December Issue of SkepticReport is out

[CFLarsen]

Articles this month:

The Amaz!ng Meeting 2
By James Randi

A Consumer Advocate's Dilemma
By Paul Lee

Dilution or Delusion?
By Anders W. Bonde

Crop Circles...or just Crap Circles?
By Mogens Winther

Indigo: The Color of Money
By Lorie Anderson

Enjoy!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Articles this month:

The Amaz!ng Meeting 2
By James Randi

A Consumer Advocate's Dilemma
By Paul Lee

Dilution or Delusion?
By Anders W. Bonde

Crop Circles...or just Crap Circles?
By Mogens Winther

Indigo: The Color of Money
By Lorie Anderson

Enjoy!
What? Nothing by Claus Larsen? C'mon, CF, the Forum is counting on you to represent us.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Indigo: The Color of Money
By Lorie Anderson

Enjoy! [/B]

This is delicious, :) , thank you.
James Twyman is the master of stealing the latest new age fad and making it his own. He is a master, all right; a master of manipulation.

He mixes Catholicism with new age and adds a smattering of bad folk music for his own unique blend of wackiness. I worked for James for a while and he is delusional, IMO. He is certainly not the soft spoken peaceful man he makes out to be.

James Twyman's little cult, "The Beloved Community," is one to watch. He is extremely charismatic and his fans act hypnotized in his presence. I'm not saying he will be having a kool-aid party anytime soon, or catching the next comet; he is far too greedy to kill himself and his followers. Where is the money in that?

Here is a link to this "Emissary of Light"
http://jamestwyman.com/

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tricky
What? Nothing by Claus Larsen? C'mon, CF, the Forum is counting on you to represent us.

What? Nothing by Tricky? :)


Originally posted by tamiO
James Twyman is the master of stealing the latest new age fad and making it his own. He is a master, all right; a master of manipulation.

I've even seen material in woowoo trade shows here in Denmark. So sad...

[Tanja]

I was curious about this James Twyman after reding the article in Skeptic Report so I googled him, and to my surprise found the following from http://www.wisdomstore.com/wisdomstore/biography.asp?author_id=716:
---
In 1995, Twyman decided to go to those places where peace was needed most. Bosnia was at the top of the list. While in Bosnia, he was led to the "Emissaries of Light," an elusive community of thirteen men and women who lived in seclusion in the mountains along the border of Bosnia and Croatia. Their purpose was to hold the consciousness of peace and extend it out to the world via a twelve-hour daily meditation.

---

and from the description of his book on Amazon:
---
For thousands of years, the mystical community known as the Emissaries of Light has worked in secret, invoking spiritual power to bring peace to areas of devastating bloodshed. In the mountains of Bosnia and Croatia, James Twyman observes their amazing meditations and the foundations of their ancient work.
---

I am from Croatia, so I find this very amusing if a bit insulting. I find it amusing that my country has exotic appeal to gullible New Age followers, and I find it insulting that our tragic war is exploited in this way.

Anyway if these "emissaries" exist at all - and no one I asked ever heard of them in Croatia - it is obvious that they failed miserably in bringing peace to our country...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What? Nothing by Tricky? :)

Well, they don't have a humor section. 'Course you could argue that all the woo-woos they write about are hilarious.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, they don't have a humor section. 'Course you could argue that all the woo-woos they write about are hilarious.

Of course there is a humor "section":

The Balloon-Hoax (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/balloonhoax.htm)
By Edgar Allan Poe

The Argument For Blue Fairies (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/bluefairies.htm)
by Luke T.

The Blue Fairies FAQ (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/bluefairiesfaq.htm)
by Luke T.

The Crackpot Index (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/crackpot.htm)
by John Baez

If Jesus Christ held a press conference (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/jcpress.htm)
by Brady J. Phelps

The Moon is Made of Cheese! (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/mooncheese.htm)
by Damian Carroll

NASA Fakes Moon Landing! (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/moonhoax.htm)
Author Unknown

Try the psychic dice! (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/psychicdice.htm)
By Andrew Endersby

The Woo-Woo Credo - How to be an Internet Woo-Woo (http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/woowoocredo.htm)
WatchingYou.com

I believe you just ran out of excuses. Start writing! :)

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Tanja


I am from Croatia, so I find this very amusing if a bit insulting. I find it amusing that my country has exotic appeal to gullible New Age followers, and I find it insulting that our tragic war is exploited in this way.

Anyway if these "emissaries" exist at all - and no one I asked ever heard of them in Croatia - it is obvious that they failed miserably in bringing peace to our country...

His book "Emissary of Light" was taken to be a true story, but later he admitted to embellishing it.

He exploits just about everything he can. He is like the Jesse Jackson of new age. He is famous for visiting areas in conflict and holding worldwide focused meditation, or prayers, to send "light" to the situation.

James has been invited by world leaders to countries like Iraq, Northern Ireland, Israel, South Africa and Serbia to offer his insights on peace and perform the “Peace Concert,” often while conflicts have raged in those countries. He has performed twice at the United Nations in New York, as well as the US Capitol and the US Pentagon.

His website makes you think he moves in high political circles, but he just wants you to think that. The United Nations thing was actually a performance for one of the many social groups that

He is quite an interesting character. At one point he was holding court out at Giant Rock. I don't know if they are still there or not.
He believes he was part of a miracle out there.

links (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Giant+Rock+james+twyman)

Others will tell you that religious freaks broke the rock.
http://www.deuceofclubs.com/rv/cal230b.htm

And you know what is out at Giant Rock, don't you?
The
Integretron! (http://www.colapublib.org/materials/collections/integratron.html)

[Clancie]

Note to James Randi and CFLarsen:

Ian's book is called "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" (not "The Art of Cold Reading")....

:rolleyes:

[Quinn]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ian's book is called "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" (not "The Art of Cold Reading")....

:rolleyes:

This has been noted (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30585) already, but unfortunately the brochures had already gone to press.

[Clancie]

Posted by Quinn

This has been noted already, but unfortunately the brochures had already gone to press.
Yes, I know. That's what I meant by "again"...There it is with the wrong title -again- in the latest Skeptic Report (see above)....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Note to James Randi and CFLarsen:

Ian's book is called "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" (not "The Art of Cold Reading")....

:rolleyes:

Clancie,

Of course, you are right. No need to roll eyes at people, though: You made the very same error yourself once, and was corrected by Ian Rowland. I didn't see any rolling eyes from him, and I don't see the need for you to use them here. You do use them a lot, you know.

Since this is not my article, it is up to the author to agree to any changes. Therefore, I await reply from Randi.

Oh, and thanks for taking me off ignore once again....! It seems that you have this psychic ability to detect any errors in my posts, even though you can't see them.

In fact, I am so impressed with this ability (as I am sure many other are) that you should apply for the million bucks.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

This one better not go soft on the damn kooks!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Clancie,

Of course, you are right. No need to roll eyes at people, though: You made the very same error yourself once, and was corrected by Ian Rowland. I didn't see any rolling eyes from him, and I don't see the need for you to use them here. You do use them a lot, you know.

Since this is not my article, it is up to the author to agree to any changes. Therefore, I await reply from Randi.

Oh, and thanks for taking me off ignore once again....! It seems that you have this psychic ability to detect any errors in my posts, even though you can't see them.

In fact, I am so impressed with this ability (as I am sure many other are) that you should apply for the million bucks.
http://216.218.248.155/datastore/76/a0/b/76a04fa60d3a61d234e3067cfa76a5dc.jpg

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Yahweh

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/76/a0/b/76a04fa60d3a61d234e3067cfa76a5dc.jpg

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/kitteninglass.jpg

[xouper]

Indigo: The Color of Money
By Lorie AndersonMinor quibble - Lee Carroll and Jan Tober did not write the Indigo book with their names on it, they were only the editors. Most of the chapters were written by other people. Some of Lee Carroll's other books, however, do contain information he channelled from Kryon ® about Indigo Children ®.

And yes, Lee Carroll does own those registered trademarks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by xouper
Minor quibble - Lee Carroll and Jan Tober did not write the Indigo book with their names on it, they were only the editors. Most of the chapters were written by other people.

Gotcha.

[Cynical]

Tricky, I think I know the reason why CF didn't contribute this time. I really believe he is suffering from paranoia and is under a considerable amount of stress. His latest posts indicate this. He is really having a rough time trying to argue with Clancie and SteveGrenard, because he can never win them. This his causing him much mental anguish. No wonder he wasn't able to publish this month.

Since he has me on ignore, he won't see this, but I'm convinced CF is having major problems.:randi:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cynical
Tricky, I think I know the reason why CF didn't contribute this time. I really believe he is suffering from paranoia and is under a considerable amount of stress. His latest posts indicate this. He is really having a rough time trying to argue with Clancie and SteveGrenard, because he can never win them. This his causing him much mental anguish. No wonder he wasn't able to publish this month.

Since he has me on ignore, he won't see this, but I'm convinced CF is having major problems.:randi:
Well, you might be right. It can be exasperating to try to hold a debate with true believers. Nothing you say, no evidence you provide makes any difference to them, so of course you can't "win", at least not with the TB's themselves. Of course, you can gain tremendous respect from those observing but not participating, and perhaps that is what Claus is going for.

[Cynical]

Resect? Maybe, but I think CF wants more than that. He wants to be known a benevolent genie who saved everyone from the evils of cold reading. That, of course, will never happen.

His obsession with this - and with trying to bully the believers into providing "proof" - is causing him to lose it. Claus needs to learn that you can't dictate people's thoughts. How long before the guy cracks completely?:D

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Cynical
... I really believe he is suffering from paranoia and is under a considerable amount of stress. His latest posts indicate this. He is really having a rough time trying to argue with Clancie and SteveGrenard, because he can never win them. This his causing him much mental anguish. No wonder he wasn't able to publish this month.
The Psycho Therapist strikes again.
This is an example of what is called Mom and Pop Psychology, by a highly trained Telephone Sanitizer from Buttfork, NC.
A mind is usually a horrible thing to waste, but in this case, there's nothing to worry about.

[xouper]

Cynical: His obsession with this - and with trying to bully the believers into providing "proof" - is causing him to lose it.If Larsen ever does lose it someday, it's still far better to be a "has-been", than a "never-was" like you.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by xouper
If Larsen ever does lose it someday, it's still far better to be a "has-been", than a "never-was" like you.
Badabing, badabang!

[CFLarsen]

Cynical,

Thanks for bumping this thread! That means more people will read SR, and more people will be aware of the dangers of abandoning critical thinking.

You're a great help!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Cynical
Resect? Maybe, but I think CF wants more than that. He wants to be known a benevolent genie who saved everyone from the evils of cold reading. That, of course, will never happen.

His obsession with this - and with trying to bully the believers into providing "proof" - is causing him to lose it. Claus needs to learn that you can't dictate people's thoughts. How long before the guy cracks completely?:D

"before"?! You jest, surely. The young man has already published a study on someone he though was a believer", whom, it turns out, was/is a prolific troll of this very forum.:D :D :D

And Claus, Lee Carroll and Jan Tober were only the editors. You also made another glaring error by not checking your sources first before publishing, it's "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" (not "The Art of Cold Reading"). :rolleyes:

[xouper]

File the following comment by Luci under "a dollar short and a day late".

Lucianarchy: And Claus, Lee Carroll and Jan Tober were only the editors. You also made another glaring error by not checking your sources first before publishing, it's "The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading" (not "The Art of Cold Reading"). :rolleyes: Larsen already acknowledged these points. I know it's a lot to ask of you, Luci, to pay attention to what's already been posted in this thread, but the least you could do is make a token effort.

:hit:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by xouper
File the following comment by Luci under "a dollar short and a day late".

Larsen already acknowledged these points.



You're not the sharpest stick in the box are you, Xoup. :rolleyes:

Besides, Liarson needs correcting over and over before it sinks in. I'll bet he hasn't corrected the mistakes yet has he?

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: You're not the sharpest stick in the box are you, Xoup. :rolleyes: Besides, Liarson needs correcting over and over before it sinks in. I'll bet he hasn't corrected the mistakes yet has he?He has at least acknowledged that the corrections need to be made. Whereas in your case it never sinks in, no matter how many times your mistakes have been corrected. I may not be the sharpest stick in the box, but at least I'm in it.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by xouper
He has at least acknowledged that the corrections need to be made.

When he makes good his mistakes he can rest. Until then, he remains a knowing publisher of misleading information, despite being corrected by a number o people.

I may not be the sharpest stick in the box, but at least I'm in it.

Indeed you are, and very happy may you remain boxed.:rub:

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: When he makes good his mistakes he can rest. Until then, he remains a knowing publisher of misleading information, despite being corrected by a number o people.And when are you going to make good on your mistakes, Luci, despite having been corrected by a number of people? Unlike Larsen, you don't even have the honor to acknowledge your errors. You do not have the moral high ground on this one, Luci.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by xouper
You do not have the moral high ground on this one, Luci.

Sorry, but I do. Feel free to point out any post of mine you claim needs correcting. Ensure you do this under the thread in which the post was made (or I will ignore it as attempted thread derailment) and provide the evidence for your claim.

[xouper]

Lucianarchy: Sorry, but I do. That's another error right there. Please correct it.

Feel free to point out any post of mine you claim needs correcting.I already have, and so have others, and have done so in those other threads where you made the errors. You still have not corrected your errors. Because of those many long-standing errors you have not yet corrected, you do not have the moral high ground on this issue, so also please correct your error above where you incorrectly claim you do.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Sorry, but I do. Feel free to point out any post of mine you claim needs correcting. Ensure you do this under the thread in which the post was made (or I will ignore it as attempted thread derailment) and provide the evidence for your claim.

That's not the moral high ground, Luci. You're standing on a pimple.

[CFLarsen]

Hey! Lucianarchy is posting in the thread! That means many more people will go to SR!

Thank you very much!

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Sorry, but I do. Feel free to point out any post of mine you claim needs correcting. Ensure you do this under the thread in which the post was made (or I will ignore it as attempted thread derailment) and provide the evidence for your claim.
Liar. This has been tried a number of times, and you still ignore it in the threads.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hey! Lucianarchy is posting in the thread! That means many more people will go to SR!

Thank you very much!



My pleasure!

[Clancie]

Posted by Xouper

He has at least acknowledged that the corrections need to be made
All well and good, Xouper, but I don't understand why Ian Rowland's book title -still- hasn't been corrected. The wrong title has been up for many days beyond when Claus was first told about it.

The title isn't a matter of creativity that requires consultation with anyone. Its the kind of -factual error- that editors are -supposed- to catch and correct.

So, I'm also wondering why there still hasn't been any correction? :confused:

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

All well and good, Xouper, but I don't understand why Ian Rowland's book title -still- hasn't been corrected. The wrong title has been up for many days beyond when Claus was first told about it.

The title isn't a matter of creativity that requires consultation with anyone. Its the kind of -factual error- that editors are -supposed- to catch and correct.

So, I'm also wondering why there still hasn't been any correction? :confused:

I notice in Claus's reply when this was first brought to his attention.


Since this is not my article, it is up to the author to agree to any changes. Therefore, I await reply from Randi.


Why are you saying you are now confused when Claus made it very clear his editorial policy? (And by the way there is no standard "editorial" policy - every publisher and editor I have ever worked with has had very different approaches to such matters.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
All well and good, Xouper, but I don't understand why Ian Rowland's book title -still- hasn't been corrected. The wrong title has been up for many days beyond when Claus was first told about it.

The title isn't a matter of creativity that requires consultation with anyone. Its the kind of -factual error- that editors are -supposed- to catch and correct.

So, I'm also wondering why there still hasn't been any correction? :confused:

No need for the "confused"-smiley (which you over-use, and nobody believes you are "confused" anyway). It's simply because I have not heard back from Randi yet. He is the author, and he should correct it.

No conspiracy. No mystery. And absolutely no reason to imagine any foul play.

I host SkepticReport as a place where writers can write about skeptical matters. About how they see things. I do not pass judgment. If they make a mistake, I point it out, but I would never - ever - edit their articles without their consent.

I do respect "my" writers, Clancie. I do take the freedom of "my" writers very seriously. Because I take skepticism very seriously. I do not agree with all contributors, but I do recognize their right to state their case.

Heck, I have even offered you - a fanatic believer in JE and other psychic mediums - to have your own explanation of what JE is all about published, completely unaltered. That's how far my skepticism has taken me. You turned this offer down, because you did not have the guts to face honest criticism. Your choice.

But, still...it's nice to know that you still read my posts and threads with the deepest interest, even if it is only to seek flaws with me....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
My pleasure!

Pleasure is all mine.

[Cleopatra]

Clancie

I find your determination to protect Ian Rowland's reputation touching...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Clancie

I find your determination to protect I.R's reputation touching...

I.R.?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I.R.?

Ian Rowland's, let me edit my previous post.

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Why are you saying you are now confused when Claus made it very clear his editorial policy
I guess it's because I can't understand letting a blatant inaccuracy (there is not one iota of doubt that it is a factual error) just continue uncorrected and to be read over and over.

After all, Randi himself corrected the error in the TAM2 announcements...is he really going to write back to Claus now and say, "No. Don't change it. I want to go on record as not knowing the correct title. I want Ian's book to be listed in SR by the -wrong- title!"
Posted by Cleopatra

I find your determination to protect I.R's reputation touching.
Randi's accuracy....Claus's accuracy....Ian Rowland's book sales....well, why do I care? :con2:
Beats me!

[Cleopatra]

People of action Clancie like Mr. Randi, or Claus prefer to err while acting than doing nothing in order to avoid making mistakes.

This is why I admire people of action :)

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Clancie

I find your determination to protect Ian Rowland's reputation touching...


Have you been to Mr. Rowland's site?
If not, you should.
http://www.ianrowland.com/

<sidetrack> Did you know, that he knows Eddie Izzard?
I love Eddie Izzard.</sidetrack>

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I guess it's because I can't understand letting a blatant inaccuracy (there is not one iota of doubt that it is a factual error) just continue uncorrected and to be read over and over.

After all, Randi himself corrected the error in the TAM2 announcements...is he really going to write back to Claus now and say, "No. Don't change it. I want to go on record as not knowing the correct title. I want Ian's book to be listed in SR by the -wrong- title!"

Please, do not invent imaginary conversations.

And let me remind you, you hypocrite, that you made the same error yourself once. Who are you to criticize others for making that very same mistake?

Originally posted by Clancie
Randi's accuracy....Claus's accuracy....Ian Rowland's book sales....well, why do I care? :con2:
Beats me!

Then, WTF do you make such a big deal out of it, if not to hurl cheap shots at me?

Jeebus, Clancie, you are so friggin' transparent....

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I guess it's because I can't understand letting a blatant inaccuracy (there is not one iota of doubt that it is a factual error) just continue uncorrected and to be read over and over.

But when Claus corrects you he's a dick, right?

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie



After all, Randi himself corrected the error in the TAM2 announcements...

He did? Where?


Not here (http://www.randi.org/jref/tamii.html)

or here (http://www.randi.org/jref/inside.pdf)

as discussed here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30585&highlight=error)

I am not condoning Randi for not fixing this error- here and other places, after it was pointed out. But...where did he correct it, Clancie? I must have missed it :)

So- Claus- how many days passed since Clancie said she would ignore you this time? :D

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

So- Claus- how many days passed since Clancie said she would ignore you this time?
Actually, renata, I was responding to the exchange between Lucianarchy and Xouper.
Posted by renata
I am not condoning Randi for not fixing this error- here and other places, after it was pointed out. But...where did he correct it, Clancie? I must have missed it
Apparently so.

Here's the thread.Correction re: Rowland's book for TAM2 info (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=30585) Linda's comment follows Quinn's.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie


Apparently so.

Here's the thread.Correction re: Rowland's book for TAM2 info (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=30585)

You mean this post by Linda (emphasis mine), in the thread that I linked to in my post?


Whoa...Quinn, you're right! We caught that error once, and obviously missed that the correction wasn't made. Oh man, that sucks!

Would you like to try again, and this time show that

After all, Randi himself corrected the error in the TAM2 announcements...

Note that I linked to TAM2 flyers and the announcements...for your convenience :)

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

You mean this post by Linda (emphasis mine), in the thread that I linked to in my post?
I don't know why you're arguing this, but, fine, I'll ...rephrase.

Linda...JREF (inc, imo though not specified, Randi as well) realize that they already made the error about Ian's book. Have made it twice now...and, from Linda's post at least, regret doing so.

So..."Acknowledged the error" rather than "corrected"it....Is that better, iyo?

"Linda...JREF" rather than "Randi" himself.......Better still?

In any case...the title is an error....There's no question about it....

Personally, I would assume that Randi would appreciate having this error corrected in the Skeptic Report, rather than perpetuating an inaccuracy about his friend's book for the third time.

I just can't understand why there's all this resistance to correcting it? Leaving it up online...wrong...for days...serves no good purpose that I can see.

But, obviously others here feel differently.....

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

I don't know why you're arguing this, but, fine, I'll ...rephrase.

Linda...JREF (inc, imo though not specified, Randi as well) realize that they already made the error about Ian's book. Have made it twice now...and, from Linda's post at least, regret doing so.

So..."Acknowledged the error" rather than "corrected"it....Is that better, iyo?

"Linda...JREF" rather than "Randi" himself.......Better still?

Thank you for correcting your error. Accuracy is important, and I know you yourself are quite diligent about it :)

[voidx]

Surely we have better things to debate. Like why hair grows on your arse and why it hurts to shave it(so I'm told...from a friend...).

[tamiO]

Originally posted by voidx
Surely we have better things to debate. Like why hair grows on your arse and why it hurts to shave it(so I'm told...from a friend...).

Try hot waxing next time. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
So- Claus- how many days passed since Clancie said she would ignore you this time? :D

Less than a day. She puts me on ignore and off again at least once a day.

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't know why you're arguing this, but, fine, I'll ...rephrase.

Why? Because you were incorrect. Just as you criticize others for being incorrect.

But that's "not the same" at all, we know...

Originally posted by Clancie
So..."Acknowledged the error" rather than "corrected"it....Is that better, iyo?

"Linda...JREF" rather than "Randi" himself.......Better still?

In any case...the title is an error....There's no question about it....

Droning. Ranting.

Originally posted by Clancie
Personally, I would assume that Randi would appreciate having this error corrected in the Skeptic Report, rather than perpetuating an inaccuracy about his friend's book for the third time.

I just can't understand why there's all this resistance to correcting it? Leaving it up online...wrong...for days...serves no good purpose that I can see.

There is no resistance, but very good reasons, Clancie. As has been explained to you. Now, if you would stop this charade of pretending to ignore my posts (you sure as heck seem almost obsessed with what I do), perhaps you could stop making such an ass out of yourself.

Originally posted by Clancie
But, obviously others here feel differently.....

Not at all. You can stop these insinuations, because they are not true.

[Cynical]

xouper to Cynical:

"If Larsen ever does lose it someday, it's still far better to be a "has-been", than a "never-was" like you."


:jaw: XOUPER! Who would have thought that YOU were a comediene?? I like you, man. However I must disagree with the above statement. I'd much rather be a "never-was", because if you ever become notorious, as Claus is, then you're in for a big let-down when people lose interest. Furthermore, I'd much rather be known as a "Psycho-Therapist" than an uptight know-it-all. I'm still concerned that Claus is headed for a breakdown.

Hey, Clancie, perhaps for the holidays, you could ease up on Claus a little. Your pushing him over the edge, dear. ROFLMAO

[Cynical]

By the way, Crowunit, you should be concerned about Cantata as well. I am simply trying to chill the dude out. So, since he has me on ignore, why don't YOU tell me what they drink in Denmark? What kind of beer, what kind of booze?

Whatever it is, I'm going to send Claus a couple of cases for the holidays. He really needs a break from all this skeptic stuff. :r:

[CFLarsen]

Cynical,

I do not have you on ignore. Quite contrary, you amuse me tremendously.

We drink Tuborg and Carlsberg. Snaps. Jägermeister and Gammel Dansk. It's good to know that you have finally decided to learn a bit about the world around you.

You could, however, start with your more closer surroundings. Try to figure out why the moonshine you buy from your Uncle Goober makes you blind. It's not the 'possum & roadkill stew that does it, like you think.

[Jeff Corey]

Claus,
What? No Glenfiddich? Or Aquavit?
Just the thing to go with possum 'n squirrel roadkill pie.
A well polished Merlot is also acceptable.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Claus,
What? No Glenfiddich? Or Aquavit?
Just the thing to go with possum 'n squirrel roadkill pie.
A well polished Merlot is also acceptable.

I thought the proverbial hillbilly meant local beverages.

Glenfiddich is OK...I guess. You can get far better single malts for the same price.

Wine is, of course, the favorite... :)

Aquavit is snaps. :)

[voidx]

Originally posted by tamiO


Try hot waxing next time. :)
Hmmm I hear the baboon look is in, I'll have to give that a....err tell my friend to give that a try.

[Cynical]

I DID mean local beverages, Cantata. Thanks for the info; I'm going to read up on them hopes of finding out what makes you tick.

Your references to "Uncle Goober" and possums tells me that you watch too many "Andy Griffith" and "Beverly Hillbillies" reruns. Those shows are outdated, and far from reality. It sounds to me, CF, like YOU'RE the one who needs to catch up with the world.

Snaps? Is that the same thing as Schnapps?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by tamiO


This is delicious, :) , thank you.
James Twyman is the master of stealing the latest new age fad and making it his own. He is a master, all right; a master of manipulation.

He mixes Catholicism with new age and adds a smattering of bad folk music for his own unique blend of wackiness. I worked for James for a while and he is delusional, IMO. He is certainly not the soft spoken peaceful man he makes out to be.

James Twyman's little cult, "The Beloved Community," is one to watch. He is extremely charismatic and his fans act hypnotized in his presence. I'm not saying he will be having a kool-aid party anytime soon, or catching the next comet; he is far too greedy to kill himself and his followers. Where is the money in that?

Here is a link to this "Emissary of Light"
http://jamestwyman.com/

Wow I read that article Claus and since the matter is crucial I suggest you devote more articles to the whole matter in order to explore it in details. Do you have something like that in your mind?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cynical
I DID mean local beverages, Cantata. Thanks for the info; I'm going to read up on them hopes of finding out what makes you tick.

You can read??

Originally posted by Cynical
Your references to "Uncle Goober" and possums tells me that you watch too many "Andy Griffith" and "Beverly Hillbillies" reruns. Those shows are outdated, and far from reality. It sounds to me, CF, like YOU'RE the one who needs to catch up with the world.

Perhaps. How would you describe yourself and your life?

Originally posted by Cynical
Snaps? Is that the same thing as Schnapps?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Wow I read that article Claus and since the matter is crucial I suggest you devote more articles to the whole matter in order to explore it in details. Do you have something like that in your mind?

Of course. If people can write about it, of course....(hint, hint, you know who you are...) :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Of course. If people can write about it, of course....(hint, hint, you know who you are...) :)

Yes you are right! Articles are not written by themselves, somebody must devote time and energy to do it especially skeptical articles that debunk silly ideas and claims.

I wonder if you can exchange ideas and.... authors with other skeptical societies in Europe and elsewhere.

Great job Claus. I know how difficult is to have topics for a monthly issue.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes you are right! Articles are not written by themselves, somebody must devote time and energy to do it especially skeptical articles that debunk silly ideas and claims.

Indeed. Time is what we have the least of.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I wonder if you can exchange ideas and.... authors with other skeptical societies in Europe and elsewhere.

Oh, you have no idea... :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Great job Claus. I know how difficult is to have topics for a monthly issue.

No, it's not a matter of topics, it's a matter of finding time.

But thanks! (When will the first article be from you? :))

[Cleopatra]

Oh. I'd love to write something. Maybe about psychics and how our association deals with them when they appear in court to testify in cases of murder.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Oh. I'd love to write something. Maybe about psychics and how our association deals with them when they appear in court to testify in cases of murder.
Deadline's the 28th.

GET CRACKIN'!

(I'm a bitch to work for, so get used to it...! :D)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Oh. I'd love to write something. Maybe about psychics and how our association deals with them when they appear in court to testify in cases of murder.

That would be awesome. I have always wondered about that.

[Luke T.]

For the people who are criticizing Claus for an error in Randi's article, please allow me to describe my own experience with being published on Claus' site.

Claus asked me several months ahead of time to write an article, any kind of article, for him. I floated a couple ideas by him to see what he thought. He was enthusiastic about both.

I put it off and put it off. Mind you, he not only had me to worry about, but a herd of other peripatetic, procrastinating writers, too.

I had been hanging around on tvtalkshows for some time by then, along with one of Art Bell's forums, and so I had a pretty good insight into the paranormal community. And thus The Blue Fairies On The Moon were born. Some of you from tvtalkshows may recall their actual birth took place on the John Edward portion of that site.

Polishing up the idea and writing it was a lot easier to do than the other idea I had for a paper, which was going to be all serious-like and would require impeccable logic and facts. Too hard!!!

So, months after he requested it, Claus gets my Blue Fairy paper.

Well, I'm a bit of an obsessive-compulsive person who is also pretty egotistical. This meant I kept re-reading my paper after I submitted it, over and over and over. The result of this is that I began to notice some errors. Some were quite large. So I submitted a correction to Claus. Then another. Then another. I was really getting down in the weeds. Even now, reading the final version that Claus linked to in this topic, I saw a couple things in the article (and the FAQs) that I would like to change.

Claus eventually sent me a message and said to the effect that, look, this thing has to go to press soon, so shut up already, will ya? :D

Randi is a far more accomplished person than me. He has written thousands of more things than I have. He probably learned this lesson a long time ago. No matter how careful you are, mistakes are gonna slip through and there is no point beating yourself up on it. The only mistakes that need to be changed are ones that are gross errors or may affect the opinion the reader may have about someone else. That's it.

Big deal. Art of Cold Reading. I have actually called the book the same thing myself, and I own an autographed copy!

[Clancie]

Luke T.,

Just to be perfectly clear....I'm NOT criticizing Claus or Randi for the mistake. (As many have pointed out--including Ian Rowland himself :eek:--I made it myself, too).

The criticism is....why the heck not correct it as soon as it is pointed out? I just don't understand the "respect for my writer" argument, since this is, simply, a factual error. There's absolutely no room for doubt...interpretation...anything. I would think that Randi himself would appreciate having the title corrected without delay--as would Ian (especially if anyone has tried to order his book after reading Skeptic Report--but now, instead, could easily wind up with the other guy's book).

I know we all don't agree about paranormal things, but I thought there was basic agreement about the importance of factual accuracy whenever and wherever possible.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I know we all don't agree about paranormal things, but I thought there was basic agreement about the importance of factual accuracy whenever and wherever possible.

I guess that's why I have such a problem with this thread:

You agree with the importance of factual accuracy? You? Your idol's release form reserves the right to create fictitious scenes.

Clanice, you don't give a damn about factual accuracy. How could you?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Clancie
Luke T.,

Just to be perfectly clear....I'm NOT criticizing Claus or Randi for the mistake. (As many have pointed out--including Ian Rowland himself :eek:--I made it myself, too).

The criticism is....why the heck not correct it as soon as it is pointed out? I just don't understand the "respect for my writer" argument, since this is, simply, a factual error. There's absolutely no room for doubt...interpretation...anything. I would think that Randi himself would appreciate having the title corrected without delay--as would Ian (especially if anyone has tried to order his book after reading Skeptic Report--but now, instead, could easily wind up with the other guy's book).

I know we all don't agree about paranormal things, but I thought there was basic agreement about the importance of factual accuracy whenever and wherever possible.

Most publications, even online ones, publish errata in the following issue of that publication.

[Clancie]

This has really turned into a fascinating thread....for anyone interested in seeing rationalization and ad hominem in action.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Just to be perfectly clear....I'm NOT criticizing Claus or Randi for the mistake. (As many have pointed out--including Ian Rowland himself :eek:--I made it myself, too).

Yes, you did. You also complain, when people point out your own mistakes. Yet, you cannot see that you have a problem.

Originally posted by Clancie
The criticism is....why the heck not correct it as soon as it is pointed out? I just don't understand the "respect for my writer" argument, since this is, simply, a factual error. There's absolutely no room for doubt...interpretation...anything. I would think that Randi himself would appreciate having the title corrected without delay--as would Ian (especially if anyone has tried to order his book after reading Skeptic Report--but now, instead, could easily wind up with the other guy's book).

I think you need to realize what writing is about. There is no way I, as a publisher, can overrule what "my" writers write. They own their articles, not me. They are responsible, not me.

You try to lay the blame on my doorstep. Sorry, Clancie, if you have a problem with what Randi writes, let him know. Same as with all the other writers.

I provide the forum, nothing else. I do not pass judgment. I respect what people write. I don't agree with everything, but I don't let that stop them from being published. If you write for SkepticReport, you're on your own. If you make a mistake, I won't save your behind.

In fact, if I catch a writer making a mistake, I will point it out. If the mistake is ignored, I will pull the article. I'll chew behinds, I can assure you of that.

So far, that has not happened. Errors have been acknowledged, and corrected. That is not only natural, it is human. It is also highly skeptical, to admit one's errors.

I have said it before, but I will gladly repeat it: We need to find out what is, not what we want to be. Are there mediums out there, who can talk to dead people? Hey, I dunno. I highly doubt it, but I am willing to be shown otherwise.

Just how willing? I have invited you (and that offer goes out to anyone, too) to present your evidence that any medium can talk to the dead.

You have refused. You have your reasons, and that's fine. But do not come to me and tell me that you are being silenced! Do not come to me and tell me that the evidence is being suppressed! You - and everybody else - have the opportunity to show why you believe mediums can talk to the dead.

You have refused.

Originally posted by Clancie
I know we all don't agree about paranormal things, but I thought there was basic agreement about the importance of factual accuracy whenever and wherever possible.

If you are so concerned with "accuracy", why are you so forgiving about the non-existent "accuracy" of the mediums you believe in?

Again, please write an article for SkepticReport. Let everyone know why you feel mediums can talk to dead people.

I can guarantee that your article will be published unaltered.

I can also guarantee that your article will be scrutinized. Not to slam it, but to find out if what you claim is true.

And we both know that this is the reason why you do not write that article.

I am tired of your hypocrisy. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Tell us why you think some mediums can talk to dead people. Show us why. Present your evidence.

But be prepared to be questioned.

Originally posted by Clancie
This has really turned into a fascinating thread....for anyone interested in seeing rationalization and ad hominem in action.....

Where is the rationalization? Where is the ad hominem?

Please elaborate! You post in my thread, we know that you do not have me on ignore. Please elaborate!

If you cannot, stop playing the victim! You are not persecuted, Clancie.

But you are questioned....

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Where is the rationalization? Where is the ad hominem?

Please elaborate! You post in my thread, we know that you do not have me on ignore. Please elaborate!

If you cannot, stop playing the victim! You are not persecuted, Clancie.

But you are questioned....

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
especially if anyone has tried to order his book after reading Skeptic Report--but now, instead, could easily wind up with the other guy's book).


As far as I know Ian Rowland sells the book himself, from his website. I do not think it is available in bookstores or from other sources-except possibly second hand stores or ebay. I highly doubt that once someone goes to order the book from his website, there would be any confusion. I suppose they could google the book, and not notice the different author, but that would be rather silly of them.

Of course accuracy is important. Claus was waiting for the author to correct the error- that was his policy. As far as editorial policies go, it is a reasonable one, and the one he explained thoroughly, right away here. However, I doubt that the actual harm to Ian Rowland was any greater than -for example- hinting on a public board that he is a womanizer, and using his seminar warm up jokes as "proof" even after he himself says they are simple humor.



Oh, and Cleopatra- Claus is like an article vampire. I wrote one, and he just keeps bugging me about additional contributions. Once you contribute, you sold your soul! :D I also want to second Luke T's comments. I thought I went over my article many many times, and after it was posted, I found embarassing glaring errors. Ick! It happens.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



I have said it before, but I will gladly repeat it: We need to find out what is, not what we want to be. Are there mediums out there, who can talk to dead people? Hey, I dunno. I highly doubt it, but I am willing to be shown otherwise.

Just how willing? I have invited you (and that offer goes out to anyone, too) to present your evidence that any medium can talk to the dead.

You have refused. You have your reasons, and that's fine. But do not come to me and tell me that you are being silenced! Do not come to me and tell me that the evidence is being suppressed! You - and everybody else - have the opportunity to show why you believe mediums can talk to the dead.

You have refused.



If you are so concerned with "accuracy", why are you so forgiving about the non-existent "accuracy" of the mediums you believe in?

Again, please write an article for SkepticReport. Let everyone know why you feel mediums can talk to dead people.

I can guarantee that your article will be published unaltered.

I can also guarantee that your article will be scrutinized. Not to slam it, but to find out if what you claim is true.

And we both know that this is the reason why you do not write that article.

I am tired of your hypocrisy. It's time for you to put up or shut up. Tell us why you think some mediums can talk to dead people. Show us why. Present your evidence.

But be prepared to be questioned.

But you are questioned....

This would make for an interesting issue. Marcello Truzzi's Zetetic Scholar sometimes consisted of an "article of persuasion" (to call it that), in which the author put forth a claim. This paper was reviewed by several other writers, who then wrote their response (whether in agreement or otherwise). Both the original paper and the responses were published in the issue. It would be interesting to see such a format, at least for an issue, in which perhaps Clancie authors the statement paper (or perhaps MikeD?), and others review it and publish a detailed response. Other readers could then assess who had the upper hand in the argument.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Oh, and Cleopatra- Claus is like an article vampire. I wrote one, and he just keeps bugging me about additional contributions. Once you contribute, you sold your soul! :D

Your ass is grass and I'm a lawnmower! BUWAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!

Originally posted by renata
I also want to second Luke T's comments. I thought I went over my article many many times, and after it was posted, I found embarassing glaring errors. Ick! It happens.

It sure does. I'm sure even your next article(s) will have glaring errors, but I'm also sure that we will iron them out. As happens with all other great writers!

Now, how can you possibly refuse to write an article after such honey being poured all over you? ;)

Originally posted by dharlow
This would make for an interesting issue. Marcello Truzzi's Zetetic Scholar sometimes consisted of an "article of persuasion" (to call it that), in which the author put forth a claim. This paper was reviewed by several other writers, who then wrote their response (whether in agreement or otherwise). Both the original paper and the responses were published in the issue. It would be interesting to see such a format, at least for an issue, in which perhaps Clancie authors the statement paper (or perhaps MikeD?), and others review it and publish a detailed response. Other readers could then assess who had the upper hand in the argument.

Very good idea! SkepticReport would be very happy to publish this!

What sayeth Clancie?

[Cynical]

OMIGOD, Claus. You get worse every time I come here. Now I believe you are in the advanced stages of paranoia, judging from your asking Clancie "WTF do you make a big deal out of it, if not to hurl cheap shots at me".....me, me, me,....tsk, tsk, Claus.

Cleopatra, your good for CF's ego, although I think maybe you're overdoing it with the ass-kissing. Claus is confident enough without you fawning over him. His opinion of himself is healthy enough. Ease up, Cleopatra.

Clancie, I've really got to hand it to you. You've got Claus right where he needs to be; cowtowing to you. Look at his last post...he's trying to bait you into replying. He really thinks that he matters to you. Do it, gal!:th:

[Cynical]

I'm bumping it up for you, CF. I want to see Clancie's response to your challenge, if she feels it's not a waste of time. I love the way she always bests you, Cantata.:r:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Cynical
I love the way she always bests you, Cantata.:r:

Sweetie, you need to lay off the drugs.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Of course. If people can write about it, of course....(hint, hint, you know who you are...) :)

Well, now that I hear that you pour honey over your authors.... who could resist that? :)

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Cynical
I'm bumping it up for you, CF. I want to see Clancie's response to your challenge, if she feels it's not a waste of time. I love the way she always bests you, Cantata.:r:

Okay, why do you call him Cantata? Spill the beans, girlfriend. :D

[Clancie]

Posted by Cynical

I want to see Clancie's response to your challenge, if she feels it's not a waste of time
Hi Cynical,
Well, I've got Claus on "Ignore" so I'm going to have to disappoint you on this one. :(

However, just between us, I think dharlow's idea for a themed "point counterpoint" issue of Skeptic Report would make for a very interesting issue.

I also agree with dharlow that Mike D. would do a great job, if he had the time for it (it -does- seem like a very time-intensive premise for an article, doesn't it?)

Maybe by bumping this thread you will get Claus interested in this idea....:)

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by Clancie

However, just between us, I think dharlow's idea for a themed "point counterpoint" issue of Skeptic Report would make for a very interesting issue.

I also agree with dharlow that Mike D. would do a great job, if he had the time for it (it -does- seem like a very time-intensive premise for an article, doesn't it?)


Clancie,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't feel that writing such an article is something I want to undertake at this time. For one thing, I'm such an agnostic on things that any points I might think of making in the article would be at best very modest and tentative. And I wouldn't write such an article unless I felt it was backed up by extensive knowledge and rigorous scholarship on my part. If I was advocating any particular point of view, I'd want to make sure that my arguments were as air-tight as I could make them, and also anticipate any opposing arguments that might be leveled at my article. Given my current level of knowledge of paranormal matters, getting to the point of writing such an article would be too time-consuming for me at this time.

Actually, I think that dharlow would be a better candidate than I would, as I feel that he is much more knowledgable than I am in these areas.

Mike

[dharlow]

Originally posted by Mike D.


Clancie,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't feel that writing such an article is something I want to undertake at this time. For one thing, I'm such an agnostic on things that any points I might think of making in the article would be at best very modest and tentative. And I wouldn't write such an article unless I felt it was backed up by extensive knowledge and rigorous scholarship on my part. If I was advocating any particular point of view, I'd want to make sure that my arguments were as air-tight as I could make them, and also anticipate any opposing arguments that might be leveled at my article. Given my current level of knowledge of paranormal matters, getting to the point of writing such an article would be too time-consuming for me at this time.

Actually, I think that dharlow would be a better candidate than I would, as I feel that he is much more knowledgable than I am in these areas.

Mike

I would also have to decline, on similar grounds to those made by Mike. I have no real interest in assessing the question of survival of death at this point, and am primarily interested in assessing the reality or non-reality of seemingly striking supernatural occurences. The only article I could write of any interest would perhaps consist of a reference guide to some of the far more interesting material and research on the paranormal than is usually seen in popular books. Other than that, I have no interest in defending a particular theory.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I've got Claus on "Ignore" so I'm going to have to disappoint you on this one. :(

No, you don't. You only have me on "ignore" until you see (or are informed by your spies) something that you can criticize me for. Then, after you deliver your snide remarks, I'm "back" on ignore.

Right.

Originally posted by Clancie
However, just between us, I think dharlow's idea for a themed "point counterpoint" issue of Skeptic Report would make for a very interesting issue.

I also agree with dharlow that Mike D. would do a great job, if he had the time for it (it -does- seem like a very time-intensive premise for an article, doesn't it?)

Maybe by bumping this thread you will get Claus interested in this idea....:)

My interest has not waned at all, at any time.

What I don't understand is why you don't write it. You, who have such intimate and thorough knowledge of how JE works, how his "process" works, hey, just about everything that has to do with mediumship.

You sure have lectured enough people about the subject.

No, I think you should write the article, Clancie. Write that article about why you feel John Edward - or just mediumship as it is - is not just cold reading, but that there are, in fact, real mediums out there.

You have been offered it before. You turned it down. Now, you turn it down again.

You can talk the talk, but you cannot walk the walk.

[Clancie]

Posted by dharlow

The only article I could write of any interest would perhaps consist of a reference guide to some of the far more interesting material and research on the paranormal than is usually seen in popular books. Other than that, I have no interest in defending a particular theory.
dharlow,

That sounds like an extremely worthwhile and useful contribution to the continuing discussions. I hope Claus will pursue it further.

[T'ai Chi]

137,351: the number of times we've all heard the "I have you on ignore", "no you don't", "yes I do", "no, you don't" exchanges.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, you don't. You only have me on "ignore" until you see (or are informed by your spies) something that you can criticize me for. Then, after you deliver your snide remarks, I'm "back" on ignore.

Right.



My interest has not waned at all, at any time.

What I don't understand is why you don't write it. You, who have such intimate and thorough knowledge of how JE works, how his "process" works, hey, just about everything that has to do with mediumship.

You sure have lectured enough people about the subject.

No, I think you should write the article, Clancie. Write that article about why you feel John Edward - or just mediumship as it is - is not just cold reading, but that there are, in fact, real mediums out there.

You have been offered it before. You turned it down. Now, you turn it down again.

You can talk the talk, but you cannot walk the walk.

[Clancie]

TLN,

I notice that you often repost Claus's entire comments with nothing added to them at all...even when they're already posted in the same thread, even on the same page, as your re-post!

If you have no thoughts of your own to add, why mindlessly just repost post his comments? If you have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion yourself, why post anything at all?

I'm surprised that Bill Hoyt hasn't mentioned this to you already, since he's so often expressed concern for people wasting JREF bandwidth for no apparent reason.
:confused:

[SteveGrenard]

Clancie -- they also answer for each other. When I ask TLN a question, Hoyt or Larsen answer. They even answer for others. Today when I asked Hannibal a question, I got an answer from Hoyt (which wasn't the answer I wanted).
Then I got an echo from Larsen...........


What is with that?

Is Larsen, TLN, Ed and Hoyt all the same person? I dont think so. Maybe they are connected by some woo woo woo paranormal brain wave process we haven't been let in on yet.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
That sounds like an extremely worthwhile and useful contribution to the continuing discussions. I hope Claus will pursue it further.

How quick you are to clutch at straws. How willing you are at suggesting that other people do the hard work.

You, however, cannot be bothered. You put personal animosities above the search for truth.

dharlow, if you want to submit a suggestion for an article, go right ahead.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
137,351: the number of times we've all heard the "I have you on ignore", "no you don't", "yes I do", "no, you don't" exchanges.

And yet, Clancie still continues to claim that she does have me on ignore. We all know that she does not.

Originally posted by Clancie
TLN,

I notice that you often repost Claus's entire comments with nothing added to them at all...even when they're already posted in the same thread, even on the same page, as your re-post!

If you have no thoughts of your own to add, why mindlessly just repost post his comments? If you have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion yourself, why post anything at all?

I'm surprised that Bill Hoyt hasn't mentioned this to you already, since he's so often expressed concern for people wasting JREF bandwidth for no apparent reason.
:confused:

Oh, come on, Clancie. You know why TLN reposts my posts. It's so you can read them. So you cannot possibly pretend that you haven't seen them.

Now, why don't you just stop complaining that you are forced to read my posts, and start addressing the points I raise?

Gee, is it really that dangerous?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm surprised that Bill Hoyt hasn't mentioned this to you already, since he's so often expressed concern for people wasting JREF bandwidth for no apparent reason.
:confused:

Perhaps it's not a waste of bandwidth.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Is Larsen, TLN, Ed and Hoyt all the same person? I dont think so. Maybe they are connected by some woo woo woo paranormal brain wave process we haven't been let in on yet.....

My name is Ted Nannariello and I live in Palo Alto, California.

How 'bout you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Clancie -- they also answer for each other. When I ask TLN a question, Hoyt or Larsen answer. They even answer for others. Today when I asked Hannibal a question, I got an answer from Hoyt (which wasn't the answer I wanted).
Then I got an echo from Larsen...........


What is with that?

Is Larsen, TLN, Ed and Hoyt all the same person? I dont think so. Maybe they are connected by some woo woo woo paranormal brain wave process we haven't been let in on yet.....


No, Steve. There is no conspiracy. It's only because you and Clancie pretend to ignore me.

We all know that neither of you do not.

[Clancie]

Posted by Steve Grenard

Is Larsen, TLN, Ed and Hoyt all the same person? I dont think so. Maybe they are connected by some woo woo woo paranormal brain wave process we haven't been let in on yet.....
lol, Steve. If only! Then maybe we could get one of those little special woowoo tin foil hats and set everything right again...so each of these people would be correctly matched here forever with the ideas and posts and thoughts all of his own....:)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie

lol, Steve. If only! Then maybe we could get one of those little special woowoo tin foil hats and set everything right again...so each of these people would be correctly matched here forever with the ideas and posts and thoughts all of his own....:)

You're right Clancie, I don't have any thoughts of my own.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
This has really turned into a fascinating thread....for anyone interested in seeing rationalization and ad hominem in action.....

Originally posted by Clancie
lol, Steve. If only! Then maybe we could get one of those little special woowoo tin foil hats and set everything right again...so each of these people would be correctly matched here forever with the ideas and posts and thoughts all of his own....:)

Here's an original thought: You're a hypocrite.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

You're right Clancie, I don't have any thoughts of my own.

Well, between the things you post that are only repeats of Claus's thoughts...and the things you post attributed to others that they never said (see comment above for details)...I'd say you need to work on your repertoire a bit!
Posted by TLN

Here's an original thought: You're a hypocrite.
Yep, when in doubt, there's always ad hominem!

But, seriously, don't give up trying! :con2:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yep, when in doubt, there's always ad hominem!

You'd know, wouldn't you?

[renata]

Originally posted by TLN


You'd know, wouldn't you?

TLN, now you are just being a nasty know it all, who apparently would like nothing better than to run all the "woo-woos" off the board. You just attack and discredit someone personally in any way you think you can do it, true or false, fairly or unfairly. You are just like some people here- the condescending, the patronizing, the rigid, the arrogant, the insulting, the unquestioning.


Now....is that dinner invitation for Clancie still on? :)

Honestly, this reminds of when boys used to pull my hair and then claim they did not like me, and I would complain a tad too loudly- because I liked them too. It is so cute the way this conversation is going, I have not seen the like of it since- is it second grade or third?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yep, when in doubt, there's always ad hominem!
No, it;s ad hominid , just a bunch of monkeyshines, don't go ape here and resort to gorilla warfare.

[TLN]

Originally posted by renata


TLN, now you are just being a nasty know it all, who apparently would like nothing better than to run all the "woo-woos" off the board. You just attack and discredit someone personally in any way you think you can do it, true or false, fairly or unfairly. You are just like some people here- the condescending, the patronizing, the rigid, the arrogant, the insulting, the unquestioning.


Now....is that dinner invitation for Clancie still on? :)

Honestly, this reminds of when boys used to pull my hair and then claim they did not like me, and I would complain a tad too loudly- because I liked them too. It is so cute the way this conversation is going, I have not seen the like of it since- is it second grade or third?

Errr... alright.

[TLN]

Originally posted by renata
TLN, now you are just being a nasty know it all, who apparently would like nothing better than to run all the "woo-woos" off the board.

Can you explain to me where you divined this from? I want to run the woo-woos off the board (a word I've never used until now)? Where did you get his from?

[renata]

Originally posted by TLN


Can you explain to me where you divined this from? I want to run the woo-woos off the board (a word I've never used until now)? Where did you get his from?

Sorry, must have read it somewhere :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cynical
I'm bumping it up for you, CF. I want to see Clancie's response to your challenge, if she feels it's not a waste of time. I love the way she always bests you, Cantata.:r:


It's not that she... bests him, it's just that their astrological profiles are incompatible.

[Ersby]

I think dharlow's had a great idea. I'm all for writing the opening arguments, if no one else wants to step up. But what would be better: an analysis of one JE reading (I'm thinking of the Lela and the 4 widows one) or a general introduction into as many points as possible?

edited: Hmm, except people seem to be asking for a debate based on historical events with a much broader cachement area. Don't think I could manage that.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



It's not that she... bests him, it's just that their astrological profiles are incompatible.


This is very true. Claus Flodin Larsen knows this is true because of all the time he spends on a Danish astrology forum.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is very true. Claus Flodin Larsen knows this is true because of all the time he spends on a Danish astrology forum.


Do you spend your time spying on him?

[Cleopatra]

You people are amazing. I would have a tremendous respect for you, if anybody of you, in this forum, managed to publish a similar report to Claus', if you could put together a " Believer's report" where believers and spiritualists ( I abstain from using the word woo-woo) would write articles that attempt to debunk the views of skeptics and one of you, each month, took the time to publish them in the form of a report.

If you did something similar you'd have the right to criticize Claus for his work although you don't really criticize him for his work but you resort to ad-hominem attacks...

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen keeps a record of everything everybody posts...didn't you know that? So there are people, while ignoring him in principle, are doing the same to him. Keeping a record of everything he posts. It is neither illegal nor improper and he started it. If he didn't start such an archive, I am sure this would be a non-issue.

It has nothing to do with spying and everything to do with what he says. Larsen himself should be the first to disagree with you that it is spying because he does it himself.

PS: Please dont make me laugh about ad hominem attacks. You think me saying Claus spends time on a Danish astrology forum is an ad hom attack? You have not see nothing until you see him call me or Clanci a liar for the most convulted and twisted of rationales; until you see Ed Dittus accuse me of cheating on my wife; until you see Ed call a friend the town whore or until you see Dr Jeff Corey tell me to "F--ck off and die" and then publish my home and work addresses in case anyone wants to come out and kill me. Listen Cleo , you think you know these people but you know nothing about ad hom attacks until you have experienced any of the above. So that is why there is an archive of evrything these people say and that is why they are being watched and monitored on-line.

[SteveGrenard]

Cleo: Do you spend your time spying on him?

But in specific answer to your question, NO. I personally dont waste my time on him but I get reports. I dont read or speak Danish so there are others who do this.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Larsen keeps a record of everything everybody posts...didn't you know that? So there are people, while ignoring him in principle, are doing the same to him. Keeping a record of everything he posts. It is neither illegal nor improper and he started it. If he didn't start such an archive, I am sure this would be a non-issue.

It's not Larsen but as adults we know that our discussions in public forums are kept as records. I don't understand why you attribute this practice to Claus.

It has nothing to do with spying and everything to do with what he says. Larsen himself should be the first to disagree with you that it is spying because he does it himself.

I have read myself about some of his adventures in the forums of the Astrologers and I have enjoyed them because I happen to know about Astrology things that very few people know, this might sound as boasting but it is true. I wish I spoke Danish, I am sure I could offer my help to Claus.

My post to Cynical was intended as a joke since Clancie has blaimed her arguments with Claus on their astrological imcompatibility.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Cleo: Do you spend your time spying on him?

But in specific answer to your question, NO. I personally dont waste my time on him but I get reports. I dont read or speak Danish so there are others who do this.

You must admit Steve that Larsen has taught you how important precision in the way we express ourself is :)

[SteveGrenard]

CLEO: It's not Larsen but as adults we know that our discussions in public forums are kept as records. I don't understand why you attribute this practice to Claus


Reply: Because he says he does it....thats one good reason. Another one is that he produces old posts that are no longer on forum records which he has preserved privately.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You people are amazing. I would have a tremendous respect for you, if anybody of you, in this forum, managed to publish a similar report to Claus', if you could put together a " Believer's report" where believers and spiritualists ( I abstain from using the word woo-woo) would write articles that attempt to debunk the views of skeptics and one of you, each month, took the time to publish them in the form of a report.

If you did something similar you'd have the right to criticize Claus for his work although you don't really criticize him for his work but you resort to ad-hominem attacks...

That's all they have. Steve tried to create such a site, but had to close it: Nobody wanted to write for him, and he kicked anybody who voiced dissent or even dared to ask for evidence.

To ask for evidence on Steve's board was tantamount to harrassment. He said so himself.

It is far easier to criticize others than to do something yourself. Steve fails at what I have done and Clancie wants others to what she is asked to do. We see this all the time in the believers' camp.

And neofight even has the gall to call Shermer "a lazy skeptic".....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This is very true. Claus Flodin Larsen knows this is true because of all the time he spends on a Danish astrology forum.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do you spend your time spying on him?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Larsen keeps a record of everything everybody posts...didn't you know that? So there are people, while ignoring him in principle, are doing the same to him. Keeping a record of everything he posts. It is neither illegal nor improper and he started it. If he didn't start such an archive, I am sure this would be a non-issue.

It has nothing to do with spying and everything to do with what he says. Larsen himself should be the first to disagree with you that it is spying because he does it himself.

Ignoring me "in principle"?? Keeping a record of "everything" I post, even here on JREF?

That means that you do not have me on ignore. You read everything I write.

But you are way too afraid to respond in an open, honest and straight-forward matter.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
PS: Please dont make me laugh about ad hominem attacks. You think me saying Claus spends time on a Danish astrology forum is an ad hom attack? You have not see nothing until you see him call me or Clanci a liar for the most convulted and twisted of rationales; until you see Ed Dittus accuse me of cheating on my wife; until you see Ed call a friend the town whore or until you see Dr Jeff Corey tell me to "F--ck off and die" and then publish my home and work addresses in case anyone wants to come out and kill me. Listen Cleo , you think you know these people but you know nothing about ad hom attacks until you have experienced any of the above. So that is why there is an archive of evrything these people say and that is why they are being watched and monitored on-line.

Steve, when I call you (or anybody else) a liar, it's because I can prove it. As for publishing home addresses, I really don't think you should criticize others for doing just that, when you publish mine (the old one, dimwit).

"Watched and monitored on-line"...oh, I like that, Steve. You try to scare me with that because you know I am on your tail. You quote somebody and claim ownership one more time, and you are out.

I. Will. Be. Watching. You.


Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But in specific answer to your question, NO. I personally dont waste my time on him but I get reports. I dont read or speak Danish so there are others who do this.

You "get reports"? Hey, you have even teamed up with Danish woowoos, just to get back at me? Man, that's dedication. Some would call it cyber-stalking....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Because he says he does it....thats one good reason. Another one is that he produces old posts that are no longer on forum records which he has preserved privately.

Why is that a problem, Steve? Do you deny that you posted them?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
CLEO: It's not Larsen but as adults we know that our discussions in public forums are kept as records. I don't understand why you attribute this practice to Claus


Reply: Because he says he does it....thats one good reason. Another one is that he produces old posts that are no longer on forum records which he has preserved privately.

Yes but you know, when somebody debates issues with people that have the nerve to question what they have posted only a couple of months ago, it turns out that he must do that Steve.

Clancie questioned my claims once for things she has posted in a thread that was temporarily out of the public view and from that day I save threads that she participates about topics I have the feeling that they will pop-up again in the future...

We taught spiritualists to express themselves with precision, believers taught us to be cautius :)

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You must admit Steve that Larsen has taught you how important precision in the way we express ourself is :)

I agree Larsen is a person of interest and is watched online for everything he says but not by me. For myself, in the past, all he has taught me is sophistry and how to ask questions which have no answers.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
For myself, in the past, all he has taught me is sophistry and how to ask questions which have no answers.

Funny. I have declared in this forum that I believe in God but nobody published a list with " Questions that Cleopatra refuses to answer" Do you think that it has anything to do with the fact that I don't claim that I have proofs for my specific beliefs?

People are craving for answers to questions when your claims insignuate that you already have those answers.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Clancie -- they also answer for each other. When I ask TLN a question, Hoyt or Larsen answer. They even answer for others. Today when I asked Hannibal a question, I got an answer from Hoyt (which wasn't the answer I wanted).


If you already knew the answer you wanted, why did you ask the question?

Perhaps you meant it wasn't an answer to the question you asked?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by dharlow
I would also have to decline, on similar grounds to those made by Mike. I have no real interest in assessing the question of survival of death at this point, and am primarily interested in assessing the reality or non-reality of seemingly striking supernatural occurences. The only article I could write of any interest would perhaps consist of a reference guide to some of the far more interesting material and research on the paranormal than is usually seen in popular books. Other than that, I have no interest in defending a particular theory.

That sounds pretty cool :)

Could you start a thread with just a few links and examples of what you mean? Or just a post here even?

Seriously, I would be interested in reading up on some of these things if you could just name them, or provide a couple of starting points with links.

Thanks!

Adam

[Pyrrho]

This thread has been reported for TLN's quoting of Claus Larsen's posts without added comments.

This practice is not against the rules.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I agree Larsen is a person of interest and is watched online for everything he says but not by me. For myself, in the past, all he has taught me is sophistry and how to ask questions which have no answers.

Oh, don't be such an old maid, Steve! Nobody is buying that routine. We know that you watch me closely. We know that you only fear questions for which you have no answers.

Originally posted by Pyrrho
This thread has been reported for TLN's quoting of Claus Larsen's posts without added comments.

This practice is not against the rules.
Aw, Pyrrho....that sucks! How are Clancie and Steve going to (pretend to) ignore my posts, if they are re-posted by others?

You take their last excuse away from them! That is soooooooo cruel!!

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
This thread has been reported for TLN's quoting of Claus Larsen's posts without added comments.

This practice is not against the rules.

This clearly subverts the intent and purpose of the ignore function and should be discussed in the moderation forum.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


If you already knew the answer you wanted, why did you ask the question?

Perhaps you meant it wasn't an answer to the question you asked?

I asked a specific question re a reference made by Hannibal. I did not know the answer to the question which is why I asked it. The response from someone other than Hannibal did not answer my question. Now is that really so hard to understand or are you just being obtuse?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This clearly subverts the intent and purpose of the ignore function and should be discussed in the moderation forum.

Please do.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


I asked a specific question re a reference made by Hannibal. I did not know the answer to the question which is why I asked it. The response from someone other than Hannibal did not answer my question. Now is that really so hard to understand or are you just being obtuse?

You may not have noticed but this is pretty much a public forum and people will pick up on comments they find interesting.

I suggest if you just want a conversation with a single person then you use email or PMs to complain that "someone else" answered "for" someone is just ludicrous.

It’s as ludicrous for example, as a poster thinking they could pass of someone else’s copyrighted work that is published on the internet as their own and not be caught out.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


This clearly subverts the intent and purpose of the ignore function and should be discussed in the moderation forum.

Just a hint - the JREF didn't program vBulletin so perhaps they aren't the ones to ask about the "intent and purpose" of the Ignore function?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You people are amazing. I would have a tremendous respect for you, if anybody of you, in this forum, managed to publish a similar report to Claus', if you could put together a " Believer's report" where believers and spiritualists ( I abstain from using the word woo-woo) would write articles that attempt to debunk the views of skeptics and one of you, each month, took the time to publish them in the form of a report.

If you did something similar you'd have the right to criticize Claus for his work although you don't really criticize him for his work but you resort to ad-hominem attacks...

Ummm . .does Claus ever say anything of any substance? He certainly doesn't in this forum. And I don't mind attempting to debunk the views of skeptics. That is so long as they are attacking the good evidence for survival.

Mind you, busy doing my website at the moment.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . .does Claus ever say anything of any substance? He certainly doesn't in this forum.

Why, thank you. I thought you didn't believe in "substance"? I thought materialism wasn't for real?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And I don't mind attempting to debunk the views of skeptics. That is so long as they are attacking the good evidence for survival.

Hey, you are more than welcome to present your "good" evidence for survival. In an appropriate thread, of course.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mind you, busy doing my website at the moment.

Of course. Still, you have time to make snide remarks....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
This thread has been reported for TLN's quoting of Claus Larsen's posts without added comments.

This practice is not against the rules.

So, spamming and thwarting the wishes of a poster are not against the rules?? Most interesting. Could you be so good as to inform me of the purpose of the ignore feature then if other posters are allowed to circumvent this so as the person who has another person on ignore gets that ignored poster's message displayed anyway?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
Originally posted by dharlow
I would also have to decline, on similar grounds to those made by Mike. I have no real interest in assessing the question of survival of death at this point, and am primarily interested in assessing the reality or non-reality of seemingly striking supernatural occurences. The only article I could write of any interest would perhaps consist of a reference guide to some of the far more interesting material and research on the paranormal than is usually seen in popular books. Other than that, I have no interest in defending a particular theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Slim
That sounds pretty cool :)

Could you start a thread with just a few links and examples of what you mean? Or just a post here even?

Seriously, I would be interested in reading up on some of these things if you could just name them, or provide a couple of starting points with links.

Thanks!

Adam [/B]

I echo these sentiments :)

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

My post to Cynical was intended as a joke since Clancie has blaimed her arguments with Claus on their astrological imcompatibility.
Yes, Cleopatra, you were making a joke. And...just to remind...my original comment about astrology was a joke, too.....

And, re: God. Members of this forum don't criticize believers in God the way they do believers in other paranormal things. I don't know why that is either.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So, spamming and thwarting the wishes of a poster are not against the rules?? Most interesting. Could you be so good as to inform me of the purpose of the ignore feature then if other posters are allowed to circumvent this so as the person who has another person on ignore gets that ignored poster's message displayed anyway?

You don't suggest that we have to, before we post, ensure that we do not quote from someone who is being ignored by someone?

How are you going to enforce a rule that bans everyone from quoting a certain poster, because one person has that poster on ignore?

That would effectively silence that certain poster, wouldn't it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Just a hint - the JREF didn't program vBulletin so perhaps they aren't the ones to ask about the "intent and purpose" of the Ignore function?

It follows then that the JREF consider the ignore function to be a superflous feature in the context of this message board? OK, fair enough. BTW, does the JREF realise you speak for them?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It follows then that the JREF consider the ignore function to be a superflous feature in the context of this message board? OK, fair enough. BTW, does the JREF realise you speak for them?

Darat said "perhaps".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You don't suggest that we have to, before we post, ensure that we do not quote from someone who is being ignored by someone?

How are you going to enforce a rule that bans everyone from quoting a certain poster, because one person has that poster on ignore?

That would effectively silence that certain poster, wouldn't it?

If someone is quoting someone else for the specific purpose of replying to that point, then of course this is reasonable enough. It is a completely different matter submitting a post which is entirely devoid of any content by oneself, and merely quotes another poster's post in its entirety, and doing this for the express purpose of getting another poster, who has the quoted poster on ignore, to get to see that poster's post.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If someone is quoting someone else for the specific purpose of replying to that point, then of course this is reasonable enough. It is a completely different matter submitting a post which is entirely devoid of any content by oneself, and merely quotes another poster's post in its entirety, and doing this for the express purpose of getting another poster, who has the quoted poster on ignore, to get to see that poster's post.

How much "content" should there be, before it would be enough?

"Well said"?

What if that post was deemed worth saving?

E.g. Steve once posted a very nasty claim about me and pedophilia, and quickly deleted it, but not before someone else had reposted it.

You haven't yet addressed how we should keep track of who has who on ignore. Or do you say that it's OK to repost, as long as there is "content"?

That still wouldn't prevent Steve and Clancie from seeing my posts.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So, spamming and thwarting the wishes of a poster are not against the rules?? Most interesting. Could you be so good as to inform me of the purpose of the ignore feature then if other posters are allowed to circumvent this so as the person who has another person on ignore gets that ignored poster's message displayed anyway?
It isn't spamming.

A given ignore list can hold more than one name.

Nobody is forcing anyone to read any given post. One can simply scroll past material one does not wish to read.

[Clancie]

Posted by Pyrrho

One can simply scroll past material one does not wish to read.
Well, that's true for everyone. Why have an "Ignore" option at all, then?

I didn't report it, but I do agree with the point. If everyone decided to do what TLN did...repost someone else's words without comment just to avoid anyone claiming to use "Ignore"....well, rules or not, it -does-, at a minimum, seem potentially disruptive to the flow and purpose of discussion. (And if everyone did the same thing TLN does with Claus's posts, the threads would be much longer...and, conceptually, a mess....)

[BillHoyt]

An historic new low of woo whining was reached on 17 December 2003. It is the day of the woo nadir, and you are there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


How much "content" should there be, before it would be enough?

"Well said"?

What if that post was deemed worth saving?

E.g. Steve once posted a very nasty claim about me and pedophilia, and quickly deleted it, but not before someone else had reposted it.

You haven't yet addressed how we should keep track of who has who on ignore. Or do you say that it's OK to repost, as long as there is "content"?

That still wouldn't prevent Steve and Clancie from seeing my posts.

It's a question of common sense. It would be ok to quote someone else's entire post provided you make some remarks about it. But simply repeating someone else's post without any comments by yourself is both spamming and deliberately thwarting the wishes of a poster who may have the quoted poster on ignore. As I say, it negates the purpose and function of the ignore feature.

But if people are allowed to do this then I wonder if someone else could quote my posts in their entirety for the "benefit" of those who have me on ignore? Perhaps you could Clancie? ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, that's true for everyone. Why have an "Ignore" option at all, then?

I didn't report it, but I do agree with the point. If everyone decided to do what TLN did...repost someone else's words without comment just to avoid anyone claiming to use "Ignore"....well, rules or not, it -does-, at a minimum, seem potentially disruptive to the flow and purpose of discussion. (And if everyone did the same thing TLN does with Claus's posts, the threads would be much longer...and, conceptually, a mess....)

Slippery slope fallacy.

If you are this concerned with the threads becoming so "disruptive", why don't you simple declare that you don't have me on ignore anymore (haha), and simply scroll past my posts?

[SteveGrenard]

Ian: But if people are allowed to do this then I wonder if someone else could quote my posts in their entirety for the "benefit" of those who have me on ignore? Perhaps you could Clancie?


Yes, we could determine everybody who has someone on ignore and set-up an ignore policing function and repost their posts to make sure that everybody with somebody on ignore sees the ignored post(s). TLN can make this operational. He apparently likes to do this. We can get policemen on this board such as Stumpy and Hannibal to supervise it. Then of course this will cause TLN to be placed on ignore, so somebody else would have to do it. Pretty soon the entire board will have everybody on ignore.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's a question of common sense. It would be ok to quote someone else's entire post provided you make some remarks about it. But simply repeating someone else's post without any comments by yourself is both spamming and deliberately thwarting the wishes of a poster who may have the quoted poster on ignore. As I say, it negates the purpose and function of the ignore feature.

How can it possibly be spam?

What is the difference between reposting it with comments and just reposting it? The ignoring poster would still see the post, so why worry about "content"?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But if people are allowed to do this then I wonder if someone else could quote my posts in their entirety for the "benefit" of those who have me on ignore? Perhaps you could Clancie? ;)

You didn't answer me: How much "content" should there be? And, additionally, what is "content"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, that's true for everyone. Why have an "Ignore" option at all, then?

I didn't report it, but I do agree with the point. If everyone decided to do what TLN did...repost someone else's words without comment just to avoid anyone claiming to use "Ignore"....well, rules or not, it -does-, at a minimum, seem potentially disruptive to the flow and purpose of discussion. (And if everyone did the same thing TLN does with Claus's posts, the threads would be much longer...and, conceptually, a mess....)

Yes I absolutely agree. I reported it btw.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

How can it possibly be spam?



By definition of what the word spam means.



What is the difference between reposting it with comments and just reposting it? The ignoring poster would still see the post, so why worry about "content"?



The post in the former case is of value to people. They need to see what is being responded to. The post in the second case isn't, because they will already have read the post. Unless, that is, they have the quoted poster on ignore. But in that case they don't desire to see it.



You didn't answer me: How much "content" should there be? And, additionally, what is "content"?

This is irrelevant. Simply quoting anything that someone else says without comment is spamming. If you submit a post you need to actually make some comments.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


I asked a specific question re a reference made by Hannibal. I did not know the answer to the question which is why I asked it. The response from someone other than Hannibal did not answer my question. Now is that really so hard to understand or are you just being obtuse?

Awww, Steve, you didn't give me the answer I wanted :(

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


Awww, Steve, you didn't give me the answer I wanted :(

Now we are getting somewhere ... somebody to whom a reply was made who actually answered for themselves! Yes, your
second question is answerable in the affirmative.

[Suezoled]

CFlarsen: would you have my love child?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, that's true for everyone. Why have an "Ignore" option at all, then?

I didn't report it, but I do agree with the point. If everyone decided to do what TLN did...repost someone else's words without comment just to avoid anyone claiming to use "Ignore"....well, rules or not, it -does-, at a minimum, seem potentially disruptive to the flow and purpose of discussion. (And if everyone did the same thing TLN does with Claus's posts, the threads would be much longer...and, conceptually, a mess....)
Precisely, at a "minimum". The ignore feature would get rid of the majority of posts by people you truly wish to ignore. However, in you're particular case you've shown to be more than eager to respond to those reposted comments of CFL's. TLN does not repost all of Larsen's posts, only the ones he thinks you'd be interested in. They do it to bait you, and you bite almost everytime, so in the end its really your decision to get into an exchange with them. Not mine, not the forums, yours, so accept that. Is asking a user of this forum to simply ignore the odd post that is "circumvented" in this fashion unreasonable? Absolutely not. If you truly want to ignore the person, then do just that, ignore them. The purpose of the ignore function is to make it so you do not have you're screen clogged up with the ignored persons posts. It is not a watchdog to protect you from all content by that person that might slip through otherwise. I find it extremely ridiculous that we're even debating this period. Like most of this thread.

As for the Larsen lists I pay them no attention. At the end of the day its a list of questions, that in your opinion you have answered, or think are irrelevant, and which in Larsen's opinion you have not answered in a satisfactory fashion. Since you're animosity towards each other prevents you from reaching any kind of middleground their basically a useless exercise, and no one but the two of you seems to pay them any attention.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
By definition of what the word spam means.

And that definition says...?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The post in the former case is of value to people. They need to see what is being responded to. The post in the second case isn't, because they will already have read the post. Unless, that is, they have the quoted poster on ignore. But in that case they don't desire to see it.

How can you speak for other people? Personally, I was very pleased with somebody saving Steve's slur about me and pedophilia, before he got a chance to remove the evidence.

Don't speak for me. I don't think that many people would want you to speak for them, either.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is irrelevant. Simply quoting anything that someone else says without comment is spamming. If you submit a post you need to actually make some comments.

Irrelevant? How can it be irrelevant? It is crucial to your whole point: That there has to be "content".

If you can't define what that means, your whole argument goes down the drain.

Originally posted by Suezoled
CFlarsen: would you have my love child?

Sure. With some fava beans and a big Amarone....(slurping-hissing sounds)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you submit a post you need to actually make some comments.

Hey, how about the poster on ignore ends his post with "set" and the one quoting it add the comment "over?" Would that stop the whining?

Nahhh.

[hgc]

Over at SDMB, they have a strict rule prohibiting any mention of who is or isn't on your ignore list (or buddy list). I am starting to see the benefit of this.

As soon as the one poster (atheistworld.com) who ever told me I was on his ignore list said so, I immediately asked other posters to quote me. If he'd only kept his mouth shut, it never would have happened.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Sure. With some fava beans and a big Amarone....(slurping-hissing sounds)

*grabs frying pan* coming right up! :D

[voidx]

Originally posted by hgc
Over at SDMB, they have a strict rule prohibiting any mention of who is or isn't on your ignore list (or buddy list). I am starting to see the benefit of this.
That's a good point. If people didn't blurt out that they were putting someone on ignore in the first place, it wouldn't be so easy to "circumvent" it. However, with the amount of posting that can go on in here, I would assume it'd be pretty obvious, pretty quickly that someone was a) either just straight out ignoring your posts or b) had you on ignore and wasn't seeing them.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by voidx
That's a good point. If people didn't blurt out that they were putting someone on ignore in the first place, it wouldn't be so easy to "circumvent" it. However, with the amount of posting that can go on in here, I would assume it'd be pretty obvious, pretty quickly that someone was a) either just straight out ignoring your posts or b) had you on ignore and wasn't seeing them.

Actually, I don't really see the point of having the ignore function at all. What is so detrimental about simply scrolling past those we don't want to read?

That would solve a lot of problems in a spiffy.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Actually, I don't really see the point of having the ignore function at all. What is so detrimental about simply scrolling past those we don't want to read?

That would solve a lot of problems in a spiffy.
"Over."

Claus, you forgot to say "set!"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Claus, you forgot to say "set!"

But I did say "spiffy"....

[voidx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Actually, I don't really see the point of having the ignore function at all. What is so detrimental about simply scrolling past those we don't want to read?

That would solve a lot of problems in a spiffy.
True enough, but it doesn't take away from anything either if they can just have the posts removed from their view. In my mind the forum software can not itself prevent someone from getting around the ignore function as shown here, so its up to individual people to do so. I myself simply do not believe we should have the moderators running around policing people doing this "circumventing" when people could just simply ignore the post. My main problem seems to be with the idea that if I see the post, I can't ignore it anymore. So basically I agree with you, just ignore the damn post, but give them the option to use the ignore function, in conjuction with actively ignoring any posts that get circumvented.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]
Precisely, at a "minimum". The ignore feature would get rid of the majority of posts by people you truly wish to ignore. However, in you're particular case you've shown to be more than eager to respond to those reposted comments of CFL's.



But once having read a post sometimes one feels compelled to reply. But if one never sees the post in the first place, then this compulsion does not materialise. And if the post is not there to see, and you have to click a link in order to see it, then obviously psychologically it is easier to resist reading that person's post.




TLN does not repost all of Larsen's posts, only the ones he thinks you'd be interested in.



:wow2: does his generosity and kindness know of no limits?? :rolleyes: Don't you think it should be up to Clancie to decide whether she is interested in what a particular poster has to say?



Is asking a user of this forum to simply ignore the odd post that is "circumvented" in this fashion unreasonable? Absolutely not.



There's more temptation to read a post if it's there on the screen. You all know this, this is why TLN posted Larsen's post!



If you truly want to ignore the person, then do just that, ignore them. The purpose of the ignore function is to make it so you do not have you're screen clogged up with the ignored persons posts. It is not a watchdog to protect you from all content by that person that might slip through otherwise.



Not just that. I imagine it was implemented for the additional purpose of reducing the temptation of reading an individual's posts.



I find it extremely ridiculous that we're even debating this period. Like most of this thread.



Funny how one is nitpicking in pointing out minor infractions of the rules by certain individuals, but I get suspended for 3.5 days for doing likewise! :mad:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by voidx
True enough, but it doesn't take away from anything either if they can just have the posts removed from their view. In my mind the forum software can not itself prevent someone from getting around the ignore function as shown here, so its up to individual people to do so. I myself simply do not believe we should have the moderators running around policing people doing this "circumventing" when people could just simply ignore the post. My main problem seems to be with the idea that if I see the post, I can't ignore it anymore. So basically I agree with you, just ignore the damn post, but give them the option to use the ignore function, in conjuction with actively ignoring any posts that get circumvented.

So, let's recap, before we lose sight:

The forum software allows a poster to ignore other people.
The forum software cannot prevent ignored posts to be viewed by those who ignore people.
The forum rules does not forbid reposting.
The forum moderators have no intention of policing people doing reposting.

All this essentially leaves the ignore function superfluous.

[xouper]

hgc: Over at SDMB, they have a strict rule prohibiting any mention of who is or isn't on your ignore list (or buddy list). I am starting to see the benefit of this.If they ever make a rule like that here, I'm gone. Plonking someone is a fine Usenet tradition, and I think it's only courteous to announce to your target, and the forum, that you will no longer respond to anything they post.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Funny how one is nitpicking in pointing out minor infractions of the rules by certain individuals, but I get suspended for 3.5 days for doing likewise! :mad:

If you have a complaint about this, contact the mods.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
By definition of what the word spam means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And that definition says...?



I'm sure you are acquainted with the definition. Certainly it cannot be denied that simply quoting someone without any additional input is spamming. At least if that is not spamming, then nothing is.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The post in the former case is of value to people. They need to see what is being responded to. The post in the second case isn't, because they will already have read the post. Unless, that is, they have the quoted poster on ignore. But in that case they don't desire to see it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How can you speak for other people?



If they have someone on ignore then it is a reasonable supposition that they wish to ignore that person. You disagree?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This is irrelevant. Simply quoting anything that someone else says without comment is spamming. If you submit a post you need to actually make some comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Irrelevant? How can it be irrelevant? It is crucial to your whole point: That there has to be "content".

If you can't define what that means, your whole argument goes down the drain.



I have defined what I mean. How simple can I put it? Posting a message where you make zero comments is spamming. Quoting a post, but saying something as little as "I agree" is acceptable.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]
That's a good point. If people didn't blurt out that they were putting someone on ignore in the first place, it wouldn't be so easy to "circumvent" it.



2 points.

Firstly it's irrelevant how easy or difficult it is. If we are to have rules then simply quoting someone without any additional comments whatsoever ought to be against the rules.

Secondly, "blurting out" that you have someone on ignore actually serves a purpose. It shows that the ignored person need not bother responding as you will not be seeing it. In addition it tells the ignored person that you think his contributions are of insufficient worth to bother reading.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm sure you are acquainted with the definition. Certainly it cannot be denied that simply quoting someone without any additional input is spamming. At least if that is not spamming, then nothing is.

Ian, when I ask you a direct question, could you answer it, please?

What is the definition of "spam"?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If they have someone on ignore then it is a reasonable supposition that they wish to ignore that person. You disagree?

No, I agree. However, I fail to see why everybody else should conform their method of writing to those persons wishes.

I still can't see how you can speak for other people, though.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have defined what I mean. How simple can I put it? Posting a message where you make zero comments is spamming. Quoting a post, but saying something as little as "I agree" is acceptable.

That's "content"? Even if I reposted you and said "Sploingx", that would be content as well? Gee....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, let's recap, before we lose sight:

The forum software allows a poster to ignore other people.
The forum software cannot prevent ignored posts to be viewed by those who ignore people.
The forum rules does not forbid reposting.
The forum moderators have no intention of policing people doing reposting.

All this essentially leaves the ignore function superfluous.

Yes, I agree.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It follows then that the JREF consider the ignore function to be a superflous feature in the context of this message board? OK, fair enough. BTW, does the JREF realise you speak for them?

Your reasoning is very faulty. I suggested that if a poster wanted to know about the “intent” of a feature they speak to the creators of that software.

How from that does it follow that I suggested that the JREF consider the feature “superfluous”? And how from my statement do you come to an understanding that I speak for the JREF?

[hgc]

Originally posted by xouper
If they ever make a rule like that here, I'm gone. Plonking someone is a fine Usenet tradition, and I think it's only courteous to announce to your target, and the forum, that you will no longer respond to anything they post. I was being a bit facetious (but not obvious enough). I don't favor that rule here. I had to look up plonk in Wikipedia, and I didn't know that announcing it is considered to be courteous. I always considered it to be sneering and childish, but maybe courtesy isn't my strong point. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat


Your reasoning is very faulty. I suggested that if a poster wanted to know about the “intent” of a feature they speak to the creators of that software.



Which posters want to know its intent? I can't recall anyone asking its intent. Seems very obvious to me what its intent is.



How from that does it follow that I suggested that the JREF consider the feature “superfluous”?



It must be if they allow other posters to quote a person's post in its entirety, without additional comment, specifically to bring that person's post to the attention of the poster, who has the poster of the post which has been quoted, on ignore.



And how from my statement do you come to an understanding that I speak for the JREF?

Because you have implied that you think that the JREF consider the ignore feature to be a superfluous feature. (And they must think that for the reason I just gave above).

[Darat]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Which posters want to know its intent? I can't recall anyone asking its intent. Seems very obvious to me what its intent is.

...snip..

So you can't support your statments. OK that's fine.

[xouper]

hgc: I was being a bit facetious (but not obvious enough).OOps. Some days, I seem to leave me brane at home.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Which posters want to know its intent? I can't recall anyone asking its intent. Seems very obvious to me what its intent is.

...snip..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So you can't support your statments. OK that's fine.[/B]

Huh? What statements? :confused:

[dharlow]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


That sounds pretty cool :)

Could you start a thread with just a few links and examples of what you mean? Or just a post here even?

Seriously, I would be interested in reading up on some of these things if you could just name them, or provide a couple of starting points with links.

Thanks!

Adam

At the risk of interrupting the current debate, I will list a few here. I should state that my main area of interest is in that which may perhaps be considered the most incredible, controversial, and unbelievable of all supernatural phenomena....that of physical mediumship. While it has seemingly died out in recent years, I think it presents some of the more interesting case studies. Two, in particular, stand out...D.D. Home and Eusapia Palladino. I would recommend studying one of them carefully, as there is a lot of material available on them, some of which is very difficult to find and is expensive. If interested, start with the inexpensive books below, and if there is a continued interest, consult the more expensive sources I provide.

Some inexpensive books:

Incidents in My Life - D.D. Home

Written by the medium (actually dictated), which is usually grounds for extreme caution. However, it mainly consists of testimony from sitters which was published in other sources which are difficult to access. Time-Life republished it, and it should be obtainable for about $10.

Sittings With Eusapia Palladino and Other Studies - Everard Feilding

The work of the S.P.R. investigator Everard Feilding, with the main bulk of the book being a reprint of his 11 sittings with Eusapia Palladino (along with investigators W.W. Baggally, and Hereward Carrington). These 11 sittings were stenographically recorded and are of interest. Should be obtainable for a reasonable price.

Very Peculiar People - E.J. Dingwall

Not as inexpensive as the two previous, but contains a useful chapter summarizing the research done with Palladino.

Expensive:

Eusapia Palladino and Her Phenomena - Hereward Carrington
The co-investigator with Feilding. The book contains a useful summary of the studies done with Palladino, including the author's own.

Experiences in Spiritualism With D.D. Home
Sittings with the medium written up by Lord Adare. Republished in the 70s by Arno Press, but still somewhat pricey if I recall.

Report of the Dialectical Society on Spiritualism
Useful summary of the contemporary Spiritualist scene around 1870. Much testimony and cross-examination regarding D.D. Home is provided. Also reprinted by Arno, but also expensive.

Crookes and the Spirit World - Medhurst/Goldney
Reprinting of Sir William Crookes' experiments with D.D. Home. Highly valuable.

Founders of The Society For Psychical Research Alan Gauld
Very useful summary of early research in the Society, with some unpublished archive material presented. Good summary on the Society and Palladino

I shall, a bit later, provide some more general works concerning more the broader field of parapsychology/psychical research.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dharlow

I shall, a bit later, provide some more general works concerning more the broader field of parapsychology/psychical research. [/B]

Good :) All the books I read tend not to be quite critical enough.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But once having read a post sometimes one feels compelled to reply. But if one never sees the post in the first place, then this compulsion does not materialise. And if the post is not there to see, and you have to click a link in order to see it, then obviously psychologically it is easier to resist reading that person's post.

All fine and good. My point being we're not responsible for your psychologically compelling choice to respond to the post of a person you say you're actively ignoring. I'm saying that its impossible with the limitations of the software to prevent you from never seeing an ignored persons posts. Therefore some common sense must come in. I argue this common sense is the responsibility of the person doing the ignoring. Why is it someone else's responsibility, to help you control you're own compulsion to sometimes reply to people you are trying to ignore? Which is why I think people asking for a new rule preventing TLN from reposting the way he does on occasion is a bunch of malarky.

:wow2: does his generosity and kindness know of no limits?? :rolleyes: Don't you think it should be up to Clancie to decide whether she is interested in what a particular poster has to say?

For people actually interesting in hearing what I actually said, the complete quote:
Posted by voidx
TLN does not repost all of Larsen's posts, only the ones he thinks you'd be interested in. They do it to bait you, and you bite almost everytime, so in the end its really your decision to get into an exchange with them. Not mine, not the forums, yours, so accept that.

Do try to read the whole thing next time Ian.


There's more temptation to read a post if it's there on the screen. You all know this, this is why TLN posted Larsen's post!

So tempting you cannot possibly control yourself and resist. But when you cannot resist, then it should be the forums responsibility to remove all possibility of the temptation. I rather think not.


Not just that. I imagine it was implemented for the additional purpose of reducing the temptation of reading an individual's posts.

I'd say thats rather arguable.


Funny how one is nitpicking in pointing out minor infractions of the rules by certain individuals, but I get suspended for 3.5 days for doing likewise! :mad:
I had nothing to do with it, I do not even know the thread/post in question that got you banned, nor in this context do I care. It has nothing to do with my opinion on making reposting against the rules. Not to mention that there is no minor infraction here. What TLN is doing is not against the forum rules as they are presently stated, nice try though.

Arrrgghhh I'm getting sucked into this thread against my will, its like a bad car crash! Maybe I should put you all on ignore :D.

[voidx]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, let's recap, before we lose sight:

The forum software allows a poster to ignore other people.
The forum software cannot prevent ignored posts to be viewed by those who ignore people.
The forum rules does not forbid reposting.
The forum moderators have no intention of policing people doing reposting.

All this essentially leaves the ignore function superfluous.
Obviously that would seem to make sense. However, how much reposting "actually" takes place? I don't know if I've ever seen anyone aside from TLN do it, but thats just me. If 98% of the people with posters on ignore, don't have some other user reposting those they have on ignore, then for the most part, the ignore function would seem beneficial for them. You can't look at these things so black and white. If most people use the ignore function, and like it, and do not have people reposting at them, then I say leave it be. If reposting is becoming a massive problem and many people begin to complain about it, then fine consider turfing the ignore function completely, or come up with another solution. However I'm of the opinion that we do not have a massive reposting problem here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But once having read a post sometimes one feels compelled to reply. But if one never sees the post in the first place, then this compulsion does not materialise. And if the post is not there to see, and you have to click a link in order to see it, then obviously psychologically it is easier to resist reading that person's post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All fine and good. My point being we're not responsible for your psychologically compelling choice to respond to the post of a person you say you're actively ignoring.



We're all responsible for everything we ever do. All our actions impact on other people.



I'm saying that its impossible with the limitations of the software to prevent you from never seeing an ignored persons posts.



Yep, so let's make it much easier for a person to see a post by a poster on his/her ignore list, by deliberately reposting it by a poster not on that list. :rolleyes:



Therefore some common sense must come in. I argue this common sense is the responsibility of the person doing the ignoring. Why is it someone else's responsibility, to help you control you're own compulsion to sometimes reply to people you are trying to ignore?



It's not someone elses responsibility. It's a question of ethics. None of us live in isolation. Almost everything we do has repercussions for other people. This is one of the major lessons of life.



Which is why I think people asking for a new rule preventing TLN from reposting the way he does on occasion is a bunch of malarky.


I am decidedly unimpressed with your "reasoning".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
does his generosity and kindness know of no limits?? Don't you think it should be up to Clancie to decide whether she is interested in what a particular poster has to say?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For people actually interesting in hearing what I actually said, the complete quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by voidx
TLN does not repost all of Larsen's posts, only the ones he thinks you'd be interested in. They do it to bait you, and you bite almost everytime, so in the end its really your decision to get into an exchange with them. Not mine, not the forums, yours, so accept that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do try to read the whole thing next time Ian.



The additional text has no relevance whatsoever.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's more temptation to read a post if it's there on the screen. You all know this, this is why TLN posted Larsen's post!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So tempting you cannot possibly control yourself and resist.



No-one is saying this. And we're not talking about me anyway. I'm talking about the general principle. Yes it is certainly possible for a person to resist. But the fact is that psychologically that person will be more tempted to read it. This is the only pertinent point.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not just that. I imagine it was implemented for the additional purpose of reducing the temptation of reading an individual's posts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd say thats rather arguable.



Then argue it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny how one is nitpicking in pointing out minor infractions of the rules by certain individuals, but I get suspended for 3.5 days for doing likewise!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I had nothing to do with it, I do not even know the thread/post in question that got you banned, nor in this context do I care. It has nothing to do with my opinion on making reposting against the rules. Not to mention that there is no minor infraction here. What TLN is doing is not against the forum rules as they are presently stated, nice try though.



Do you live your life by rules imposed by others? Do ethical considerations never have a role to play?

[Cynical]

Claus F. Larsen, (WTF is the F for???) I can't figure you out. Why do you let Clancie and Steve get to you? Why do you get so worked up when they won't give you a "straight" answer? Why are you so obsessed with whether or not Clancie has you on ignore?

You are almost over the edge, Cantata. If you don't chill out, how are you going to have a Merry Christmas? If Clancie gets to you so much that you're throwing hissy fits, then why don't YOU ignore HER? By the same token, why don't you ignore Steve?

I can just see you when you were in grade school, Cantata. I bet you were a smart-assed little kid who, in 1st grade, taunted the other kids who believed in Santa Claus, and told them to "prove" that he is real. I bet you told your music teachers that you were not allowed to sing Santa songs because he is not real - therefore ruining the fun of singing "Up On the Housetop" for the other kids.


:D :D :D

[Cynical]

Claus to Clancie:

"No, you don't. You only have me on "ignore" until you see (or are informed by your spies) something that you can criticize me for. Then, after you deliver your snide remarks, I'm "back" on ignore."


You HOPE she doesn't have you on ignore, Claus. But why do you care?

Anyway, she can put you on ignore, still read your posts - as copied by TNL - and not have to look at the name "CFLARSEN". She's got it made!
:p

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
An historic new low of woo whining was reached on 17 December 2003. It is the day of the woo nadir, and you are there.

I am in the unpleasant position to admit that you are right!

Ian I can't believe that you supported Steve on the quote issue :(

[Interesting Ian]

Right! That's fine! Let's all agree to circumvent the ignore feature.

Anyway, what we need to do is find out precisely which forum members have whom on ignore. Once we've found that out, and wherever a forum member who has certain individuals on ignore is participating in a thread where the ignored members are also participating, we just need to allocate someone the task of quoting the ignored people in their entirety, and without any additional comments, so that the person who has these people on ignore are able to see their contributions.

Would that be satisfactory?

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We're all responsible for everything we ever do. All our actions impact on other people.

Exactly my point. So if you happen to read a post by someone you have on ignore, and then choose to respond to that person anyway, accept the choice you made and quit whining about it.


Yep, so let's make it much easier for a person to see a post by a poster on his/her ignore list, by deliberately reposting it by a poster not on that list. :rolleyes:

This is what we're discussing, I don't see how it relates as a reply to my quote about the shortcomings of the forum software.


It's not someone elses responsibility. It's a question of ethics. None of us live in isolation. Almost everything we do has repercussions for other people. This is one of the major lessons of life.

And? Sure you might think it a little rude that someone reposts something on the off chance the post by the person being ignored will be read by the person ignoring them, and therefore might "Tempt" them to respond. Heh but to call it a matter of ethics and one of the major lessons in life might be over-stating its importance in the grand theme of things no? :D


I am decidedly unimpressed with your "reasoning".

So you tell me repeatedly. Whatever. The purpose of my reasoning isn't to impress Interesting Ian, sorry :D.


The additional text has no relevance whatsoever.

Sure it does. You replied saying sarsastically that TLN is such a nice guy to repost what he thinks Clancie might be interested in hearing, then went on about how the hell would he know what Clancie does and does not want to hear. My added text made it clear that he was reposting comments of Larsens that he thought spoke to something Clancie was saying. And it baits her into replying directly to something Larsen said, and off we go again on the bus with the round rolling wheels.


No-one is saying this. And we're not talking about me anyway. I'm talking about the general principle. Yes it is certainly possible for a person to resist. But the fact is that psychologically that person will be more tempted to read it. This is the only pertinent point.

Firstly I was being a tad sarcastic, should have known better. Secondly while I agree its a point, its hardly a pertinent one. Yes its more tempting to respond, whats the solution? Don't.


Do you live your life by rules imposed by others? Do ethical considerations never have a role to play? [/B]
Again with the ethics :D. *In robotic monotone voice* I am a follower of rules imposed by others bzzzzt.

[Clancie]

voidx,

Sometimes it seems to matter who's doing an action here as far as how much criticism it gets.

For example, if I felt that Ian's posts shouldn't be ignored, and went into threads where he was discussing....and reposted his comments verbatim, adding no thoughts of my own....expressly to help him circumvent anyone's use of "Ignore"....I think I'd get an earful of criticism.

Likewise, if someone made a point of saying they were ignoring me, and I responded to their posts anyway, point by point, each and every day, several times a day, for months, irregardless of the fact that 99% of the time my comments went unacknowledged by them....well, I think people here would not hesitate to tell me that I seemed like an obsessed kook!

But, whatever. I just think its funny how so many people pretend (or just don't realize) that -some- people here approve of actions by a "skeptic" that they would reject or ridicule if the same thing was done by a "woowoo".....

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

Sometimes it seems to matter who's doing an action here as far as how much criticism it gets.

For example, if I felt that Ian's posts shouldn't be ignored, and went into threads where he was discussing....and reposted his comments verbatim, adding no thoughts of my own....expressly to help him circumvent anyone's use of "Ignore"....I think I'd get an earful of criticism.

Likewise, if someone made a point of saying they were ignoring me, and I responded to their posts anyway, point by point, each and every day, several times a day, for months, irregardless of the fact that 99% of the time my comments went unacknowledged by them....well, I think people here would not hesitate to tell me that I seemed like an obsessed kook!

But, whatever. I just think its funny how so many people pretend (or just don't realize) that -some- people here approve of actions by a "skeptic" that they would reject or ridicule if the same thing was done by a "woowoo".....
While I get you're point there's some problems with it. Its you're opinion that if you ran around doing what TLN did you'd get an earful of criticism. But you have no idea that you would. Its merely convinient to think so in order to back up the idea of "If woo-woo do it bad, if skeptic do it ok". And who knows, maybe I do think Larsen is stark raving mad :D. But the point being is that even you acknowledge that you only reply to a small small portion of Larsen's replies. Which means TLN is only ever reposting a small small portion of Larsens posts, so is it really to much to ask that you simply ignore those posts, or anyone for that matter, when they pop up? I'm just really not convinced this is such a huge issue that we need to adopt a policy for policing it.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Clancie
voidx,

Sometimes it seems to matter who's doing an action here as far as how much criticism it gets.

For example, if I felt that Ian's posts shouldn't be ignored, and went into threads where he was discussing....and reposted his comments verbatim, adding no thoughts of my own....expressly to help him circumvent anyone's use of "Ignore"....I think I'd get an earful of criticism.

Likewise, if someone made a point of saying they were ignoring me, and I responded to their posts anyway, point by point, each and every day, several times a day, for months, irregardless of the fact that 99% of the time my comments went unacknowledged by them....well, I think people here would not hesitate to tell me that I seemed like an obsessed kook!

But, whatever. I just think its funny how so many people pretend (or just don't realize) that -some- people here approve of actions by a "skeptic" that they would reject or ridicule if the same thing was done by a "woowoo".....


Its not just pseudoskeptic or skeptic versus so-called woo-woo; there are people here who are protected or privileged characters who can use ad hominems, use derogatory sexual innuendos against others and who can obsessively ask hundreds of inane questions in an effort to harass and get away with it even when they are reported to the moderators for violation of the harassment rule. I was told flat out by Hal that lying is not against forum rules so if you want to complain somebody is lying about you. (e.g. I cheat on my wife..per Ed.) forget it. They never seem to see it as harassment. So there is more than just a double standard here for types of posters but also judgements by the powers that favor certain personages as well.

I agree that if you or I for that matter engaged in obsessive bandwith wasting interogatories of Flodin, for example, we'd be severely rebuked for it. Not that he'd answer em either. The fact of the matter is that these questions won't be answered and can't be answered so why he persists in dragging out the same old same old every day is truly a mystery. I guess its the best he can do.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

I'm just really not convinced this is such a huge issue that we need to adopt a policy for policing it.
I didn't say that we did.

I just asked why TLN did it and, now that I know, I think the reasoning behind it....let's just say...."is intellectually lacking...."

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: ... there are people here who are protected or privileged characters who can use ad hominems, use derogatory sexual innuendos against others and who can obsessively ask hundreds of inane questions in an effort to harass and get away with it ...Hal has made it clear that you are part of that "protected" class, Steve. But apparently you are not willing to let go of your straw men.

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard



Its not just pseudoskeptic or skeptic versus so-called woo-woo; there are people here who are protected or privileged characters who can use ad hominems, use derogatory sexual innuendos against others and who can obsessively ask hundreds of inane questions in an effort to harass and get away with it even when they are reported to the moderators for violation of the harassment rule. I was told flat out by Hal that lying is not against forum rules so if you want to complain somebody is lying about you. (e.g. I cheat on my wife..per Ed.) forget it. They never seem to see it as harassment. So there is more than just a double standard here for types of posters but also judgements by the powers that favor certain personages as well.

I agree that if you or I for that matter engaged in obsessive bandwith wasting interogatories of Flodin, for example, we'd be severely rebuked for it. Not that he'd answer em either. The fact of the matter is that these questions won't be answered and can't be answered so why he persists in dragging out the same old same old every day is truly a mystery. I guess its the best he can do.

Because a lot of people don't read all the areas of the forum it may be worthwhile repeating what Hal has said to Steve regarding some of the issues Steve mentions above:

Originally posted by hal bidlack


<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>Steve,

Please don't try to make this a "Me against the world" strawman. If you wish, you too may may "use sexual innuendo" if you want to be childish. I feel such comments are childish, but they are not prohibited. I don't believe you can provide evidence that I tolerate obscenities, as you claim, and your appeal to extreme suggesting you are no longer allowed to discuss the validity of citations, etc., is further evidence of the penumbral quality to your arguments. I, as a rule, do not respond to such childish responses to my administrative action, but your post contained such blantant "modifications" to the truth I felt compelled to respond.

Again, you can do just what everyone else is allowed to do here, be it mature or immature. I would hope you would take the path of maturity. I am truly neutral in this debate, and will address violations of my rules by whomever makes them. Please stop trying to pretend you are a special victim of moderation here.

hal
</font></td></tr></table>

That post above was from this thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31898

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie

I didn't say that we did.

I just asked why TLN did it and, now that I know, I think the reasoning behind it....let's just say...."is intellectually lacking...."

No more so than your completely fictitious signature.

[SteveGrenard]

Hal, of course, is completely free to rebut my contentions concerning the protected members of this forum who, on the record and believe it, there is a record, harass, use obscene innuendos, insult and lie about their opponent's morality. These people are basically scum. I can neither respect them or take them seriously. They are a friggin joke. Of course I ignore them now but I will speak out against them when the opening occurs such as you just gave me.

Hal calls me childish for complaining about certain people and insults me by this. What are the following persons then? Childish as well? I think they are far worse than childish. These are grown people with a serious problem and such problems need to be addressed.

1. Jeff Corey for uttering a death threat and then publishing my home and work address. So much for joking. Send in your abstracts and posters right away folks. I am thinking of sending one in on what to do about death threats. Is there still time?

2. Ed Dittus for calling a friend the town whore.

3. Ed Dittus for accusing me of cheating on my wife.



4. William Hoyt for referring to my "sore member"in an off color attempt to be humorous. I am sure he wasn't referring to my left arm.

4. And of course, the two year vendetta against me perpetrated by the most ignorable of them all. What was that Batman's character's name, oh, yes the riddler.

BTW: Did you find the post where Hal said it was not against forum rules to lie? Maybe this forum should be renamed the Liar's Club..................

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie

I didn't say that we did.

I just asked why TLN did it and, now that I know, I think the reasoning behind it....let's just say...."is intellectually lacking...."
No but you certainly seemed in support of the idea, with the imagined scenario that if everyone did it, it sure would be disruptive. Since that's not the case, why bother discussing it at all? If you found it intellectually lacking, then state so and leave it at that. I realize Ian and Steve also grabbed the ball and ran with it, it just seems like it was a jumping board for the new topic of special treatment of certain users. A point that I think Hal's comment wraps up quite nicely.

[Cynical]

Very amusing thread, with all amusing responses. One thing I'm curious about, though. Why is this thread not moved to the "Catfight Arena"?

;)

[slimshady2357]

dharlow,

Thank you for taking the time to put together that post :)

I have never heard of the two people you mentioned, so I'll have lots to read as I look into them.

I would also appreciate seeing the future post you mentioned about more general parapsychology/paranormal events.

Thanks again!

Adam

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
BTW: Did you find the post where Hal said it was not against forum rules to lie? Maybe this forum should be renamed the Liar's Club..................
False dichotomy fallacy. Logic 101. I'll give you the lecture notes.

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

If you found it intellectually lacking, then state so and leave it at that.

Well, voidx, of the 105 posts since I first mentioned it, 7 of them have been mine.

I find it interesting that you mention Steve and Ian "running with the topic", but don't mention any of the others who have also made multiple posts about it....

Again, I'm afraid, different strokes for different folks....

[Cynical]

I love your avatar, Clancie. It looks like it came out of the new movie "The Hours". Have you seen it? You remind me of Virginia Wolfe. Your avatar looks as if you're examining a cigarette while deep in thought.

Do it, Clancie. You're the smartest person on this board...and you've got Claus Larsen right where he needs to be - over the barrel and behind the eight ball. ROLF.....

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Logic 101. I'll give you the lecture notes.

So what courses have you taken? In addition to statistics and mathematics, logic classes too?

:)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So what courses have you taken? In addition to statistics and mathematics, logic classes too?

:)
I haven't said anything about my education. Neither do I plan to. Is there something of substance you wish to discuss? Perhaps you don't understand the fallacy Grenard committed? Here, again, is what he said:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
BTW: Did you find the post where Hal said it was not against forum rules to lie? Maybe this forum should be renamed the Liar's Club..................

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So what courses have you taken? In addition to statistics and mathematics, logic classes too?

:)

Hi, couldn't find you in the chess. Tried a few intermediate rooms. Maybe we got the times wrong? It's 3.20am here at the moment.

Hmmm . . starting to feel a bit tired. Better have some coffee :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
...snip...

BTW: Did you find the post where Hal said it was not against forum rules to lie? Maybe this forum should be renamed the Liar's Club..................

If you consider it so important to mention it multiple times then I suggest you supply a link to the evidence that supports your claim.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Hi, couldn't find you in the chess. Tried a few intermediate rooms. Maybe we got the times wrong? It's 3.20am here at the moment.

Hmmm . . starting to feel a bit tired. Better have some coffee :)

Hi Ian,

I stuck around in the Intermediate room 'Adequate' and some others up top on the list for about 40 minutes or so and then took off. :)

We'll try for some other time. (gives me time to practice especially annoying gambits! ;) )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by voidx
Obviously that would seem to make sense. However, how much reposting "actually" takes place? I don't know if I've ever seen anyone aside from TLN do it, but thats just me. If 98% of the people with posters on ignore, don't have some other user reposting those they have on ignore, then for the most part, the ignore function would seem beneficial for them. You can't look at these things so black and white. If most people use the ignore function, and like it, and do not have people reposting at them, then I say leave it be. If reposting is becoming a massive problem and many people begin to complain about it, then fine consider turfing the ignore function completely, or come up with another solution. However I'm of the opinion that we do not have a massive reposting problem here.

I take it that you mean that we don't have a massive reposting problem, where people merely repost other people's posts.
People repost each other again and again. Just like I did just now. :)

So, I don't really see what the whining is about, unless it has something to do with what is being reposted.

Yeah, that must be it. Clancie doesn't mind repostings, just some repostings.

Now, what were those repostings about again....? :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I take it that you mean that we don't have a massive reposting problem, where people merely repost other people's posts.
People repost each other again and again. Just like I did just now. :)

So, I don't really see what the whining is about, unless it has something to do with what is being reposted.

Yeah, that must be it. Clancie doesn't mind repostings, just some repostings.

Now, what were those repostings about again....? :)

Well at least one thing Claus - all these posts in your thread has kept it to the top of the page for quite awhile; hopefully you've seen some extra traffic to your site.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Sometimes it seems to matter who's doing an action here as far as how much criticism it gets.

For example, if I felt that Ian's posts shouldn't be ignored, and went into threads where he was discussing....and reposted his comments verbatim, adding no thoughts of my own....expressly to help him circumvent anyone's use of "Ignore"....I think I'd get an earful of criticism.

Now you are working from assumptions. Playing the victim.

Originally posted by Clancie
Likewise, if someone made a point of saying they were ignoring me, and I responded to their posts anyway, point by point, each and every day, several times a day, for months, irregardless of the fact that 99% of the time my comments went unacknowledged by them....well, I think people here would not hesitate to tell me that I seemed like an obsessed kook!

Again, you are working from assumptions. Playing the victim.

Originally posted by Clancie
But, whatever. I just think its funny how so many people pretend (or just don't realize) that -some- people here approve of actions by a "skeptic" that they would reject or ridicule if the same thing was done by a "woowoo".....

As I recall, you hounded BillHoyt around the forum, butting into debates with your unrelated remarks.

Stop playing the victim. You are not.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Its not just pseudoskeptic or skeptic versus so-called woo-woo; there are people here who are protected or privileged characters who can use ad hominems, use derogatory sexual innuendos against others and who can obsessively ask hundreds of inane questions in an effort to harass and get away with it even when they are reported to the moderators for violation of the harassment rule. I was told flat out by Hal that lying is not against forum rules so if you want to complain somebody is lying about you. (e.g. I cheat on my wife..per Ed.) forget it. They never seem to see it as harassment. So there is more than just a double standard here for types of posters but also judgements by the powers that favor certain personages as well.

Steve, you have lied perhaps more often than anyone I have seen posting here (and elsewhere, for that matter). Your posts constantly need to be checked for lies, misrepresentations, smears, false quoting, illegal quoting, etc.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I agree that if you or I for that matter engaged in obsessive bandwith wasting interogatories of Flodin, for example, we'd be severely rebuked for it. Not that he'd answer em either. The fact of the matter is that these questions won't be answered and can't be answered so why he persists in dragging out the same old same old every day is truly a mystery. I guess its the best he can do.

The thing is, Steve, I don't have a trail of unproven claims and unanswered questions dangling after me. I "drag out" the same old same old almost every day (are you sure you don't have me under surveillance personally?) whenever those people make the same claims again, or complain that other people don't answer.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hal, of course, is completely free to rebut my contentions concerning the protected members of this forum who, on the record and believe it, there is a record, harass, use obscene innuendos, insult and lie about their opponent's morality. These people are basically scum. I can neither respect them or take them seriously. They are a friggin joke. Of course I ignore them now but I will speak out against them when the opening occurs such as you just gave me.

Which means you have us all closely monitored, so you can react swiftly.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hal calls me childish for complaining about certain people and insults me by this. What are the following persons then? Childish as well? I think they are far worse than childish. These are grown people with a serious problem and such problems need to be addressed.

1. Jeff Corey for uttering a death threat and then publishing my home and work address. So much for joking. Send in your abstracts and posters right away folks. I am thinking of sending one in on what to do about death threats. Is there still time?

This is a bald-faced lie. Jeff did not "utter" a "death threat". And you really shouldn't complain about anyone posting your home address, when you did the same to me (incidentally, after I outed you as a liar).

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
2. Ed Dittus for calling a friend the town whore.

Oh, my! And calling people "a coven of sadistic old degenerates" is acceptable?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
3. Ed Dittus for accusing me of cheating on my wife.

Oh, my! And claiming that I went back to Denmark because of laxer pedophilia laws is acceptable?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
4. William Hoyt for referring to my "sore member"in an off color attempt to be humorous. I am sure he wasn't referring to my left arm.

Oh, my! You do seem to have a problem with sex-related issues. You point fingers at those who talk about sex, but seem strangely fascinated with talking about the more ...shall we say "borderline" aspects. People bring up "sex"-issues, you bring up "strange sex"-issues. Go figure.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
4. And of course, the two year vendetta against me perpetrated by the most ignorable of them all. What was that Batman's character's name, oh, yes the riddler.

I assume you mean me. It's not a "vendetta", merely an attempt at holding you to your own claims and actions.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
BTW: Did you find the post where Hal said it was not against forum rules to lie? Maybe this forum should be renamed the Liar's Club..................

I think you have benefitted more than anyone else from that rule, Steve.

What should we call your own (defunct) SS-board?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Well at least one thing Claus - all these posts in your thread has kept it to the top of the page for quite awhile; hopefully you've seen some extra traffic to your site.

Oh, yes. Yes. Yes.....(doing a Meg Ryan cafe scene re-enactment) :D

(Sorry, Steve, for bringing up "sex" again. Now you can bring up "strange sex".)

[Ersby]

You know, I almost agree with Cynical. This thread should be dumped into the Flame Wars folder. After having taken dharlow's posts and put them in their own thread, of course.

I have a vague recollection of steve's gripe (2). As I recall Ed was using prostitution as an analogy to explain something, and grenard decided to interpret it (wrongly) as an insult on his friend.

On a related note, I found that my computer had kept the entrie Chris Robinson debate ("The Dream Detective", as rejected by the JSPR) in it's cache. Steve starts by spreading misinformation, then tries to change the subject and finally gives up. It's ten pages long but very funny. Maybe one day I'll post highlights.

[Cynical]

Good for you, Ersby. It's good to see that SOMEBODY around here has a little sense.

I am truly worried about CantataClaus at this point. He is in the advanced stages of paranoia, no doubt about it. I wonder if he lives alone? If he does, then who is going to see that he gets proper treatment for his condition? Claus is the type who would never commit himself.

[xouper]

Ersby: You know, I almost agree with Cynical. This thread should be dumped into the Flame Wars folder.That's an interesting tactic by Cynical, repeatedly flame someone and then demand that the thread be moved to flame wars.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Cynical
I am truly worried about CantataClaus at this point. He is in the advanced stages of paranoia, no doubt about it. I wonder if he lives alone? If he does, then who is going to see that he gets proper treatment for his condition? Claus is the type who would never commit himself.
Yeah, sure. You are truly worried. As a crack psycho therapist , you diagnose and prescribe treatment for a person you never met.
Maybe you should stay over on the JE TVTalk board and play in the sandbox with the lower wattage light bulbs.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
As a crack psycho therapist , you diagnose and prescribe treatment for a person you never met.
Jeff,

That's misspelled, dude. It should be "psychotherapist," not "psycho thera..."

Uh, never mind...

[SteveGrenard]

Ersby: I have a vague recollection of steve's gripe (2). As I recall Ed was using prostitution as an analogy to explain something, and grenard decided to interpret it (wrongly) as an insult on his friend.


Yes Ersby your recollection is vague. I was not a member here when these posts were made so I don't know what kind of spin or excuse was made by Dittus to justify them. For me at the time, they were self-evident and stand alone. There was no justification. I posted no gripes to this board at the time and all traffic was private between myself, Randi, Dittus and Garter. All to no ultimate purpose.

And I have reviewed the questionnable posts which have been preserved and this is clearly not it at all. Ed labeled this person, called her specifically and by name, a "skank." This term is equivalent to being called the town whore. He also accused me of cheating on my wife with this person, who BTW, I never met. The fact is it should not be necessary to use these kinds of analogies to explain "something." Something, indeed, is seriously wrong with people who have to resort to this type of subject matter to make a point. I cannot, BTW, find any point he was making other than attempting to slander and ridicule people whose views he did not happen to agree with. Very sick and very sad. It should be prohibited here. I wrote to Randi and asked him to have it removed when Dittus refused to delete it himself which he could've done. Randi responded that he didn't know how to do this but would ask Andrew Harter to take care of it. Linda was out sick that week. Two days later Harter still did not do this so I wrote Harter and asked him and told him, what Randi said. No response. And no deletion. Apparently Harter and the other Moderators felt this was acceptable and not against forum rules. Well, maybe not for a protected person anyway, which leads me to the conclusion that there are privileged characters on this board who are allowed wider latitude in their posting "violations."

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Jeff,

That's misspelled, dude. It should be "psychotherapist," not "psycho thera..."

Uh, never mind...
You are correct, sir! It should have been "psycho the rapist".

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, let's recap, before we lose sight:

The forum software allows a poster to ignore other people.
The forum software cannot prevent ignored posts to be viewed by those who ignore people.
The forum rules does not forbid reposting.
The forum moderators have no intention of policing people doing reposting.

All this essentially leaves the ignore function superfluous.

And idiots that insist on saying "na na I have you on ignore" remain idiots and clearly, absolutely, and without doubt, want to read the "ignored" posts. Either that or they get some strange psycho-sexual gradification of announceing their intentions. As Jesus said, "They have their reward".

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ersby
You know, I almost agree with Cynical. This thread should be dumped into the Flame Wars folder. After having taken dharlow's posts and put them in their own thread, of course.

I have a vague recollection of steve's gripe (2). As I recall Ed was using prostitution as an analogy to explain something, and grenard decided to interpret it (wrongly) as an insult on his friend.

On a related note, I found that my computer had kept the entrie Chris Robinson debate ("The Dream Detective", as rejected by the JSPR) in it's cache. Steve starts by spreading misinformation, then tries to change the subject and finally gives up. It's ten pages long but very funny. Maybe one day I'll post highlights.

Steve has, on a number of occasions, amply demonstrated that he has problems with the English language. If his first language were Danish, we would truely have a psironic event.

Steve is a sad man. Allusions to "we" and "us", his purile lickspittle, and ultimately pathetic attempts to speak for Keen, Schwartz and others should create feelings of sympathy.

He, even in this thread, alludes to "reports" that he gets from unnamed sources. He exudes a pride that he is somehow "in the know". This even to the extent of getting reports about Claus posting in Danish on an Astrology board. Sad.

His monomania regarding insults directed to him by me more than a year ago (maybe two?) extends to the point of actually reposting the remarks in their entirety. These are the actions of a professional victim. What makes me think that this extends to behaviors beyond this board?

His purported expertise in areas concerned with his work has been pretty throughly debunked ("resistance AKA impedience") and yet, his retort is a spew of references.

Sad, sad, sad.

He remains the JREF Gollum. any sympathy generated by his pathetic side is outweighed by ones reaction to his abusive< and ultimately cowardly nature

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie


Well, voidx, of the 105 posts since I first mentioned it, 7 of them have been mine.

I find it interesting that you mention Steve and Ian "running with the topic", but don't mention any of the others who have also made multiple posts about it....

Again, I'm afraid, different strokes for different folks....
Only posting 7 posts does not change your stated opinion on the matter. I'm a little confused as to why bring up the number of posts you've made.

I mentioned Steve and Ian running with the topic, meaning that they seized on the idea of reposting being bad and should be elminated, and then shifted into unfair treatment of woo-woo's over skeptics. Yes other people have posted, but they've all been in response to the ball they and you in part, started rolling down the hill. Does that clear up the confusion? I'm tired of thinly veiled accusations of favortism on here, especially directed at myself. I've made every attempt to be fair, and while I do not necessarily agree with others debating techniques I do not run around denouncing them either. We're all grown-ups here, if you have a problem with someone, then deal with it. I merely comment on the relevent points brought up, any additional baggage is none of my concern.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by voidx
I mentioned Steve and Ian running with the topic, meaning that they seized on the idea of reposting being bad and should be elminated, and then shifted into unfair treatment of woo-woo's over skeptics. Yes other people have posted, but they've all been in response to the ball they and you in part, started rolling down the hill. Does that clear up the confusion? I'm tired of thinly veiled accusations of favortism on here, especially directed at myself. I've made every attempt to be fair, and while I do not necessarily agree with others debating techniques I do not run around denouncing them either. We're all grown-ups here, if you have a problem with someone, then deal with it. I merely comment on the relevent points brought up, any additional baggage is none of my concern.

Want to know a good Wooish Whine?

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

I've made every attempt to be fair
Yes. And my comments were about something I see as "principle" (the double standard), a problem I know full well that many here feel does not exist. I have expressed my perception of it anyway.
Posted by ersby

This thread should be dumped into the Flame Wars folder. After having taken dharlow's posts and put them in their own thread, of course.
re dharlow's post....whether this goes to Flame War or not, I wish he's open a new thread and repost his references. They look very useful and will be forever lost here....

[voidx]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Want to know a good Wooish Whine?
I've had my fill, but thanks for the offer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And I have reviewed the questionnable posts which have been preserved and this is clearly not it at all. Ed labeled this person, called her specifically and by name, a "skank." This term is equivalent to being called the town whore.

Sorry, a "skank" is not a "town whore". That is blatantly false.

Webster's doesn't even carry the entry, but other references are readily available:

skank
v 1. to dance to ska music. ("Look at that guy skank!") Submitted by David LaBrie, VA, USA, 23-09-1997. -

adj 1. a dirty or promiscuous female. ("Stay away from that skank.") dance female promiscuous insults (list of)

The Online Slang Dictionary (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wrader/slang/s.html)

skank (n)
1. A chick who sleeps around. That skank was mackin' on my boyfriend! 2. Its a kind of dancing--like, what you do to ska music. We was skankin' to some Five Iron Frenzy. (a band) [Highline Community College, Des Moines, WA, 1998]
College Slang Around the World (http://www.csupomona.edu/~jasanders/slang/csrps.htm)

UrbanDictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Skank) has no fewer than 57 definitions, far from all concerning sex.

In Jamaican slang, "skank" has two meanings: to move to the music, or to move with ulterior motives.
Source (http://www.upsetter.net/scratch/news/archive/2002/2002_skanking.htm)

I could not find one reference where a woman is paid for her duties. She is not a "town whore", then:
"Whore"
1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
Source: Webster's

Ergo, Steve, you engaged in some hyperbole to inflate the nasty remark. You can't ever be truthful, can you?

If you do consider a lawsuit, please take note of this:
An appeals court in California has issued a landmark ruling on linguistic nuance: You can call somebody a "skank" on the air. You can even call somebody a "big skank." And if you get sued for libel as result, there's a good chance you'll win the case.

The state's First Court of Appeals recently found that a San Francisco morning radio show was not liable after applying those terms to an area woman -- along with the choice phrases "chicken butt" and "local loser."
Source (http://www.sptimes.com/2002/04/29/Floridian/Word_for_Word__Skank_.shtml)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well, maybe not for a protected person anyway, which leads me to the conclusion that there are privileged characters on this board who are allowed wider latitude in their posting "violations."

Yes, Steve. You. You have repeatedly violated the rules here and have finally been warned. That pisses you off to no end, and so you whine about how badly people treat you.

You forget that you treat others far worse.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes Ersby your recollection is vague. I was not a member here when these posts were made so I don't know what kind of spin or excuse was made by Dittus to justify them. For me at the time, they were self-evident and stand alone. There was no justification. I posted no gripes to this board at the time and all traffic was private between myself, Randi, Dittus and Garter. All to no ultimate purpose.


Wait, I remember the occasion I'm thinking of. It wasn't a friend but your wife who you'd imagined had been called a prostitute. Whether it was Ed or not, I couldn't really say.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ersby


Wait, I remember the occasion I'm thinking of. It wasn't a friend but your wife who you'd imagined had been called a prostitute. Whether it was Ed or not, I couldn't really say.

T'was moi. I was drawing an allusion to wishful thinking, as I recall and I said that it was like falling in love with a whore. A dangerous pasttime, I suspect.

As far as calling his "friend" a skank. That friend was Pam what's her face from the JE board. As I recall she and Steve had a rather nasty woo-woo blowup and she is hardly a "friend", except when that suits a highly aggrieved recounting of slights. Claus might remember, I am above such petty things.



I lay my head on the railroad track
And wait for the double-E
The railroad don't run no more
Poor, poor pitiful me


{Refrain}
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
These young girls won't let me be
Lord have mercy on me
Woe is me

copyright Warren Zevon

[SteveGrenard]

Ersby: Wait, I remember the occasion I'm thinking of. It wasn't a friend but your wife who you'd imagined had been called a prostitute. Whether it was Ed or not, I couldn't really say


Reply: Ed called an on-line friend who is a believer in JE a skank. He also made sufficient references to back up the whore-type definition of the term no matter how hard people now try to weedle out of this.

The reference to which you refer was made by Pierre.

It is truly pathetic that these people who call themselves skeptics need to resort to these kinds of tactics to make a point.
They just discredit and disgrace themselves by so doing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
As far as calling his "friend" a skank. That friend was Pam what's her face from the JE board. As I recall she and Steve had a rather nasty woo-woo blowup and she is hardly a "friend", except when that suits a highly aggrieved recounting of slights.

Pam Blizzard and Steve Grenard had a major disagreement some time ago and are not on speaking terms, it seems.

Originally posted by Ed
Claus might remember, I am above such petty things.

I do........HEY!!! And I'm not? Damn, I'm slow at times.... :D

Originally posted by Ed
copyright Warren Zevon [/B]

He's dead. You didn't "connect" with WZ, did you? :)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Ed called an on-line friend who is a believer in JE a skank. He also made sufficient references to back up the whore-type definition of the term no matter how hard people now try to weedle out of this.

My, that was fast! Seems like "your spies" work overtime, reporting to you....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It is truly pathetic that these people who call themselves skeptics need to resort to these kinds of tactics to make a point. They just discredit and disgrace themselves by so doing.

Yes, and you are an innocent angel, Steve....

[SteveGrenard]

Ersby, I just checked. It was Pierre that couldn't debate civilially or take the heat and called my mother a whore...nice guy, and he's supposed to be a physician.

So what do we have here? A bunch of well educated, erudite and even wealthy people who get off on claiming they are bouncers in strip clubs or who call people whores and think that the shock value of using street slang for body parts will further or advance their case. This is probably because they know they have no case. The fact that they have gotten away with it with so many people for so long is the basis for a belief that they are protected by the moderators against any sort of sanctions whereas others who would do this get censured.

The research and rebuttals received make fascinating post scripts to these prior events.

Thanks guys.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ersby, I just checked. It was Pierre that couldn't debate civilially or take the heat and called my mother a whore...nice guy, and he's supposed to be a physician.

So what do we have here? A bunch of well educated, erudite and even wealthy people who get off on claiming they are bouncers in strip clubs or who call people whores and think that the shock value of using street slang for body parts will further or advance their case. This is probably because they know they have no case. The fact that they have gotten away with it with so many people for so long is the basis for a belief that they are protected by the moderators against any sort of sanctions whereas others who would do this get censured.

The research and rebuttals received make fascinating post scripts to these prior events.

Thanks guys.

Oh, stop your incessant whining, Steve. If you don't like it here, then leave.

You're a crybaby.

[Cynical]

:wow2: Your post about "crack psychotherapy" is funny, Crowunit.
However, I fail to see how "psycho" and "rapist" connect. Perhaps as a PROFESSIONAL psychotherapist, or whatever you claim to be, you can explain it. I guess it ties in with your fascination for necrophilia.

One thing I must take you up on, Corey. I'll bet that I know Cantata, just from reading his many posts, as well as you know some of your students. You read their papers, and maybe speak to them in passing. Yet I suppose you fancy yourself an expert on their personalities.
You SURELY agree that Claus gets entirely too worked up over here - beyond that, I can only conjecture what his problem is, other than an obsession to "prove" things.

I guess our momentary truce is over. Or do you have to be nasty to me - over here - to save face in front of these wannabe geniuses? As to your reference to the lower-wattage bulbs over at JE: that includes YOU, too, of course?
:p

[Cynical]

Sorry, SteveGrenard, but I'm with Claus on your post about Pierre: Stop whining!

You're pissed because somebody called yo' mama a ho? Grow up, Steve! That sounds like something heard on an elementary school playground at recess. You're getting your nose out of joint over THAT is worse than CF taking this paranormal stuff to heart.

I think you both need a good, long vacation - and a few belts of Scotch.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Cynical
:wow2: Your post about "crack psychotherapy" is funny, Crowunit.
However, I fail to see how "psycho" and "rapist" connect. Perhaps as a PROFESSIONAL psychotherapist, or whatever you claim to be, you can explain it. I guess it ties in with your fascination for necrophilia.
You need to get a brighter bulb here. Jeff and I were having fun breaking down "psychotherapist." It became "psycho therapist." Then "psycho the rapist." Sill following, or did that wee short cord of yours pull out of the wall socket?

Can we get back to substance here? Or is this thread done?

[dharlow]

For those interested, I reposted my listings under the topic "Some references to Intriguing Characters", and added a few books which had a more general approach to the field of psychical research.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Cynical
Sorry, SteveGrenard, but I'm with Claus on your post about Pierre: Stop whining!

You're pissed because somebody called yo' mama a ho? Grow up, Steve! That sounds like something heard on an elementary school playground at recess. You're getting your nose out of joint over THAT is worse than CF taking this paranormal stuff to heart.

I think you both need a good, long vacation - and a few belts of Scotch.

Far from pissed off. You have been missing what I have been saying. This behavior is emblematic of a bankrupt argument. They have nothing better to say. Nothing intelligent. For most discussing such matters is not a joke. I have to assume that Claus is very serious about his role. I believe Pierre is or was also. If this is the best they can do, take it then.

If we can't have an intelligent discussion about Ritalin and its paradoxical effects or how clinical psychologists in private practice get psychotrophic prescription drugs for their patients, and get a reply from a pHD in psychology who teaches critical thinking at a major NYC area university. well a college which is a division of that university, save for the response :

"F...ck" off and die .... followed by home and work address, then that this pretty pathetic. Even if he were not aware of this subject matter you'd think he would take a proactive role instead of prissily stomping his feet saying no, no, no followed by the above. Maybe he does this with his freshman class, but around these forums it is not well received and it sure as heck isn't educational or suggestive of critical thinking. More like cretiniticalthinking.

I am objecting to childish behavior and instead by so doing I am accused of engaging in it. So the protected ones keep on getting away with it.....geez cynbical, I would've thought from you but then again nobody ever knows what to expect from you.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You need to get a brighter bulb here. Jeff and I were having fun breaking down "psychotherapist." It became "psycho therapist." Then "psycho the rapist." Sill following, or did that wee short cord of yours pull out of the wall socket?

Can we get back to substance here? Or is this thread done?

yeah, a lot of people pick that up about psychotherapist. I found it amusing (all over again).

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Cynical
Sorry, SteveGrenard, but I'm with Claus on your post about Pierre: Stop whining!

You're pissed because somebody called yo' mama a ho? Grow up, Steve! That sounds like something heard on an elementary school playground at recess. You're getting your nose out of joint over THAT is worse than CF taking this paranormal stuff to heart.

I think you both need a good, long vacation - and a few belts of Scotch.

Far from pissed off. You have been missing what I have been saying. This behavior is emblematic of a bankrupt argument. They have nothing better to say. Nothing intelligent. For most discussing such matters is not a joke. I have to assume that Claus is very serious about his role. I believe Pierre is or was also. If this is the best they can do, take it then.

If we can't have an intelligent discussion about Ritalin and its paradoxical effects or how clinical psychologists in private practice get psychotrophic prescription drugs for their patients, and get a reply from a pHD in psychology who teaches critical thinking at a major NYC area university. well a college which is a division of that university, save for the response :

"F...ck" off and die .... followed by home and work address, then that is pretty pathetic. Even if he were not aware of this subject matter you'd think he would take a proactive role instead of prissily stomping his feet saying no, no, no followed by the above. Maybe he does this with his freshman class, but around these forums it is not well received and it sure as heck isn't educational or suggestive of critical thinking. More like cretinitical thinking.

I am objecting to this childish behavior and instead by so doing I am accused of engaging in it. So the protected ones keep on getting away with it.....geez cynical, I would've thought from you that you would've figured this out but then again nobody ever knows what to expect from you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Far from pissed off. You have been missing what I have been saying. This behavior is emblematic of a bankrupt argument. They have nothing better to say. Nothing intelligent. For most discussing such matters is not a joke. I have to assume that Claus is very serious about his role. I believe Pierre is or was also. If this is the best they can do, take it then.

If we can't have an intelligent discussion about Ritalin and its paradoxical effects or how clinical psychologists in private practice get psychotrophic prescription drugs for their patients, and get a reply from a pHD in psychology who teaches critical thinking at a major NYC area university. well a college which is a division of that university, save for the response :

"F...ck" off and die .... followed by home and work address, then that is pretty pathetic. Even if he were not aware of this subject matter you'd think he would take a proactive role instead of prissily stomping his feet saying no, no, no followed by the above. Maybe he does this with his freshman class, but around these forums it is not well received and it sure as heck isn't educational or suggestive of critical thinking. More like cretinitical thinking.

I am objecting to this childish behavior and instead by so doing I am accused of engaging in it. So the protected ones keep on getting away with it.....geez cynical, I would've thought from you that you would've figured this out but then again nobody ever knows what to expect from you.

*Yawn*.

Steve, you are a broken record. Get over it: You were warned, and the next time you violate copyright rules, yer out.

Stop whining!

[Marc]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ersby, I just checked. It was Pierre that couldn't debate civilially or take the heat and called my mother a whore...nice guy, and he's supposed to be a physician.

I suppose it would come to no surprise to anyone that this accusate is outright false. I do not recall the details, but did hear of it shortly afterward. Pierre did not call anyone a whore, skank, or anything else. IIRC he was making a point about if he made such an accusation. I'll try and check my saved mail tonight to see if I still have the facts of the case. (one more file for CFL's ever growing file on Steve's innacuracies, distortions, and lies)

Pierre can be a harsh personality at times, but he does not make that kind of insult.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
(one more file for CFL's ever growing file on Steve's innacuracies, distortions, and lies)

Oh, Marc, baby....you have no idea...

[Ed]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Far from pissed off.

Hardly. You have been positively shrill on this subject, poor wounded poopsie.

You are just the Good Gollum at the moment.

[Clancie]

Hey, Ed. I don't keep files (:rolleyes: ), but I thought I remembered a post from you way back saying that Steve wasn't such a bad guy, you were sorry for some of the posts you'd made about him and wanted to start fresh.

Did I dream it? Miss an "installment" somewhere? Or....:confused:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hey, Ed. I don't keep files (:rolleyes: ), but I thought I remembered a post from you way back saying that Steve wasn't such a bad guy, you were sorry for some of the posts you'd made about him and wanted to start fresh.

Did I dream it? Miss an "installment" somewhere? Or....:confused:

You are probably right. And Steve can be useful. The problem is, and I think Rolfe said it, that Steve floats things, never takes a position and sorta hopes that it won't be refuted. He tends to get agressive when he dosen't have control of the ball. He also does not realize that this entire forum, and the internet, is largly imaginary. It is simply not real life. That is sort of a bad position to have, I think. People don't have the patience for certain techniques of discussion. For example if we were chatting at a party (and 100's of us were chatting BTW) and you rolled out a list of 200 references for Pecan Pie and would not say "this is the best" you might find yourself alone rather quickly. If I questioned you and you kept citing Julia Child it would get old rather quickly. If you brought up aged slights (now, picture this) and told people about them, sometimes in great detail, referencing, pedantically, the perpetrators by their Christian and Surname, you might start looking for the loo. It's called being a bore.

But, who really cares? Do you? I hope not. This is meant to be a hoot (yeah, yeah, let's all learn about materialism) and if we lean something, terrific, if not, go read a book, play with the kids, take a walk, enjoy the sunset.

[Cynical]

From Billhoyt (God, what a NAME):

You need to get a brighter bulb here. Jeff and I were having fun breaking down "psychotherapist." It became "psycho therapist." Then "psycho the rapist."


Oh, I GET the joke, Hoyt. PsychoTheRapist = Psychotherapist. Here's what I DON'T get - what the hell is so funny about it? It's just another one of Crow's famous attempts at bathroom/sex humor. But this time, it came off as silly, not funny.

Wanna hear something really funny? Ask Jeff Corey to dig up the little ditty he wrote entitled "Necrophilia", sung to the tune of "Pepsi Cola Hits the Spot"....now THAT time, the Crow was funny.

[Jeff Corey]

She is jesting, and I was merely recalling an old Arkham U song that went:
Christianity hits the spot,
12 apostles.
That's a lot.
Holy Ghost and a Virgin, too.
Christianity's the thing for you.

Edited to add, I do recall substituting Necrophilia for Christianity, because at some level they share some features.
The next lines were, "12 fresh corpses, that's a lot."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Cynical
From Billhoyt (God, what a NAME):

Oh, I GET the joke, Hoyt. PsychoTheRapist = Psychotherapist..

Oh, my mistake. Somebody else must have posted this:
Your post about "crack psychotherapy" is funny, Crowunit.
However, I fail to see how "psycho" and "rapist" connect

I mean, since you clearly see the connection between the two, that couldn't have been your post, right?

If you ever have something substantive to say, I'm here.

[Cynical]

You know, Hoyt, you're a bit dense. Let me try to explain again.

I STILL don't get the connection between Psycho and Rapist. Perhaps the point is that rapists are psychos? Well, DUH. Sorry, I still just see it as a lame attempt at humor.

Here's something else I don't get, by Crow:

" I do recall substituting Necrophilia for Christianity, because at some level they share some features."


Necrophilia and Christianity similar? Explain THAT one, Hoyt, since you claim to be so....uh...."substantial".
:confused:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cynical

Necrophilia and Christianity similar? Explain THAT one, Hoyt, since you claim to be so....uh...."substantial".
:confused:


Umm body and blood, transsubatantiation? Like that.

[xouper]

Cynical: I STILL don't get the connection between Psycho and Rapist. Perhaps the point is that rapists are psychos? Well, DUH. Sorry, I still just see it as a lame attempt at humor. OK, so unlike most people, you don't get the joke. Big deal. No need to belabor the point. Move on.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Cynical
Necrophilia and Christianity similar? Explain THAT one, Hoyt, since you claim to be so....uh...."substantial".
:confused:
They both get a rise from the dead.