would put A2Kers like Fresco, JoefromChicago, Asherman, Setanta, Phoenix, Osso, among others, at the top and Slappy, Kicky and Gus at the bottom. The top of the scale consists of people who want us to believe what they have to say. At the bottom are people who just want us to enjoy what they have to say. Indeed, they usually want not to be believed. I try to fit, like Dys, both at the top and at the bottom. Well, I try.

I find all posting so far very credible, as it happens, and Kicky certainly.

Some folks are interesting in that they have a certain usual, er, surface persona. Gus, Kicky, Slappy, Dys with his irony...; we see their straightforward 'this is how I see it' side somewhat less off than others - but those posts are part of the package, are the foundation of the package, and the package is consistent.

JL, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine.

Such people should regarded with great suspicion.

Anyone who isn't convinced of their own infallibility.