JREF (the board) is not a cult

[Suezoled]

Well, believers come in, get slammed, accuse JREF of having a cult mentality. If a believer is civil, they receive civil responses, for the most part. But also, they are told things they don't like to hear. They get angry and accuse JREF of being cult-like.

In my opinion, JREF is not a cult. A cult seeks to seduce a person into their way of thinking, they offer feel-good situations/emotional gratification, they encourage group mentality and acceptance.

But my definition of cult may be rather limited.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Suezoled
But my definition of cult may be rather limited.

"Cult - a small, unpopular religion
Religion - a large, popular cult"

I forget the source.

[CFLarsen]

Michael Shermer, in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things", characterizes a cult this way:

Veneration of the leader
Glorification of the leader to the point of virtual sainthood or divinity.

Inerrancy of the leader
Belief that the leader cannot be wrong.

Omniscience of the leader
Acceptance of the leader's beliefs and pronouncements on all subjects, from the philosophical to the trivial.

Persuasive techniques
Methods, from benign to coercive, used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.

Hidden agendas
The true nature of the group's beliefs and plans is obscured from or not fully disclosed to potential recruits and the general public.

Deceit
Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the leader and the group's inner circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up.

Financial and/or sexual exploitation
Recruits and followers are persuaded to invest money and other assets to the group, and the leader may develop sexual relations with one or more of the followers.

Absolute truth
Belief that the leader and/or the group has discovered final knowledge on any number of subjects.

Absolute morality
Belief that the leader and/or the group has developed a system of right and wrong thought and action applicable to members and nonmembers alike. Those who strictly follow the moral code become and remain members; those who do not are dismissed or punished.

(Source: "Why People Believe Weird Things", Michael Shermer, p.119-120)

I think we can safely say that Randi is not believed to be inerrant around these parts. He is often criticized, also by skeptics. As for absolute truth, there is always evidence to change the mind of a skeptic. Morality? Nah....I think we disagree just like everyone else.

[Garrette]

This is not a cult...

This is not a cult...

This is not a cult...

This is not a cult...

Yes, Amazing One, I will send money...


Lame jokes out of the way, JREF is most certainly not a cult of any kind, though I would wager (without evidence, mind you) that there are some skeptics who would/do quote Randi as if he's faultless. But I would further wager that they are few and pass quickly through that phase of skepticism--though whether it's into a healthier skepticism or a revision toward belief, I can't say.

My slightly informed opinion is that the rough and tumble here is off-putting to most folks. Those who are used only to non-challenging comfort and uncritical support of their beliefs have no experience by which to judge what must appear at times to be anarchic, rude, cliqueish, esoteric, and unforgiving.

[Clancie]

Posted by Suezoled

A cult seeks to seduce a person into their way of thinking, they offer feel-good situations/emotional gratification, they encourage group mentality and acceptance.
Well, I've never called JREF a cult, but there is some stifling of the spirit of intellectual inquiry here. And it almost seems cult-like the way that newcomers with paranormal beliefs (or open minds) can expect to be slammed, right out of the gate.

There's also imo often an unfortunate emphasis on conformity and "right thinking" here --for example, I found many of the responses to Two Shanks' recent announcement about becoming a Christian kind of disturbing. Isn't it a bit cult-like to perpetuate an idea of what is (and what is not) "correct thinking" (that means, not just telling someone about the skeptical method, but expecting them to also reach the actual acceptable-to-the-JREF-majority conclusions ?

There is quite a bit of conformity "preached" here on some topics. And I think the "personal slamming" could inhibit the free expression/examination of ideas as well. So...in that respect, it shares some similarities with the cult mentality, imo.

[Suezoled]

I figured Clancie would be ringing in soon, advising she thinks believers are not treated nicely, and if many individual people beleive the same thing, even in an unorgannized manner, it's a form of oppression.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I've never called JREF a cult, but there is some stifling of the spirit of intellectual inquiry here.

As usual, you only make vague accusations. Examples, please?

Originally posted by Clancie
And it almost seems cult-like the way that newcomers with paranormal beliefs (or open minds) can expect to be slammed, right out of the gate.

They are asked for evidence, if they make claims. Right out of the gate.

Originally posted by Clancie
There's also imo often an unfortunate emphasis on conformity and "right thinking" here --for example, I found many of the responses to Two Shanks' recent announcement about becoming a Christian kind of disturbing. Isn't it a bit cult-like to perpetuate an idea of what is (and what is not) "correct thinking" (that means, not just telling someone about the skeptical method, but expecting them to also reach the actual acceptable-to-the-JREF-majority conclusions ?

There is absolutely no emphasis on conformity and "right thinking" here, quite contrary. Here, people from all over the world meet and discuss, well, just about anything. Religion, politics, current events, paranormal claims, skepticism... I think this board is as non-conform as could possibly be.

Originally posted by Clancie
There is quite a bit of conformity "preached" here on some topics. And I think the "personal slamming" could inhibit the free expression/examination of ideas as well. So...in that respect, it shares some similarities with the cult mentality, imo.

Yeah, you have a point here. The "personal slamming" you have done to quite a few members here could inhibit free expression/examination of ideas. Fortunately, it does not.

Are you stifled in any way here, Clancie? If not you, who have been stifled?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I figured Clancie would be ringing in soon, advising she thinks believers are not treated nicely, and if many individual people beleive the same thing, even in an unorgannized manner, it's a form of oppression.

I, for one, would very much like to know who is oppressed, stifled, or in any other way prevented from speaking his/her mind here. I think it is a very serious accusation that need hard evidence.

[Clancie]

Posted by Suezoled

I figured Clancie would be ringing in soon, advising she thinks believers are not treated nicely, and if many individual people beleive the same thing, even in an unorgannized manner, it's a form of oppression.
Suezoled,

Since you don't seem to get the points I make in my posts, would you mind at least not paraphrasing them to make them say things that I've never said?

[Oleron]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I've never called JREF a cult, but there is some stifling of the spirit of intellectual inquiry here. And it almost seems cult-like the way that newcomers with paranormal beliefs (or open minds) can expect to be slammed, right out of the gate.



I agree to an extent. The JREF is not a cult in any way but can be rough on believers.

I think this is partly inevitable as the majority of users are very skeptical and can't be expected to simply accept weird beliefs' without argument.

As a newbie I have noticed that some of the most active and interesting threads are started by believers, especially the more extreme individuals. For example check out Karen Boesens recent thread.

I think it is wrong to come down too hard on these believers (of whatever flavour) because the forum would be a less lively place without them. After all, debate is what we are here for.

[Ignatius]

I wouldn't call it a cult but there are certainly aspects that are cult-like. Any and every group is certainly prone to adopting a herd mentality. There is certainly nothing about the board that would prevent it from becoming a cult, but I wouldn't characterize it as a cult just yet.

To James Randi's credit, he has been personally attacked on this board and has never taken action to stop it (although it is hard to say how much that has to do with indifference to what goes on on this board and how much it is his personal belief in a free marketplace of ideas).

[deBergerac]

Of course everyone is allowed to be here but if someone states something more than a personal belief i.e. knowledge of some sort, it is very likely that they will be asked to provide evidence. This might come as a new experience to some believers and I would hope that senior members of the forum would ask for evidence in a polite manner from these new members.
But I think it is much better to ask people for evidence when they present a claim than to just agree with them

[Ladewig]

Persuasive techniques
Methods, from benign to coercive, used to recruit new followers and reinforce current beliefs.

Deceit
Recruits and followers are not told everything they should know about the leader and the group's inner circle, and particularly disconcerting flaws or potentially embarrassing events or circumstances are covered up.

Go to any cult or semi-cult message board and type in a message claiming that the board's sponsor is a cult. The take out your stopwatch and count the minutes until your post is removed. WWu777's posts (among others) still being here can be considered evidence that JREF is not a cult.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie

Suezoled,

Since you don't seem to get the points I make in my posts, would you mind at least not paraphrasing them to make them say things that I've never said?

Clancie,
Well, I've never called JREF a cult, but there is some stifling of the spirit of intellectual inquiry here. And it almost seems cult-like the way that newcomers with paranormal beliefs (or open minds) can expect to be slammed, right out of the gate.

There's also imo often an unfortunate emphasis on conformity and "right thinking" here --for example, I found many of the responses to Two Shanks' recent announcement about becoming a Christian kind of disturbing. Isn't it a bit cult-like to perpetuate an idea of what is (and what is not) "correct thinking" (that means, not just telling someone about the skeptical method, but expecting them to also reach the actual acceptable-to-the-JREF-majority conclusions ?

There is quite a bit of conformity "preached" here on some topics. And I think the "personal slamming" could inhibit the free expression/examination of ideas as well. So...in that respect, it shares some similarities with the cult mentality, imo.

You said people are stiftled, specifically believers are stifled. You said people pressure others to a certain conformity of thinking at times. These responses, you said, are cult-like.

Those two sentences sum up what you are saying, sans the dancing around.

If I am missing your point please clarify it. Regardless, your posts are subject to interpretation, and to request I not comment on them at all is stifling to my intellectual inquiry.

[Clancie]

Posted by Ladewig

Go to any cult or semi-cult message board and type in a message claiming that the board's sponsor is a cult. The take out your stopwatch and count the minutes until your post is removed. WWu777's posts (among others) still being here can be considered evidence that JREF is not a cult.
If a cult is at the far end of the "open intellectual inquiry" spectrum...and JREF doesn't fit it....is that the only part of the spectrum that one wants to be concerned about and work hard to avoid?
Posted by Suezoled

...to request I not comment on them at all is stifling to my intellectual inquiry.
Again, Suezoled, you're indicating I "requested" something which I did not, in fact, request at all.

I didn't "request you not comment on them (my posts) at all". I requested that you not keep -inaccurately paraphrasing- what I post and indicating that I've said things which I did not say (see the above for -another- example. :rolleyes: ).

[Aoidoi]

We are all individuals!

I'm not

Ssssshhhhhhh!

[/LoB]

[Ladewig]

If a cult is at the far end of the "open intellectual inquiry" spectrum...and JREF doesn't fit it....is that the only part of the spectrum that one wants to be concerned about and work hard to avoid?

I like the idea of a spectrum. I am unsure precisely where to put JREF ( or more accurately the JREF message board) on the continuum, but I am confident that it is not so close to the far end of the spectrum that it can be called a cult. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Is it a cult? No.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Clancie

If a cult is at the far end of the "open intellectual inquiry" spectrum...and JREF doesn't fit it....is that the only part of the spectrum that one wants to be concerned about and work hard to avoid?
[/b]
Again, Suezoled, you're indicating I "requested" something which I did not, in fact, request at all.

I didn't "request you not comment on them (my posts) at all". I requested that you not keep -inaccurately paraphrasing- what I post and indicating that I've said things which I did not say (see the above for -another- example. :rolleyes: ). [/B]

How can I keep from not accurately paraphrasing if I don't learn how to do it by correction? I'm reading it one way. As I said before, correct me if I'm wrong. [insert obnoxious little rolleye smiley Clancie is so fond of using here]

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Clancie
Isn't it a bit cult-like to perpetuate an idea of what is (and what is not) "correct thinking" (that means, not just telling someone about the skeptical method, but expecting them to also reach the actual acceptable-to-the-JREF-majority conclusions ? Ah, but given

1) the scientific/rational method of thought, and
2) the available evidence,

We can conclude that reaching certain conclusions is not valid. We may one day find that the conclusions themselves are valid, but at present there is no rational way people could have reached those conclusions. Therefore, since the scientific method is fairly static and unless they can produce significant new evidence, we conclude that they reached their conclusions without thinking rationally or examining the available evidence.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I've never called JREF a cult, but there is some stifling of the spirit of intellectual inquiry here. And it almost seems cult-like the way that newcomers with paranormal beliefs (or open minds) can expect to be slammed, right out of the gate.

This ignores the positive posts though. For every hardcore JREF'er that might slam a newcomer for extolling a well debated stance already on this board, there are always posters who calmly and politely try and point out why they disagree with the stance, and what those common points are. If people are too thin-skinned to set aside the brusquely worded posts and instead reply to the more level-headed ones, well, then, that's their problem in my opinion.


There's also imo often an unfortunate emphasis on conformity and "right thinking" here --for example, I found many of the responses to Two Shanks' recent announcement about becoming a Christian kind of disturbing. Isn't it a bit cult-like to perpetuate an idea of what is (and what is not) "correct thinking" (that means, not just telling someone about the skeptical method, but expecting them to also reach the actual acceptable-to-the-JREF-majority conclusions ?

In my opinion your concentrating on the minority of opinion in that thread. For the most part as TwoShanks labelled himself as an atheist before, most people were simply curious as to what caused his conversion. This as far as I read was the majority of the sentiment expressed in that thread. There were a few posters with obviously more harsh comments. But to take that thread as an example of being a bit cultish is to highlight the negatives and dismiss the positive comments in that thread. I have to say I disagree with you here.


There is quite a bit of conformity "preached" here on some topics. And I think the "personal slamming" could inhibit the free expression/examination of ideas as well. So...in that respect, it shares some similarities with the cult mentality, imo.
This is my over-riding problem though. Any community by nature will have a level of conformity to it, based upon the majority of the group represented. But there are always extremes. Among skeptics here I think we're well represented among those extremes, and there are many that extoll that nature of open discussion. Is the level of "preaching" and "personal slamming" here worse than it is on other boards? The JREF board does not have to be perfect, but it is much better overall than many other boards I've been to in the past. It seems to me that you want to hold the JREF board to a higher standard than other forums, and if it cannot, and inevitably does not meet that standard well then it might be a tad "cultish" at times. In my opinion you tend to concentrate on the negatives of this board, rather than its positives.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I wouldn't call it a cult but there are certainly aspects that are cult-like. Any and every group is certainly prone to adopting a herd mentality. There is certainly nothing about the board that would prevent it from becoming a cult, but I wouldn't characterize it as a cult just yet.

To James Randi's credit, he has been personally attacked on this board and has never taken action to stop it (although it is hard to say how much that has to do with indifference to what goes on on this board and how much it is his personal belief in a free marketplace of ideas).

You're not a Bright, are you?

Get 'im!!!!

[HarryKeogh]

this is not a cult.

btw, is today "Free Wierd Haircut Day" at the compound?

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
this is not a cult.

btw, is today "Free Wierd Haircut Day" at the compound?

From the avatar, I see you got yours already. :)

cult?
been there, done that, this isnt
P

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Suezoled,

Since you don't seem to get the points I make in my posts, would you mind at least not paraphrasing them to make them say things that I've never said?

They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Oleron
[B]

I agree to an extent. The JREF is not a cult in any way but can be rough on believers.

I think this is partly inevitable as the majority of users are very skeptical and can't be expected to simply accept weird beliefs' without argument.



What arguments? They never make any.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ignatius


To James Randi's credit, he has been personally attacked on this board

Hmmm . . better stop attacking him then.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Ah, but given

1) the scientific/rational method of thought, and
2) the available evidence,

We can conclude that reaching certain conclusions is not valid. We may one day find that the conclusions themselves are valid, but at present there is no rational way people could have reached those conclusions. Therefore, since the scientific method is fairly static and unless they can produce significant new evidence, we conclude that they reached their conclusions without thinking rationally or examining the available evidence. [/B]

But there again you're an idiot who can't think. What a load of cr@p people on here talk :rolleyes:

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.

eh. nevermind.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What arguments? They never make any.


Are you sober now because I want to reply to that.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Are you sober now because I want to reply to that.

Just started drinking

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Just started drinking


Ok. Just in time then.

I find it ultimately unfair from your part even to imply that people have not presented arguments especially when they are discussing with you.

I have seen nice, well written posts addressing the issues you raise with arguments that you have failed to respond to many times.

Claiming that people here do not debate with arguments most of the times, it is like you question our ability in reading comprehension, it is as if you call us idiots.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I wouldn't call it a cult but there are certainly aspects that are cult-like.

Which, please? I don't see any aspects here that could even be remotely considered "cult-like". What I see, with frequency, are common and natural *social interactions*. These things are bound to happen to *any* group, which actually makes me very happy. I'm a skeptic but I'm also a social being, and I don't want those things to be mutually exclusive.

Any and every group is certainly prone to adopting a herd mentality.

Yes, and now and then it happens, but in regard with skeptics, this happens to a lesser extent. Many people here truly *enjoy* being in a minority, and will take that position no matter what. Sometimes they're useful as they offer the other side of the issue.

Also, what some might dismiss as "herd mentality", others might interpret as "the wish of the majority".

I don't know what you're talking about, if you're thinking in anything in specific, nor am I saying this applies to you... but I was having this debate with someone recently, and we concluded that a) sometimes what's regarded as "herd mentality" is just a failure to understand the reasonings reached by a groups, b) it's a way of weakening another group's point, by implying they reached that conclusion through irrational thought processes and c) reluctance in acknowledging the legitimacy of a group's choice. Sometimes most people agree on a issue, and that's a fact - no herd mentality is needed.

There is certainly nothing about the board that would prevent it from becoming a cult, but I wouldn't characterize it as a cult just yet.

There is also nothing to could induce this board to becoming a cult either. It's extremely far from it.

To James Randi's credit, he has been personally attacked on this board and has never taken action to stop it (although it is hard to say how much that has to do with indifference to what goes on on this board and how much it is his personal belief in a free marketplace of ideas).

Well, he publishes anti-Randi letters in his Commentaries. He gets a chance to answer them, though. Here, he never responds to it, so it's even more unfair. My take is that he knows (JREF staff would tell him what was going on with that bothered him) but doesn't care.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Ok. Just in time then.

I find it ultimately unfair from your part even to imply that people have not presented arguments especially when they are discussing with you.

I have seen nice, well written posts addressing the issues you raise with arguments that you have failed to respond to many times.



If I fail to respond to them then they haven't said anything of any worth.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suezoled
In my opinion, JREF is not a cult.

Does that mean we can't have any more orgies? :(

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If I fail to respond to them then they haven't said anything of any worth.

You don't discuss in the spirit of fairness Ian and I am sorry for that. In my humble opinion the times you have responded to the arguements that have been presented to you are very few but yet I thought to use the phrase "most of the times" instead of always in order to give this discussion some essence.

I think that in this forum we are adults and we have the average intelligence. Chasing each other with circular arguments isn't very flattering for anybody.

I avoid such discussions.

Before coming in this forum I have never heard of the issues that have to do with mind, brain, consciousness etc etc etc. Thanks to the issues you raised and the arguments that were presented to you by Paul, Mercutio and Jeff( mostly) I have learned many new things.

I will not start debating you whether those discussions were of some value or not because it's silly.

Having said that, you are invited to have the last word.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You don't discuss in the spirit of fairness Ian and I am sorry for that. In my humble opinion the times you have responded to the arguements that have been presented to you are very few but yet I thought to use the phrase "most of the times" instead of always in order to give this discussion some essence.

I think that in this forum we are adults and we have the average intelligence. Chasing each other with circular arguments isn't very flattering for anybody.

I avoid such discussions.

Before coming in this forum I have never heard of the issues that have to do with mind, brain, consciousness etc etc etc. Thanks to the issues you raised and the arguments that were presented to you by Paul, Mercutio and Jeff( mostly) I have learned many new things.

I will not start debating you whether those discussions were of some value or not because it's silly.

Having said that, you are invited to have the last word.

Burp

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Burp


I will let Clancie reply to that.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Suezoled
In my opinion, JREF is not a cult.
Of course this board is not a cult.




Everyone knows it's really a Kaffee Klatch.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery


Which, please? I don't see any aspects here that could even be remotely considered "cult-like". What I see, with frequency, are common and natural *social interactions*. These things are bound to happen to *any* group, which actually makes me very happy. I'm a skeptic but I'm also a social being, and I don't want those things to be mutually exclusive.

Hi,
The first thing that comes to mind is tendancy not to question authority (Hal), and even to defend the authority when they go back on their word (like when we were promised that mods would only be here to protect against kiddie port and virus).

Now you can certainly argue that these people simply agreed with Hal, but my understanding of skepticism and critical thinking all have the constant questioning of authority as a basic tenant. When you consider the glee with which so many skeptics chimed in during Pirate_Lad's "sick of the whiners" thread, it makes me think that what should be basic tenants of skepticism are being lost to a type of mob mentality.

Someone posted an article to an old experiment here recently that showed how most people will wrongly identify whether lines on a screen are the same length if everyone else around them wrongly identifies them. This is just part of human nature. An understanding that this group is just as prone to the failings of human nature like the herd mentality is a good thing. It is a starting point of seeing how best to deal with it. I rarely if ever see that happening around here.

Another possibly more concrete example would be the way Claus stalks Clancie. Do a search for her last, say, 20 posts and see how many of them have had Claus jump in to harass her. It doesn't matter if it is a question of politics, religion, something in the community forum, etc. To me it is creepy that this happens, but it is even worse that hardly anyone ever calls him on it. Why is that? Can you imagine that in a group this large hardly anybody would say anything about that kind of behavior? Or is it that Clancie is a believer and Claus is a skeptic? That, to me, seems to be the most obvious answer.

I agree with you on the social/skeptic thing. I would not want these things seperated.
[/B][/QUOTE]


Yes, and now and then it happens, but in regard with skeptics, this happens to a lesser extent. Many people here truly *enjoy* being in a minority, and will take that position no matter what. Sometimes they're useful as they offer the other side of the issue.

Also, what some might dismiss as "herd mentality", others might interpret as "the wish of the majority".

I don't know what you're talking about, if you're thinking in anything in specific, nor am I saying this applies to you... but I was having this debate with someone recently, and we concluded that a) sometimes what's regarded as "herd mentality" is just a failure to understand the reasonings reached by a groups, b) it's a way of weakening another group's point, by implying they reached that conclusion through irrational thought processes and c) reluctance in acknowledging the legitimacy of a group's choice. Sometimes most people agree on a issue, and that's a fact - no herd mentality is needed.

Hopefully, I addressed these points above. Let me know if I'm not addressing any of your points.


There is also nothing to could induce this board to becoming a cult either. It's extremely far from it.

I think that calling it a cult would be to overstate my case which is why I have not called it that. I always think of the Ayn Rand cult when this question comes up. This was an organization built on principles of reason and logic, there was no real reason to think that it would ever devolve into a cult, but it did. Why, and what makes THIS group so immune to the same thing? You have a charismatic leader, you meet once a year, you develop strong emotional ties to others in the group and naturally want to protect those people and the ideas to the group. I'm not saying that it WILL happen, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility though. Especially without any formal commitment to the types of principles that may avoid it.


Well, he publishes anti-Randi letters in his Commentaries. He gets a chance to answer them, though. Here, he never responds to it, so it's even more unfair. My take is that he knows (JREF staff would tell him what was going on with that bothered him) but doesn't care.
I've seen him tear up one of those anti-Randi letters during his webcast, which does send a signal to the rest of the group on how to handle dissenters. I have other criticisms of him as well, but I try and keep in mind the positive things he has done and does do. I don't think he pays very much attention to what happens here, but he should get some credit for allowing some of the things that he has (I remember some pretty awful accusations involving children that he was aware of IIRC, but he didn't step in to have anyone banned).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Another possibly more concrete example would be the way Claus stalks Clancie. Do a search for her last, say, 20 posts and see how many of them have had Claus jump in to harass her. It doesn't matter if it is a question of politics, religion, something in the community forum, etc. To me it is creepy that this happens, but it is even worse that hardly anyone ever calls him on it. Why is that? Can you imagine that in a group this large hardly anybody would say anything about that kind of behavior? Or is it that Clancie is a believer and Claus is a skeptic? That, to me, seems to be the most obvious answer.

Excellent idea! Let's see if that is true.

I took the three most recent threads that Clancie has posted in, found the 20 most recent posts of hers and sorted them by time of posting.

The threads were: Moderated Discussions Forum?, JREF (the board) is not a cult, March 2004 Issue of SkepticReport is out. The latter is started by me.

Tally:

03-01-2004 10:30 AM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 03:54 PM
A follow-up question about Schwartz.

03-01-2004 04:29 PM
A follow-up question about bias.

03-01-2004 04:44 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-01-2004 04:56 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:02 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:10 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:20 PM
Nothing from me.

03-02-2004 03:02 PM
Nothing from me.

03-03-2004 02:12 PM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 09:50 AM
I asked her to back up her claims with evidence. She did not respond.

03-04-2004 10:04 AM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-04-2004 10:12 AM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 10:35 AM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 02:16 PM
I asked a general question about who decides what is insulting.

03-02-2004 02:25 PM
I corrected a false allegation from Clancie about SR.

03-04-2004 02:29 PM
She had "not" read what I had explained, so I corrected her.

03-02-2004 03:26 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-02-2004 04:44 PM
I corrected a flat-out lie from Clancie about SR.

03-02-2004 05:51 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

Ignatius, I dare you to find one example among these last 20 posts in these 3 most recent threads where I "jump in" and "harrass" Clance. She addresses me, not the other way around. If I address her without her addressing me first, it is to ask for evidence of her claims, and to correct her lies.

Is that "harrassing"? "Stalking"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



I will let Clancie reply to that.

Emmmm . . no you don't need to Clancie :) I would never burp at you :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Excellent idea! Let's see if that is true.

I took the three most recent threads that Clancie has posted in, found the 20 most recent posts of hers and sorted them by time of posting.

The threads were: Moderated Discussions Forum?, JREF (the board) is not a cult, March 2004 Issue of SkepticReport is out. The latter is started by me.

Tally:

03-01-2004 10:30 AM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 03:54 PM
A follow-up question about Schwartz.

03-01-2004 04:29 PM
A follow-up question about bias.

03-01-2004 04:44 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-01-2004 04:56 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:02 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:10 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:20 PM
Nothing from me.

03-02-2004 03:02 PM
Nothing from me.

03-03-2004 02:12 PM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 09:50 AM
I asked her to back up her claims with evidence. She did not respond.

03-04-2004 10:04 AM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-04-2004 10:12 AM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 10:35 AM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 02:16 PM
I asked a general question about who decides what is insulting.

03-02-2004 02:25 PM
I corrected a false allegation from Clancie about SR.

03-04-2004 02:29 PM
She had "not" read what I had explained, so I corrected her.

03-02-2004 03:26 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-02-2004 04:44 PM
I corrected a flat-out lie from Clancie about SR.

03-02-2004 05:51 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

Ignatius, I dare you to find one example among these last 20 posts in these 3 most recent threads where I "jump in" and "harrass" Clance. She addresses me, not the other way around. If I address her without her addressing me first, it is to ask for evidence of her claims, and to correct her lies.

Is that "harrassing"? "Stalking"?

Claus,

The number of times you mention "Clancie" in your posts is mounting up! :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Claus,

The number of times you mention "Clancie" in your posts is mounting up! :D

Ian, completely missing the point again.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Just like Susan Blackmore !Xx+-Rational-+xX! is able to talk directly to science which tells us materialism is!
“Science tells us that death is the end” (Susan Blackmore)

Go ahead let your delusions hide your from this truth!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Thanz

Everyone knows it's really a Kaffee Klatch.

:D

I'm wondering why the bulletin board can't just be a bulletin board?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Excellent idea! Let's see if that is true.

I took the three most recent threads that Clancie has posted in, found the 20 most recent posts of hers and sorted them by time of posting.

The threads were: Moderated Discussions Forum?, JREF (the board) is not a cult, March 2004 Issue of SkepticReport is out. The latter is started by me.

Tally:

03-01-2004 10:30 AM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 03:54 PM
A follow-up question about Schwartz.

03-01-2004 04:29 PM
A follow-up question about bias.

03-01-2004 04:44 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-01-2004 04:56 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:02 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:10 PM
Nothing from me.

03-01-2004 05:20 PM
Nothing from me.

03-02-2004 03:02 PM
Nothing from me.

03-03-2004 02:12 PM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 09:50 AM
I asked her to back up her claims with evidence. She did not respond.

03-04-2004 10:04 AM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-04-2004 10:12 AM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 10:35 AM
Nothing from me.

03-04-2004 02:16 PM
I asked a general question about who decides what is insulting.

03-02-2004 02:25 PM
I corrected a false allegation from Clancie about SR.

03-04-2004 02:29 PM
She had "not" read what I had explained, so I corrected her.

03-02-2004 03:26 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

03-02-2004 04:44 PM
I corrected a flat-out lie from Clancie about SR.

03-02-2004 05:51 PM
Clancie raised questions about what my policies are regarding SkepticReport, so I answered them.

Ignatius, I dare you to find one example among these last 20 posts in these 3 most recent threads where I "jump in" and "harrass" Clance. She addresses me, not the other way around. If I address her without her addressing me first, it is to ask for evidence of her claims, and to correct her lies.

Is that "harrassing"? "Stalking"?

Claus,

So out of her last 20 posts, you have directly responded to her in about 8 of them (I'll take your word for it that she was asking you a question on three of them, fair enough)? Out of the hundreds of active posters on this board, you dedicate an unbelievable percentage of your posts to her. Why? What about her, "Historical Innacuracies in the Passion" thread?

I don't think you would deny that you go out of your way to attack her. Do you do a search for her posts and respond to them or just when you happen upon them?

Maybe it has always been like this or maybe I am just noticing it more lately, but you seem to respond to her posts whether they are in the community forum, the politics forum or the paranormal forum. I could maybe understand it a little better if it was just in the paranormal forum, but it seems downright obsessive to follow her into every sub-fora to try and fight. I don't see anyone else doing that with the exception of maybe Cynical to Lefevre.

[Clancie]

Posted by Cleopatra

I will let Clancie reply to that.
Me? Why?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, as far as I'm concerned it has, Ignatius. Thank you for noticing, since few seem to. That's why I finally put him on "Ignore"...what was it....six or so months ago?

Wrong. You put me on ignore because you got tired of discussing mediumship.

Originally posted by Clancie
Ian summed up the reason well in the "Cold Demo at TAM2" thread (now on page 2 of this forum, but a very good example of what you're saying, as are most threads that I post to). My threads the last couple of days are a bit out of the norm, because I had some questions about articles and responses to SkepticReport.

But, Clancie...please! If you have questions about SkepticReport, why don't you read what I reply? What is the point of asking questions, if you are not interested in hearing the answers?

Originally posted by Clancie
But whether it relates to Claus or not....whether it relates to paranormal topics or not...he's right there with posts that attack -whatever- I've said.

That is a bald-faced lie. I just proved that you address me far more often than the other way around, without me addressing you first. But I do respond to you, if you ask me something.

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree that of the hundreds of people here, he devotes and inordinate amount of his posting time to me (even putting me down on topics like how to learn Chinese).

Wrong again. I pointed out that you apparently did not know that there were two Chinese: Cantonese and Mandarin.

Originally posted by Clancie
Frankly, I don't get it either.

No comment.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ignatius
So out of her last 20 posts, you have directly responded to her in about 8 of them (I'll take your word for it that she was asking you a question on three of them, fair enough)? Out of the hundreds of active posters on this board, you dedicate an unbelievable percentage of your posts to her. Why?

Whoa, stop for one second here. You are completely missing the point: Clancie addresses me, not the other way around. She asks questions about SR, she raises points about SR. So, I reply.

Originally posted by Ignatius
What about her, "Historical Innacuracies in the Passion" thread?

Now you are moving the goal posts. Your original claim was, that I "harrass" Clancie by following her around, and you pointed to the last 20 of her posts. I proved you wrong.

Originally posted by Ignatius
I don't think you would deny that you go out of your way to attack her. Do you do a search for her posts and respond to them or just when you happen upon them?

I try to keep updated as best as I can. If you notice, I also respond to a lot of other people. T'ai Chi can testify to that.

I do not "attack" anyone here. I "attack" points and claims.

Originally posted by Ignatius
Maybe it has always been like this or maybe I am just noticing it more lately, but you seem to respond to her posts whether they are in the community forum, the politics forum or the paranormal forum. I could maybe understand it a little better if it was just in the paranormal forum, but it seems downright obsessive to follow her into every sub-fora to try and fight. I don't see anyone else doing that with the exception of maybe Cynical to Lefevre.

I don't view the forum as split into different sub-fora. When I look for active threads, I click on the "View new threads" on the Forum frontpage. I often find that subjects are not always discussed in the proper fora.

Hence, I am everywhere.

I see that Clancie has removed the post I just replied to. Too bad. Said is said.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Emmmm . . no you don't need to Clancie :) I would never burp at you :) Ian, you are the proof this is not a cult! Do you honestly think a genuine cult would allow a wild, belligerent, drinking Scots dissident into their midst, even welcome him?

The very fact that you aren't turfed face-down out of the compound every time you get in an argument here (and isn't that ALL the time?) is your proof point.

Also, we encourage pillory.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by shanek


Does that mean we can't have any more orgies? :(

No, no, the orgies are still on. The orgies aren't really affiliated with the JREF Forum, but actually is provided by the EAC as a service to the members of the JREF Forum. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chanileslie
No, no, the orgies are still on. The orgies aren't really affiliated with the JREF Forum, but actually is provided by the EAC as a service to the members of the JREF Forum. :D

EAC? We're having the orgies on the East Australian Current? Won't we drown?

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek


EAC? We're having the orgies on the East Australian Current? Won't we drown? Probably not.

http://www.nelsonbay.com/~gc/AMPW_files/image019.jpg

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Claus,

So out of her last 20 posts, you have directly responded to her in about 8 of them (I'll take your word for it that she was asking you a question on three of them, fair enough)? Out of the hundreds of active posters on this board, you dedicate an unbelievable percentage of your posts to her. Why? What about her, "Historical Innacuracies in the Passion" thread?

I don't think you would deny that you go out of your way to attack her. Do you do a search for her posts and respond to them or just when you happen upon them?

Maybe it has always been like this or maybe I am just noticing it more lately, but you seem to respond to her posts whether they are in the community forum, the politics forum or the paranormal forum. I could maybe understand it a little better if it was just in the paranormal forum, but it seems downright obsessive to follow her into every sub-fora to try and fight. I don't see anyone else doing that with the exception of maybe Cynical to Lefevre.

Actually, all that shows is that Claus and Clancie obviously share similar interests albeit the opposite sides of the spectrum. There are 100's of people who post to this forum, and most of them do I rarely post in the same threads as they do although they are prolific posters - Claus for example. I rarely post in a thread that Claus posts to because Claus and I have dissimilar interests. But there are people who are prolific posters who I also invariably post in the same threads and respond to such as suezoled (sorry suez just using you as an example).

Also, three of the 8 responses were to questions Clancie posed in a thread started by Claus in regards to the Skeptic Report which Claus publishes. I find it interesting that Clancie asks questions of Claus but doesn't bother to read his replies.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by shanek


EAC? We're having the orgies on the East Australian Current? Won't we drown?

No, no, the other EAC - Evil Atheist Conspiracy (not to be confused with the ECA - Evil Conspiracy of Atheists - SPLITTERS).

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


No, no, the other EAC - Evil Atheist Conspiracy (not to be confused with the ECA - Evil Conspiracy of Atheists - SPLITTERS).

The only thing we members of the EAC hate more than theists is the d@mned ECA.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
The only thing we members of the EAC hate more than theists is the d@mned ECA.

I thought we were the ECA?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Wrong again. I pointed out that you apparently did not know that there were two Chinese: Cantonese and Mandarin.


Then you're wrong, because there are way more than just Cantonese and Mandarin.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Then you're wrong, because there are way more than just Cantonese and Mandarin.

I am perfectly aware that there are many dialects in China. However, the two major Chinese languages are Cantonese and Mandarin.

My family in New York are Chinese/Vietnamese, so I ought to know.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Whoa, stop for one second here. You are completely missing the point: Clancie addresses me, not the other way around. She asks questions about SR, she raises points about SR. So, I reply.

Fair enough, when she asks you questions about SR it is perfectly legitimate for you to answer. I don't consider that harassment. I also don't consider it harassment if you call her out on paranormal claims.


Now you are moving the goal posts. Your original claim was, that I "harrass" Clancie by following her around, and you pointed to the last 20 of her posts. I proved you wrong.

Admittedly, I just threw out the "20 posts" idea, it could have been 100, it is an example not my main point. I don't read everything that Clancie or anyone else posts for that matter, but you certainly didn't "prove me wrong". You're focusing on this 20 posts thing in order to ignore my overall point (that you are behaving like a bully towards Clancie). You DID initiate the conversation on the majority of the exchanges even within those 20, correct? I don't see Clancie even attempting to talk to you outside of paranormal subjects, but I do see you trying to initiate arguments with her.


I try to keep updated as best as I can. If you notice, I also respond to a lot of other people. T'ai Chi can testify to that.

I do not "attack" anyone here. I "attack" points and claims.

I don't view the forum as split into different sub-fora. When I look for active threads, I click on the "View new threads" on the Forum frontpage. I often find that subjects are not always discussed in the proper fora.

Hence, I am everywhere.

I see that Clancie has removed the post I just replied to. Too bad. Said is said.

You follow Clancie around because you have a specific beef (I know you like that term) with her. Do you deny that? Do you ever do a search specifically for Clancies posts? I don't visit the paranormal threads very often anymore, but I do notice that outside of there you seem to take every opportunity to fight with her. I see this as bullying.

Address the subject directly. I can't believe that you would deny that the problem you have is specifically with Clancie. Do you really believe that it just happens to be her that receives the majority of your responses? The "Passion" thread was a perfect example (which I suspect is why you avoided adressing it). Several people made the same points she did, but you sought her out to argue with.

Why can't you admit that you have a problem with her instead of pretending that you are just a detached observer that "attacks points and claims"? Why Clancie specifically?

I would not enjoy this board at all if somebody that didn't agree with my posts in, says, PCE&H so they decided to try and fight with me on every other topic. It is even worse when you do it because this is a skeptic board and you are one of the more respected skeptics here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Admittedly, I just threw out the "20 posts" idea, it could have been 100, it is an example not my main point. I don't read everything that Clancie or anyone else posts for that matter, but you certainly didn't "prove me wrong". You're focusing on this 20 posts thing in order to ignore my overall point (that you are behaving like a bully towards Clancie). You DID initiate the conversation on the majority of the exchanges even within those 20, correct?

Not correct. Clancie asked me questions, I replied.

I proved that your "20 posts" idea did not show that I "harrassed" Clancie. Correct?

Originally posted by Ignatius
I don't see Clancie even attempting to talk to you outside of paranormal subjects, but I do see you trying to initiate arguments with her.

Yes, Clancie talks to me, inasmuch as she asks questions e.g. about SkepticReport, which I - naturally - answers. She doesn't want to talk with me, which is rather silly, given that she is here to discuss, not find evidence. Seems her idea of debate is one-way.

Originally posted by Ignatius
You follow Clancie around because you have a specific beef (I know you like that term) with her. Do you deny that? Do you ever do a search specifically for Clancies posts? I don't visit the paranormal threads very often anymore, but I do notice that outside of there you seem to take every opportunity to fight with her. I see this as bullying.

Yes, I deny following Clancie around. I would like to see evidence of your claim.

Originally posted by Ignatius
Address the subject directly. I can't believe that you would deny that the problem you have is specifically with Clancie. Do you really believe that it just happens to be her that receives the majority of your responses? The "Passion" thread was a perfect example (which I suspect is why you avoided adressing it). Several people made the same points she did, but you sought her out to argue with.

Let me make one thing clear: I do not have a problem with Clancie. Clancie has a problem with me. I am not the one avoiding her, nor do I seek her out.

Originally posted by Ignatius
Why can't you admit that you have a problem with her instead of pretending that you are just a detached observer that "attacks points and claims"? Why Clancie specifically?

Again, I do not have a "problem" with Clancie, and there is nothing special about her.

Originally posted by Ignatius
I would not enjoy this board at all if somebody that didn't agree with my posts in, says, PCE&H so they decided to try and fight with me on every other topic. It is even worse when you do it because this is a skeptic board and you are one of the more respected skeptics here.

I do not fight with Clancie on every other topic. Please provide evidence of your claims.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am perfectly aware that there are many dialects in China. However, the two major Chinese languages are Cantonese and Mandarin.


Thanks for the clarification, but I could only have replied to what you actually said, which was: "Wrong again. I pointed out that you apparently did not know that there were two Chinese: Cantonese and Mandarin."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Thanks for the clarification, but I could only have replied to what you actually said, which was: "Wrong again. I pointed out that you apparently did not know that there were two Chinese: Cantonese and Mandarin."

Fine, whatever.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I do not fight with Clancie on every other topic.

Please provide evidence of your claim.

[Ignatius]

Second time I have brought up the "Passion" thread as a very specific example, second time that you have conveniently ignored it and then pretended that I was not giving you "evidence". Why?

Now that we have gotten to know each other, can I start calling you "dude" now?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Please provide evidence of your claim.

Do pay attention. I don't have time for your juvenile posts, T'ai Chi.

I replied to Ignatius' claim that I do fight with Clancie on every topic. Let's see his evidence first.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Second time I have brought up the "Passion" thread as a very specific example, second time that you have conveniently ignored it and then pretended that I was not giving you "evidence". Why?

I have not "ignored" anything.

That is your evidence that I fight with Clancie on "every" topic?

One thread? Try again.

Originally posted by Ignatius
Now that we have gotten to know each other, can I start calling you "dude" now?

Not if you want me to respond to you.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.
Ian, if there has ever been a blatantly dishonest mischaracterization I have ever seen from this board, your comment above has to be it. If your point of your post was merely to provide an ironic example of intellectually dishonest argumentation with distortion and fabrication facts, then you've made your point quite well.

Calm yourself down, think of kittens, leave your petty little prejudices somewhere in the back of your freezer where they cant bother you (or more appropriately, where they can bother me).

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I have not "ignored" anything.

That is your evidence that I fight with Clancie on "every" topic?

One thread? Try again.

How many topics would satisfy you if I actually spent the time to do this (or got someone else to do it)? Would you change your behavior at all if I did?

Why not start with the first one, "the Passion"?


Not if you want me to respond to you.

You used to have a sense of humor, dude.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Suezoled But my definition of cult may be rather limited. [/B]

So many cults, not enough kool-aid

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ignatius
How many topics would satisfy you if I actually spent the time to do this (or got someone else to do it)? Would you change your behavior at all if I did?

How many? "Every" other topic that Clancie has posted on, of course. What did you mean by "every" other topic, if not "every" other topic? What does "every" mean to you?

Go make a list of "every" other topic Clancie has posted on, then point out just how often I "jump in" and "harrass" her. I did your work for you, when you claimed that I did it with her last 20 posts, I am not going to do it again.

Originally posted by Ignatius
Why not start with the first one, "the Passion"?

Because that is not evidence that I "jump in" and "harrass" her on "every" other topic she posts on.

I am waiting.

[Kopji]

Some discussions remind me of the Uncle Remus 'tar baby', maybe that would make a good skeptic mascot. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ian, if there has ever been a blatantly dishonest mischaracterization I have ever seen from this board, your comment above has to be it.



I'm afraid it's perfectly true. Extraordinary, but true I'm afraid

{shrugs}

Sorry.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Do pay attention. I don't have time for your juvenile posts, T'ai Chi.


Apparently you do.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Clancie

Me? Why?

Since you are so concerned about the way we behave here I was hoping that you would bring him in order. Of course you were not obliged to answer to Ian!I was hoping that in the context of the fair discussion you would make a comment about Ian's behavior and what sort of responses he triggers.Maybe you think that it's ok for somebody to behave the way Ian does, maybe not. We will never know since you never comment on this kind of behavior.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.

Oh boy, that's rich coming from you Ian :D

[Cleopatra]

Ignatius.

Let's say that we meet in this skeptic board and you are particularly interested in Middle Eastern politics and of course we start to discuss and get engaged in every debate that appears in this forum.

You find me posting inaccurate information, you find me posting opinions that I cannot back-up with reasonable arguments or you find me supporting my ideas based on facts that have been proven wrong or different that we have originally thought in the past.

You correct me once. I insist. You correct me twice. I insist and I start becoming irritated with you. You ask me to back-up my claims with proof. I don't and I take a break from the forum for a week and when I return I find another thread on this very topic and I post again arguments and opinion that I was asked to prove to the previous threads but I haven't.

Wouldn't you came after me in the new thread to remind me that I repeat claims that I have failed to prove in the past?

Let's say that this goes on for months.

In the mean time you discover that although here I post as a moderate Israeli and I accuse those that they don't apply skepticism in the ME Politics, in another forum, let's say "The Forum of the Fan Club of Ariel Sharon" I post different things. I jump on the neck of those who dare to question his policy and I accept a dirty war on those who apply criticism on his policy, you included. For example when somebody starts a dirty war against you I don't say anything, I don't ask the fellow posters to apply some skepticism, I support this war with my silence.

You, Ignatius who are really interested in the subject we discuss, you publish an on line issue " The Chronicles of Middle East" when you host as an editor various articles of people.

I who have been caught, lying, being double faced, supporting questionable debating tactics with my silence( don't forget!!! In the other forum people say that you left USA and you moved to Greece because here the society is more tolerant towards the pedophiles) come here and accuse you for being obsessed with me for wanting to show people that I have no arguments and that in other places I post different things.

And apart from that I try to belittle your efforts in "The Chronicles of Middle East" and upset you by posting every sort of stupidity that passes through my mind. Be careful!!! I do not start threads to discuss about the topics that you host in your magazine, I blame you and only you for the articles I find weak although you are not the one who has composed them, I wait impatiently for the first days of each month to come to start the same silly old story.

And all that for what?

Because you dared to ask me to support my claims. Because you dared to warn people that in other forums I have posted different things and I am not the skeptic I appear to be here. Because you dare to apply some skepticism.

How nice. How nice indeed.

If this is not intellectual terrorism what the hell it is?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


They always do that. They can't win an argument honestly so they simply distort, or even totally fabricate, what the other person says and attack that.
You mean like attacking the same straw man 10 times, despite having it pointed out that it's a straw man 8 times. Oh wait, that wasn't a skeptic, was it? :D

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But there again you're an idiot who can't think. What a load of cr@p people on here talk :rolleyes:

Why are you still here Ian?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Skeptics have good reason to dismiss lie detector tests! We’re opposed to this because skeptics with our immense intelligence are the only ones able to correctly judge what is true and false not some machine!

[Jeff Corey]

This wipe is getting almost as tedious as II.

[Ignatius]

Clancie,

Would you mind looking up and posting some examples of what I am talking about? You may want to even start a new thread and list a bunch in that thread, then every time he does it you can add to that thread. That may act as a deterrent to him in the future (I would do it, but I really dread the idea of wading through a lot of threads and copying and pasting. I'm quite lazy and you have a bit more of a stake in this than me).

Originally posted by CFLarsen


How many? "Every" other topic that Clancie has posted on, of course. What did you mean by "every" other topic, if not "every" other topic? What does "every" mean to you?

Go make a list of "every" other topic Clancie has posted on, then point out just how often I "jump in" and "harrass" her. I did your work for you, when you claimed that I did it with her last 20 posts, I am not going to do it again.

Because that is not evidence that I "jump in" and "harrass" her on "every" other topic she posts on.

I am waiting.

You disappoint me, Claus. I've characterized it several different ways and you choose to jump on my hyperbole of "every". This is to your advantage since it distracts from my point.

I fully expected that when this conversation started, you would defend your actions by explaining why you thought it was ok or maybe even by saying that she does it too. Instead, you pretend that it doesn't happen and that you have no personal grievance against Clancie. This is simply dishonest. I'm beginning to suspect that you are so emotionally involved in the subject that it clouds your thinking. I have to admit that I have lost some respect for you.

I have what may be a solution. Clancie could start a thread to collect posts where you come in and try and pick a fight with her. If I see you harassing her on topics not involving the paranormal, I will jump in and harass you. That way, if you are not doing this (as you claim) there will be no harm done because there will be no reason to ever add to that thread or for me to step in. If you are doing it (as I claim) then maybe it will become more obvious to you. Fair?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ignatius.

Let's say that we meet in this skeptic board and you are particularly interested in Middle Eastern politics and of course we start to discuss and get engaged in every debate that appears in this forum.

You find me posting inaccurate information, you find me posting opinions that I cannot back-up with reasonable arguments or you find me supporting my ideas based on facts that have been proven wrong or different that we have originally thought in the past.

You correct me once. I insist. You correct me twice. I insist and I start becoming irritated with you. You ask me to back-up my claims with proof. I don't and I take a break from the forum for a week and when I return I find another thread on this very topic and I post again arguments and opinion that I was asked to prove to the previous threads but I haven't.

Wouldn't you came after me in the new thread to remind me that I repeat claims that I have failed to prove in the past?

Let's say that this goes on for months.

In the mean time you discover that although here I post as a moderate Israeli and I accuse those that they don't apply skepticism in the ME Politics, in another forum, let's say "The Forum of the Fan Club of Ariel Sharon" I post different things. I jump on the neck of those who dare to question his policy and I accept a dirty war on those who apply criticism on his policy, you included. For example when somebody starts a dirty war against you I don't say anything, I don't ask the fellow posters to apply some skepticism, I support this war with my silence.

You, Ignatius who are really interested in the subject we discuss, you publish an on line issue " The Chronicles of Middle East" when you host as an editor various articles of people.

I who have been caught, lying, being double faced, supporting questionable debating tactics with my silence( don't forget!!! In the other forum people say that you left USA and you moved to Greece because here the society is more tolerant towards the pedophiles) come here and accuse you for being obsessed with me for wanting to show people that I have no arguments and that in other places I post different things.

And apart from that I try to belittle your efforts in "The Chronicles of Middle East" and upset you by posting every sort of stupidity that passes through my mind. Be careful!!! I do not start threads to discuss about the topics that you host in your magazine, I blame you and only you for the articles I find weak although you are not the one who has composed them, I wait impatiently for the first days of each month to come to start the same silly old story.

And all that for what?

Because you dared to ask me to support my claims. Because you dared to warn people that in other forums I have posted different things and I am not the skeptic I appear to be here. Because you dare to apply some skepticism.

How nice. How nice indeed.

If this is not intellectual terrorism what the hell it is?

Cleopatra,

I have already stated that I could understand it a little more when the subject is related to the paranormal (I know they have a history of going back and forth on that subject). Do you think it would be appropriate (in the very slanted scenerio that you described) to then follow me into the community forum and other unrelated subjects to try and intimidate me and make sure that
I felt unwelcome?

But "intellectual terrorism"? For some reason that phrase made me chuckle. I think you may be overstating YOUR case a bit.:)

[hammegk]

Back on topic, I think the only cult here is called Hal's Pals.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by hammegk
Back on topic, I think the only cult here is called Hal's Pals.

We can start a new one called Hammegk's Heroes.

[CFLarsen]

Ignatius,

I would much rather prefer that you provide evidence of your own claims, instead of letting Clancie do it for you.

It would also be nice if you could refrain from calling me "dishonest", just because you have not been able to back up your claims. It's not my fault, you know.

Opening a new thread to collect new posts does not say anything about what has happened. Which was what your claim was about. It also serves no purpose to start harrassing each other.

I take it you have given up trying to provide evidence of your claims. Is this correct?

Why is Cleopatras scenario "slanted"? She merely turns the tables.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Cleopatra,

Do you think it would be appropriate (in the very slanted scenerio that you described) to then follow me into the community forum and other unrelated subjects to try and intimidate me and make sure that
I felt unwelcome?

No it wouldn't be appropriate but then why should I expect my mistakes to be always accepted and forgiven and your human reaction to be condemned by the whole community?

In my hypothetical scenario who sounds hyperbolic but yet it's not-- the community constantly asks you not to be a super human skeptic and remember that you are an ordinary person and yet when you behave like an ordinary person, when you make a mistake because you are "up to here" you are asked to apologize about it.

Quite harsh, don't you think?

But "intellectual terrorism"? For some reason that phrase made me chuckle. I think you may be overstating YOUR case a bit.:)

Hmmm. Believe me that I though a lot before using this phrase but I think that it's the only appropriate. In my hypothetical scenario the behaviors that "The Chronicles of Middle East" create consitute intellectual terrorism. Not to mention the unspeakable personal attacks and accusations.

One more thing. Maybe I am wrong about that but this is an opinion of an outsider. USA is a strange country, people have many freedoms but they have a President who communicates with God to take his decisions.

I am not an atheist and sometimes I am disturbed by some reactions here but then when my head cools ( as we say here) I realize that it's hard to be an atheist and a free thinker in the States.

People feel nice when they meet people who think alike, they relax and I don't know about you but when I meet with my friends that we think alike and we have the same basic beliefs we say a couple of stupids things. We all need a community to help us "heal" the hits our pride and dignity suffers during the day.

When I realize that somebody who posts something silly about theists and religions might have been humiliated the very morning in his office because of a plant he grows--for example- then I chill-out.After all the stupidity is virtual but the incident he experienced in his every day life very real.

hammegk.

You have a point but allow me to ask you to consider the reasons that lead to the creation of "Hal's Pals". :)

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ignatius,

I would much rather prefer that you provide evidence of your own claims, instead of letting Clancie do it for you.

Why would it possibly matter to you who does the legwork? Slogging through all kinds of posts that I am less familiar with than Clancie is a chore that I don't want to bother with, especially if someone that is closer to the subject at hand will do it. If she will not, it is fair to ask me to.


It would also be nice if you could refrain from calling me "dishonest", just because you have not been able to back up your claims. It's not my fault, you know.

My "claim" has not been refuted. You're very nitpicky at selecting fairly insignificant portions of my posts so that you can ignore the larger issue (and there have been several specific questions that you have also ignored). That you have some personal grudge against Clancie and follow her around to pick fights with her. I apologize for calling you dishonest though.


Opening a new thread to collect new posts does not say anything about what has happened. Which was what your claim was about. It also serves no purpose to start harrassing each other.


Now what possible harm could it do if you are not doing precisely what I have said you were doing? I wont be harassing you if you are not harassing her. Why wouldn't you agree to that if you had not intention of doing it to her in the future?

[Ignatius]

Cleopatra,

Actually, I do hold skeptics to a higher standard. Maybe you think this is unfair, but I am consistant about it. I am an atheist and it irks me much more to see other atheists being abusive or bullying to Christians. I'm a liberal and I expect more out of liberals than I do conservatives.

There is also the minority viewpoint to consider. There are many, many more skeptics on this board than believers so that makes it much more prone to the "tyranny of the majority". I have less of a problem with people being abusive to II, because II is so often abuse to them (I have to admit that it still bothers me a little, though). Clancie, at least in the forums that I follow, has handled herself in a pretty good manner. I don't like to see her or anyone else for that matter bullied.

"Intellectual terrorism" still cracks me up, though!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Why would it possibly matter to you who does the legwork? Slogging through all kinds of posts that I am less familiar with than Clancie is a chore that I don't want to bother with, especially if someone that is closer to the subject at hand will do it. If she will not, it is fair to ask me to.

If you are so unfamiliar with the posts, how can you claim what you do?

Originally posted by Ignatius
My "claim" has not been refuted. You're very nitpicky at selecting fairly insignificant portions of my posts so that you can ignore the larger issue (and there have been several specific questions that you have also ignored). That you have some personal grudge against Clancie and follow her around to pick fights with her. I apologize for calling you dishonest though.

Apology accepted. However, your claim has not been proven - until then, it makes no sense saying that your claim has not been "refuted". That it hasn't been "refuted" does not mean it is true.

Originally posted by Ignatius
Now what possible harm could it do if you are not doing precisely what I have said you were doing? I wont be harassing you if you are not harassing her. Why wouldn't you agree to that if you had not intention of doing it to her in the future?

Harm? What good does it do to have a thread solely meant for "harrassing"?

Take your juvenile suggestion and put it where the sun don't shine. Find some evidence of your claims instead.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Ignatius
Cleopatra,

Actually, I do hold skeptics to a higher standard. Maybe you think this is unfair, but I am consistant about it. I am an atheist and it irks me much more to see other atheists being abusive or bullying to Christians. I'm a liberal and I expect more out of liberals than I do conservatives.
So if you're a vegetarian, a vegetarian has to hold themself to a higher standard than an omnivore? If you're a libertarian, you expect libertarians to hold themselves to a higher standard than other politcal parties? Basically, if you yourself are something, you hold people to being better because you think you're better? Am I reading this right?

There is also the minority viewpoint to consider. There are many, many more skeptics on this board than believers so that makes it much more prone to the "tyranny of the majority". I have less of a problem with people being abusive to II, because II is so often abuse to them (I have to admit that it still bothers me a little, though). Clancie, at least in the forums that I follow, has handled herself in a pretty good manner. I don't like to see her or anyone else for that matter bullied.

"Intellectual terrorism" still cracks me up, though!

The minority viewpoint or the presentation of the viewpoint? It seems Interesting Ian gets slammed for being abusive, not just being a minority. Not all minority opinion is slammed. Impractical people, as well as abusive ones, seem to be treated somewhat harshly though. Still, one can't be accused of favoritism; if someone is wrong, they are wrong, and they are corrected, even with fervor.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Originally posted by Clancie

Me? Why?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cleopatra

Since you are so concerned about the way we behave here I was hoping that you would bring him in order.[/B]

LOL Yes Clancie should bring me to order . . .erm :confused:

Cleopatra, you said I could have the last word, so I said "burp".

It was a joke! :eek:

Dear me.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


LOL Yes Clancie should bring me to order . . .erm :confused:

Cleopatra, you said I could have the last word, so I said "burp".

It was a joke! :eek:

Dear me.

uh huh. Classic sign of the abuser. "I wasn't seriously saying degrading/belittling things mocking your position and dignity. It's a joke. you're supposed to know that without me telling you even though I have a past history of being nasty to folks."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
This wipe is getting almost as tedious as II.

But I'm still the supreme number one irritant to the skeptics? :D

Sorry Towelie, you need to put more work into it ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I'm still the supreme number one irritant to the skeptics? :D

I am not aware that anyone - least of all you - is an "irritant to the skeptics".

Is that really how you see yourself?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am not aware that anyone - least of all you - is an "irritant to the skeptics".


Please provide evidence that you are not aware that anyone, least of all Ian, is "an irritant to the skeptics".

[Clancie]

First, Ignatius, thank you so much. I so appreciate your efforts, and Claus's posting behavior has affected me exactly as you said--and not only on Paranormal topics, but in every forum I post to. It is nice of you to "put your neck out" on my behalf when there will be absolutely no benefit for you at all in doing so. In fact, possibly just the opposite.

Thank you for making the point and offering suggestions for an "Intervention", lol. But, frankly, re: "looking up and posting numerous past examples", I respectfully request that you do not bother to play this game with Claus. It is one of the many ways he will interact with you (if you let him) in a way that just ratchets up the noise to signal ratio tremendously and it will continue until -you- give up and admit defeat. (Meanwhile, you'll be doing all that work to post and find examples and respond to what he's saying and make corrections to it and then respond again and again and....finally you realize its taking an awful lot of time and effort and no one else has the slightest interest in what you two are arguing about. .

He will never, ever agree that what you wrote about the way he posts to me was right. Please, don't even waste a minute more of your time trying to argue it to him. (And he will also always have the last word--if you're lucky enough to get it to end).

You've shared your opinion and you don't have to spend precious time backing it up at all, any more than Suezoled or Chanileslie have to spend time finding lots of post to back up their point of view about past discussions he and I have had. Its a matter of opinion. I have mine. He has his.


You may want to even start a new thread and list a bunch in that thread, then every time he does it you can add to that thread
That's a possibility, but it seems too easy to backfire on me (If I started a thread about myself and how I feel that Claus hounds and attacks me here it wouldn't be too long before I'd be taken to task for "wasting bandwidth" or be told to "settle it through PMs and not keep disrupting the community with the petty bickering." And, these criticisms would be exactly right! lol

Posted by Ignatius
Clancie could start a thread to collect (future) posts where you come in and try and pick a fight with her. If I see you harassing her on topics not involving the paranormal, I will jump in and harass you. That way, if you are not doing this (as you claim) there will be no harm done because there will be no reason to ever add to that thread or for me to step in. If you are doing it (as I claim) then maybe it will become more obvious to you. Fair
Well, I like your idea of testing to see if there is a continuing pattern and then pointing it out to him (for "educational/self awareness/productivity" purposes).

I won't start a thread, but I think if I just start limiting my posts to the other forums (especially to P, CE & H) it might be a good way to observe the pattern.

My views are just one of so many similar ones over there that it will be interesting to see if Claus still singles me out to attack and argue with.

I'll tidy up a bit here (the Cold Demo thread then...I'm off to P,CE & H (where my interests lie more now anyway). Should be an interesting--even a fun--experiment! Thank you so much for suggesting it! :)

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Please provide evidence that you are not aware that anyone, least of all Ian, is "an irritant to the skeptics".

What a silly thing to ask.

[CFLarsen]

Valmorian,

It's just T'ai Chi, thinking he can take swipes at me by emulating me. It is just his juvenile attempt at "getting even" with me.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Valmorian

What a silly thing to ask.

I'm glad you agree Valarie, because these are like some of Claus' questions.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

hammegk.

You have a point but allow me to ask you to consider the reasons that lead to the creation of "Hal's Pals". :)

All cults have some purpose and rationale. Some of us require more than others before we mob up with strangers on bbses. :(

[Sundog]

Originally posted by hammegk


All cults have some purpose and rationale. Some of us require more than others before we mob up with strangers on bbses. :(

Whoof.

Hammy, sometimes you hit the nail right on the head.

[Ignatius]

Clancie,

I do think one of us is obligated now to show some examples. I understand that it might not make a difference to Claus, but it probably would to other observers.

I've noticed it in threads lately, I don't have a photographic memory so I don't remember all of them or where they were. If you do not go through the trouble (and I hope you will) I will do so when I get time tommorow.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm glad you agree Valarie, because these are like some of Claus' questions.

T'ai Chi, "like" does not mean "equal to".

What you are forgetting - or, more likely, omitting - is context. Simply asking questions, like you have been doing for the past day or so, does not mean that you are proving anything else than you being childish. Getting "even".

Originally posted by Ignatius
I do think one of us is obligated now to show some examples. I understand that it might not make a difference to Claus, but it probably would to other observers.

Do you not understand English? I have made it perfectly, utterly and blindingly clear that I would like for you to show evidence - not just "some examples" - of your claims.

Originally posted by Ignatius
I've noticed it in threads lately, I don't have a photographic memory so I don't remember all of them or where they were. If you do not go through the trouble (and I hope you will) I will do so when I get time tommorow.

I find it extremely interesting that you can claim what you did, without having the slightest idea where to find evidence for it.

I am (still) waiting.

[voidx]

...walks in...sticks fork in thread...leaves...

[Clancie]

Posted by Ignatius

Clancie,

I do think one of us is obligated now to show some examples. I understand that it might not make a difference to Claus, but it probably would to other observers.
Sorry, I disagree on both counts. The posts are all publicly viewable, in the threads where we post. I think its either noticeable to others or it isn't. T'ai Chi must have noticed it, because he started a count of how many times Claus posts to or about me (its on the last few pages in the "Cold Reading Demo" thread)--since Claus has the unique perspective that my posts show an obsession with him.

No, I've been down this kind of road with Claus before (its one reason I don't respond to his "lists of questions", because they lack context) and, as I say, it will only take a lot of time to do what you're suggesting...waste a lot of energy...elicit a lot of criticism of you for getting into it at all (trust me on this one)....and after all that, not accomplish the goal because, as I say, people either see it or not.

The other problem, of course, is that I have him on "Ignore" and to do as you're suggesting, I'd have to, ironically, read his posts. Then, he'd just gloat about me not having him on "Ignore"...use the thread to support his idea that I'm "obsessed" with him :rolleyes:.....

Trust me, Ignatius, dealing with him like this isn't worth the effort and won't accomplish the desired goal.

I'm convinced that the best thing for me to do is just stick with the other forums for a while and see what he does regarding my posts there, then point out his pattern if the one I expect to see still emerges. (If not...hallelujah! )

Don't let him goad you. He's very good at it. Pointing it out to him from now on, as it occurs in the context of discussion at other forums, would be a much more effective (and less tiring) way.

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Ignatius

The first thing that comes to mind is tendancy not to question authority (Hal), and even to defend the authority when they go back on their word (like when we were promised that mods would only be here to protect against kiddie port and virus).

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Hal was questioned in each and every decision he made, and very few people "automatically" sided with him. I suspect those people didn't really care one way or the other and just wanted to move on. People did challenge him - then they were offered explanations, which most accepted. Some didn't. That's not wrong, of course. I still fail to see cult mentality here. If an action/explanation seems right to the majority, is it fair to label it "herd mentality"?

One of the Brazilian skeptic mailing list I participated in had very strong moderation. I didn't find it adequate for me, so I left a few months later (I questioned them, sure, but I lost, even then I tried to stay, but lost the gusto for it quickly). What amazed me is that the vast majority of people didn't care if their posts were edited even for spelling mistakes! I found that outrageous. But when moderation grew tighter, out of 104 members, very few complained, a couple left.

In that context, the decision made sense for the majority of people - no one wanted to have their email inbox cluttered by idle chitchat - and the shortcomings of it (the possibility of having it edited upon a single person's whim) was perceived as a necessary evil. What remains is that while it caused some trouble in the beginning, those skeptics accepted it. Well, they did. No, there wasn't any charismatic leader, on the contrary, our admin was a mixture of Diamond and BillHoyt, if you catch my drift.

Now you can certainly argue that these people simply agreed with Hal, but my understanding of skepticism and critical thinking all have the constant questioning of authority as a basic tenant. When you consider the glee with which so many skeptics chimed in during Pirate_Lad's "sick of the whiners" thread, it makes me think that what should be basic tenants of skepticism are being lost to a type of mob mentality.

I don't feel like reopening that can of worms, but if I recall correctly, other issues were being discussed, which had nothing to do with unwillingness to question authority: the involvement of personal matters and what some felt to be a disproportionate emphasis on the matter of pruning. It wasn't a matter of "you're evil because you're questioning Hal" but rather "why do you even care", "chill", "don't you have anything better to do than always question Hal about everything", "get a life".

Someone posted an article to an old experiment here recently that showed how most people will wrongly identify whether lines on a screen are the same length if everyone else around them wrongly identifies them. This is just part of human nature. An understanding that this group is just as prone to the failings of human nature like the herd mentality is a good thing. It is a starting point of seeing how best to deal with it. I rarely if ever see that happening around here.[b]

I see your point. What I see here, sometimes, is the escalating of a certain feeling. So, if one bashes user A, someone else will bash some more, and all of a sudden it's ok to offend user A more and more. I don't like that. Ok, maybe user A is 100% moron, but I dislike that crescendo of ad hominens which spring forth once the first move is made. Even then, voices defending said users will be raised, although it might take long. At some point, the radicalism is gone and some sort of balance is achieved.

[b]Another possibly more concrete example would be the way Claus stalks Clancie. Do a search for her last, say, 20 posts and see how many of them have had Claus jump in to harass her. It doesn't matter if it is a question of politics, religion, something in the community forum, etc. To me it is creepy that this happens, but it is even worse that hardly anyone ever calls him on it. Why is that? Can you imagine that in a group this large hardly anybody would say anything about that kind of behavior? Or is it that Clancie is a believer and Claus is a skeptic? That, to me, seems to be the most obvious answer.

I recall quite a few people calling them on it, urging them to just ignore each other. However, both deny being obsessed and throw all the blame on the other. Which of them is right... that's another subject. But they have been called to it. I haven't seen any results from that, but still...

Why, and what makes THIS group so immune to the same thing? You have a charismatic leader, you meet once a year, you develop strong emotional ties to others in the group and naturally want to protect those people and the ideas to the group. I'm not saying that it WILL happen, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility though. Especially without any formal commitment to the types of principles that may avoid it.

Commitment, what do you mean? I don't know if I understand you but, as free thinkers, some skeptics might find it hard to commit to anything of real importance.

[Clancie]

Posted by Luciana Nery

I recall quite a few people calling them on it, urging them to just ignore each other. However, both deny being obsessed and throw all the blame on the other. Which of them is right... that's another subject.
There's my point, Ignatius. Please, don't bother documenting the past with the idea of convincing people. It just will waste your time. Much better to point out future events.
But they have been called to it. I haven't seen any results from that, but still...
The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

He, on the other hand, continues to post to or about me on a near-daily basis, often several times each day, and even at non-Paranormal forums. If the situation were reversed, and I was the one following him around, criticizing what he said even though he made it clear he had me on "Ignore", I think people would say that I stalked him. I actually have little doubt that they would.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

T'ai Chi, "like" does not mean "equal to".
[/b[

I never said it did mean equal to, now did I? You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth, now would you?

[b]
Getting "even".


Glad to see your not faking a quote anymore now that I corrected you.


Do you not understand English?


Considering we've been talking in English this whole time, uh, yeah.


I have made it perfectly, utterly and blindingly clear that I would like for you to show evidence - not just "some examples" - of your claims.


You show evidence, not just some examples, of your own claims, sparky. Specifically that videotapes make the hit rate increase, and that psi effects decrease with study quality. Ready...set....go!!!

Any time you're ready. Try not to get distracted and talk about Clancie.


I am (still) waiting.

See above.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think its either noticeable to others or it isn't.

It's not about about something being "noticeable". It's about evidence.

Originally posted by Clancie
T'ai Chi must have noticed it, because he started a count of how many times Claus posts to or about me (its on the last few pages in the "Cold Reading Demo" thread)--since Claus has the unique perspective that my posts show an obsession with him.

First, it's not just my "unique perspective". Second, T'ai Chi's analysis was wrong.

Originally posted by Clancie
The other problem, of course, is that I have him on "Ignore" and to do as you're suggesting, I'd have to, ironically, read his posts. Then, he'd just gloat about me not having him on "Ignore"...use the thread to support his idea that I'm "obsessed" with him :rolleyes:.....

But you do not have me on ignore, Clancie. That's the whole point.

Originally posted by Clancie
Trust me, Ignatius, dealing with him like this isn't worth the effort and won't accomplish the desired goal.

No, I guess throwing out accusations without backing them up with evidence is far easier...

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm convinced that the best thing for me to do is just stick with the other forums for a while and see what he does regarding my posts there, then point out his pattern if the one I expect to see still emerges. (If not...hallelujah! )

I have made my point clear about the fora: I do not distinguish between them, because I often find the same issues discussed over several fora. I also like to keep in touch.

Originally posted by Clancie
There's my point, Ignatius. Please, don't bother documenting the past with the idea of convincing people. It just will waste your time. Much better to point out future events.

If you don't want to take the past into consideration, why do you pretend to have me on ignore?

Originally posted by Clancie
The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

Now, that is a bald-faced lie. Please! You cannot seem to stop posting about me. At least I have the courtesy of talking to you, not about you.

Originally posted by Clancie
He, on the other hand, continues to post to or about me on a near-daily basis, often several times each day, and even at non-Paranormal forums.

Now, how do you know that, if you have me on ignore? Hmm?

Originally posted by Clancie
If the situation were reversed, and I was the one following him around, criticizing what he said even though he made it clear he had me on "Ignore", I think people would say that I stalked him. I actually have little doubt that they would.

Crap. The way you incessantly refer to me has not raised a hellstorm of complaints.

Originally posted by Clancie
But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

Of course not. First of all, you don't have me on ignore, so I know that you read what I post. Second, you - remarkably often - refer to me (usually not very correctly), so why shouldn't I respond?

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

I see where you are going. So nice of you to play your little "associated guilt"-cards....

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by Clancie

There's my point, Ignatius. Please, don't bother documenting the past with the idea of convincing people. It just will waste your time. Much better to point out future events.

The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

Ok. I've been reading the forums (fora?) for quite some time and...this is such utter nonsense, that I just have to respond.

In this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36299) thread, Clancie is shown clearly asking Claus questions, nay, badgering him about his own website. Even though she has him on ignore.

He, on the other hand, continues to post to or about me on a near-daily basis, often several times each day, and even at non-Paranormal forums. If the situation were reversed, and I was the one following him around, criticizing what he said even though he made it clear he had me on "Ignore", I think people would say that I stalked him. I actually have little doubt that they would.

But it's not reversed, Clancie. You have him on ignore. And yet you have no problem responding to posts he makes, in any forum.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

No, and I hope he doesn't. After reading many, many posts you have made over the past years, Clancie, I can safely say you are a hypocrite, a liar, and a weasel. Yes, weasel.

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

I'm not a moderator, but my guess would be...keep them on ignore, and stop responding to their posts?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?
Oh Clancie...all the world's a soap opera to you, isn't it?

Clancie, you yourself are responsible for maintaining credibility in what you post. You don't do that. So don't get so pissed off when others call you on it.

Sorry if I was harsh in this post. But I just want to give you a wake-up call.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I never said it did mean equal to, now did I? You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth, now would you?

Glad to see your not faking a quote anymore now that I corrected you.

Considering we've been talking in English this whole time, uh, yeah.

T'ai Chi? Hello? You are mixing my posts to you together with my posts to Ignatius.

Don't you think you should calm down and try not to be so eager to get "even" with me? You seem to think that each time I post, it is to you, even if I clearly post to others. You also "save" one of my posts "for posterity", even though there is no way I can edit or delete it. You even break into threads and make jabs at me, trying to derail threads.

You seem a tad obsessive right now. Perhaps a crusade, in your own mind, hm?

Take a break, OK?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You show evidence, not just some examples, of your own claims, sparky. Specifically that videotapes make the hit rate increase, and that psi effects decrease with study quality. Ready...set....go!!!

Where, specifically, have I made the claim that videotapes make the hit rate increase? Are you talking about JE and Crossing Over? If so, you are kidding, right?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Any time you're ready. Try not to get distracted and talk about Clancie.

I think you are more distracted than is good for you. And I will talk to, and about anybody I please. You do not control that, either.

[max]

Buki and Claus

You are both confirming just what this thread is all about. Read the title again


Strange that the other bullies haven't looked in

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by max
Strange that the other bullies haven't looked in

Perhaps because this board is not a cult after all....?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by max
Buki and Claus

You are both confirming just what this thread is all about. Read the title again


Strange that the other bullies haven't looked in Bullies, Max?

The thread title reads "JREF (the board) is not a cult". I agree, it's not.

The only bullies I see here are the ones who totally disregard logic, truth, and clarity. The ones who are happy to say one thing in a thread, then turn around and totally disregard, no sorry, LIE about what they just said, and think that they are being put-upon.

Did you not read what I posted Max? Do you not see the disparity?

Look, I'm sorry that you can't find people to agree with you that ghosts don't have feet or teeth. That's not my problem, it's yours. You seem to think you have an insight into something that not only hasn't been proven, it's not even close to evidential. I believe you had an interesting experience. I don't believe that it was ghosts, or god, or satan, or any other mythical being you care to espouse.

I enjoy reading JREF because it is full of insight and logic. Your foolishness does not help at all, sorry.

[max]

buki
I do not have a problem with posters disagreeing with me or criticising. I do have a problem when they goad and take my text out of context. When I'm called an old fool or my head must have exploded or I'm deluded or no wonder I am a sad old codger. And when all the sceptic terms are hurled instead of posters using their own words. Posters are up in arms about racism but what about ageism? Two years ago this forum had decorum. Somewhere along the line it's become lost.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by max
buki
I do not have a problem with posters disagreeing with me or criticising. I do have a problem when they goad and take my text out of context. When I'm called an old fool or my head must have exploded or I'm deluded or no wonder I am a sad old codger. And when all the sceptic terms are hurled instead of posters using their own words. Posters are up in arms about racism but what about ageism? Two years ago this forum had decorum. Somewhere along the line it's become lost. Yes, time does march on, doesn't it? Doesn't obscure the fact that I did none of those things.

So did you read my earlier post? Any comments on that at all, such as how Clancie is a humongous liar?

Probably not.

[max]

Buki
I can't really comment on your comments on Clancie, I have always found her to be neutral and quite reasoned when she replies to other posters. I gather she was a believer at one time but is a sceptic now. Either, either I find her to be pleasant.
Why do you wish to be personal about her such as weasel, liar etc. What is that sort of a post all about? This is why I think this forum has turned, sadly, into an 'us' and 'them' place. It becomes rather tiresome to defend ones corner but on a discussion forum, one shouldn't have to do that. When I have posted in the past about paranormal incidents, I was never met with rudeness, sarcasm nor ad hominen. It is only of recent months this has happened. It seems one bully starts it off and so down the slippery slide goes everyone. We should really all agree to disagree on some points. That would be much more gentlemanly. And I still say about the ghost you referred to with no feet and teeth, that it can never be explained, not by me, you nor anyone else. All I can say the incident unfolded as I told it and people who know me well, don't mock nor are they rude.

[oldmac22]

The diversity of opinions expressed on this forum would be an impossibility in a cult. If it were, all we would have to type is, "I agree." to every moderator's post.

The only "cult like" behavior I could see being a possibility would be an obsession with the forum.

[max]

oldmac
that is exactly what is happening on here. except the 'I agree' is only being posted from one sceptic to another, mainly

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by oldmac22
The only "cult like" behavior I could see being a possibility would be an obsession with the forum.

More like an addiction....Jeff the Monkeyboy (He Who Presses The Buttons Behind The Scenes) can tell you about frantic emails, whenever the board is down.... :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


More like an addiction....Jeff the Monkeyboy (He Who Presses The Buttons Behind The Scenes) can tell you about frantic emails, whenever the board is down.... :)

Yes, probably a lot of people are addicted to this board. I certainly am. But not many of us are addicted to following another poster wherever they go. Especially when the poster being followed around has the follower on ignore! :eek:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes, probably a lot of people are addicted to this board. I certainly am. But not many of us are addicted to following another poster wherever they go. Especially when the poster being followed around has the follower on ignore! :eek:

Who are you talking about, Ian?

It can't be me who is following Clancie around "wherever" she goes. I don't.

It can't be Clancie who has me on ignore. She doesn't.

You do remember that I showed you evidence, just a few days ago, that Clancie does not have me on ignore, don't you?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Actually, I do hold skeptics to a higher standard. Maybe you think this is unfair, but I am consistant about it. I am an atheist and it irks me much more to see other atheists being abusive or bullying to Christians. I'm a liberal and I expect more out of liberals than I do conservatives.

Unfair? No, I am not getting into the procedure of thinking about the fairness of this opinion I think that it's just inconsistent with the ideas you expressed in this very thread about the topic.

You said and I agree with you that non skeptics shouldn't be treated as second rate members and yet you claim that you expect more from skeptics.

Why is that? Are skeptics more intelligent? Are they super human? I am sure that you agree that none of the above stands but this is how your opinion is translated.

There is also the minority viewpoint to consider. There are many, many more skeptics on this board than believers so that makes it much more prone to the "tyranny of the majority".

This argument doesn't stand in our case. Everybody who registers in this forum knows after lurking or following the discussions for a while where the majority comes from.

You cannot appeal to the argument of "the tyranny of the majority" because the majority doesn't decide about anything that dictates changes to individuals' lives. It's a discussion board.

Clancie, at least in the forums that I follow, has handled herself in a pretty good manner. I don't like to see her or anyone else for that matter bullied.

This sentence is the reason why I didn't reply to your message immediately. I wanted to think about it.

The behavior of a member in a forum must be judged in two levels: The "external characteristics",I mean the language he or she uses, whether he/she resorts to flaming or ad hominem attacks and how well he interacts with other members when he/she doesn't debate.

The second level of a good forum behavior is judged by the debating tactics in their essence. Since here we debate, members are expected to debate, they are expected to present proofs of their claims and they are expected to give answers that clarify their views.Also, intellectual honesty is important.

I cannot come here and be respected in discussions about Middle East because I am moderate and I provide proofs to my claims and go to another place that JREF members attend as well and present a different image of myself.

I cannot come here and hit those who expose my beliefs by insignuating that they are womenizers or what ever.

Can I? If yes, why? Because I am not a skeptic and therefore, I am inferior?

"Intellectual terrorism" still cracks me up, though!

Yeah I guess that we cannot agree on everything!! :)

[Clancie]

Just curious, Cleopatra, since this seems to be about me. What do you mean?

I cannot come here and be respected in discussions about Middle East because I am moderate and I provide proofs to my claims and go to another place that JREF members attend as well and present a different image of myself.
Well, I have an "opinion" about mediumship (not a "claim") which is somewhat in flux, but basically boils down to, "there might be something to it." I don't think people here (other than Claus) who know me from other boards see any big differences between my position here and elsewhere. Sometimes the emphasis goes one way, sometimes the other; after all, my main point in posting -anywhere- isn't to convince anyone else of something. Its to try to figure it out, based on continuing dialogue...experience...information, what -I- think about it.

But, as to your basic point, no, I actually don't think its relevant at all how you post elsewhere. For example, I would be unlikely to know (and therefore its rather unfair if I try to use it against you) how you present your arguments about the Middle East at, say, a Palestinian dominated board vs. a strongly pro-Sharon one. Similarly, I would not be able to (nor is it relevant) judge the consistency of your posts here based on what you say about the Middle East in your real life at lunch today, even if those comments might differ somewhat from something you posted here about the Middle East a month ago.

On a message board, what you see should, for all of us, pretty much be what we get--not taken from other themed boards, or mu.nu, or...wherever. Just my opinion though (and as I say, I don't think anyone else who's posted with me elsewher, other than Claus, sees any big "disconnect" between my posts here and elsewhere anyway).

And I'm always reevaluating what I think and testing out the arguments pro and con. And, I'm influenced by experience...by reading...by discussion. I vacillate in what I think of mediumship and that's pretty much consistent -everywhere (although I haven't changed much in the basic idea "there might be something to it". Sometimes I strongly lean one way; sometimes the other. Sometimes I argue one way; sometimes the other as I try to figure it out. The issue is not black and white to me at all yet, not at all like it is to some people.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Since here we debate, members are expected to debate, they are expected to present proofs of their claims

Yeah, and proof of their opinions. :rolleyes:

[Cleopatra]

I am not 15 years old to address my post with a silly rolleye smile and yet you are doing it. Anyway.

I am embarassed when I have to reply to the evident but it's ok.

Ian yes, you must explain why you have an opinion, even when your opinion is not based on logical proofs you must have the honesty to declare that you have an opinion just because, without any reason and without any proof.

[fishbob]

Claiming that people here do not debate with arguments most of the times, it is like you question our ability in reading comprehension, it is as if you call us idiots.
/ Drive By / Wait a minute, Ian calls us idiots all the time. / Drive By /

[Beanbag]

OK, after wading through four pages of posts, I'm reasonably certain that Claus and Clancie don't like each other. There are certain other clues as to interpersonal relationships concerning other posters as well, though not nearly as easily discernable.

Did I miss something? I thought this had something to do with JREF cult status?

Regards;
Beanbag

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
But, as to your basic point, no, I actually don't think its relevant at all how you post elsewhere.

So why aren't you speaking up against neofight, when she - here - refers to what I post at TVTalkshows?

Originally posted by Beanbag
OK, after wading through four pages of posts, I'm reasonably certain that Claus and Clancie don't like each other.

I have no opinion of Clancie's person. I do question her claims from time to time, as well as point out when she lies or misrepresents things, or simply exhibit double-standards.

Like above.

I do this whenever I spot it, no matter who it is. Steve Grenard can testify to this. As well as a few others.

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I have no opinion of Clancie's person. I do question her claims from time to time, as well as point out when she lies or misrepresents things, or simply exhibit double-standards.

Like above.

I do this whenever I spot it, no matter who it is. Steve Grenard can testify to this. As well as a few others.

As a relative newcomer, there is a lot going on that doesn't make itself readily apparent to me. Like any community, the long-time members have a rich and varied relationship with each other, which makes it a community worth becoming a part of.

Regards;
Beanbag

[Clancie]

Posted by Beanbag

Like any community, the long-time members have a rich and varied relationship with each other
Uh, well, that's certainly a nice way to put it. :)
...which makes it a community worth becoming a part of.

Welcome, Beanbag. I hope you'll enjoy being part of the JREF community.

:)

[CFLarsen]

Beanbag,

Yes, welcome! You will find this a forum where nobody is banned for their views. Just be prepared to be questioned, when you make claims. Some don't like that, but - hey - that's the way it is here. :)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Beanbag

Yes, welcome! You will find this a forum where nobody is banned for their views.
Well, actually there have been a couple of exceptions -- posters who were banned for their views. We also have a perfectly subjective "don't be a jerk" rule that has been invoked by Admin a time or two.


Just be prepared to be questioned, when you make claims.
Only if you are a f*cking retard. That is a person who does not agree with the statement: it is 100% certain that Science requires -- as a necessary condition-- the axiom "objective physical reality exists".


Some don't like that, but - hey - that's the way it is here.

If you are not a f*cking retard (as defined above), questioning of your position will not be necessary and the "jerk" rule will not apply.

[Garrette]

Yes, beanbag, what hammegk says is true, though he was not supposed to reveal it to you until you reach the 5th Level (Acolyte) status in the Sooper Sekrit Skeptic Society.

At the 6th Level (P Zombie) you will have to choose which Conspiracy you wish to join. You can be like most fools and join the original but now wishy-washy EAC (Evil Atheist Conspiracy) or the splinter-group ECA (Evil Conspiracy of Atheists) who are much more militant and write better limericks. I am the Sekrit Poobah of the ECA but nobody knows about this so please keep it quiet; some others here have denied my Poobahsity but they are dead now; please keep that quiet, too.

The only rule is that you may never ever whatsoever anytime at all not even once criticise another skeptic. Unless of course he or she or it is in the EAC (or the ECA if you join the EAC which you know by now is not a wise choice). Oh, yes, you may also criticize your fellow ECAers if and only if you disagree with them, but this is a very radical step and never ever happens not even once ever at all in the EAC/ECA camps especially since I will be sending you periodic newsletters (as soon as I finish processing your ECA application) which will tell you what opinions to hold.

I hope that helps.

Robes and face masks are down the hall to the left.


Edited for reasons I cannot reveal; after all, it is a conspiracy

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hammegk
Well, actually there have been a couple of exceptions -- posters who were banned for their views.

Who?

Originally posted by hammegk
We also have a perfectly subjective "don't be a jerk" rule that has been invoked by Admin a time or two.

Behavior is not the same as views.

Originally posted by hammegk
Only if you are a f*cking retard. That is a person who does not agree with the statement: it is 100% certain that Science requires -- as a necessary condition-- the axiom "objective physical reality exists".

Thanks for your input. I fail to see why people making claims are "f*cking retards". Perhaps you could elaborate (while keeping your Tourette's Syndrome in check)?

Originally posted by hammegk
If you are not a f*cking retard (as defined above), questioning of your position will not be necessary and the "jerk" rule will not apply.

You are still confusing behavior with views.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Who?



Behavior is not the same as views.



Thanks for your input. I fail to see why people making claims are "f*cking retards". Perhaps you could elaborate (while keeping your Tourette's Syndrome in check)?



You are still confusing behavior with views.
Are you as clueless as you let on above? I really don't think so.
;)


Garrette forgot to mention the blood-brothers part of their ritual. Seems like a big chance to take, betting on no STDs in that bunch. Each to his own, of course.

[CFLarsen]

hammegk,

I asked you a simple question:

Who were banned for their views?

[hammegk]

Do what you do best -- so far as I've seen the only thing of value you are capable of -- and Start a List. :p

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Clancie
The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

I'll answer to this paragraph later, let me devolop my thoughts first.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

I'm old at this message-board exchange things. A long time ago, in a BBS, in the very first week I arrived I had some friction with a female veteran. I think she was just jealous of the attention I was getting. She was intelligent, I'll grant her that, but she was also bitter about her being obese and her husband gay (sorry but that was true!). All that to say that, aside from that - and being a newbie, I tried to downplay her attacks on me for harmony's sake - there was no other reason why she was being confrontation against me. One day we went into open flame, and, even though my arguments were way stronger, she couldn't concede deceit and went straight to ad hominens.

She was a well-liked member of the community. They knew she had a temper, but they accepted that. They couldn't understand why we disliked each other and well, I was too polite to give them the reasons as I stated above, as that would seem petty and would offend other people. To others, it could be a silly catfight. To me, her meanness towards me was unnaceptable. I would not allow myself to be chased away by somebody else, because I liked the place. I was also in the comfortable position of winning all arguments against her - not that intelligent, plus her hatred of me clouded her thinking - and yet others were saying that I was baiting her on purpose (on the contrary, I was avoiding her, but still).

Well, well, it reached a point where my position would never be understood. And I was tired of her. Call it arrogance, but I decided she wasn't worthy of my time. I'd rather be watching a rerun of Dumb & Dumber and call it more productive than arguing with her. And who cares about the audience! The community would always think whatever they wanted to think, but they were not in my shoes and didn't know what it was like.

So I announced that from that point on I would ignore her completely. And guess what, I kept my word. She went in a frenzy trying to bait me. To the point that, in a meeting, she told everybody I was flirting with her husband. Can you see how low she could go? Don't you think I felt like screaming "hello-o, your husband is flirting with the waiter! Second, he's not my type and third I wouldn't want your leftover!!"

I'm sure some people believed her. Some didn't. Most couldn't care less. More importantly, her true character slowly revealed itself and she left the community with fewer friends. I, for one, I'm still part of it 8 years later. Her accusation of my having flirted with her husband didn't go too far because lies never go.

The example I'm giving is an extreme one and surely doesn't reflect the present situation well. I just wanted to tell how much I had to put up with once I decided to ignore her. She was in my twit list but I could see her badmouthing through other person's quote. I bit my tongue more than once. But I'm sure I did the right thing.

Please, Clancie, don't worry about what the community will think if you stop answering Claus for good. People will always think whatever they want to think! And if you're feeling badgered, then you don't owe an explanation to anyone, you don't owe evidence, you shouldn't expect to be even believed. If somebody think you're wuss - fine! But you wouldn't believe how relieved I felt once I put that woman out of my life. It only did me good. The freedom of it made me enjoy the place much more.

Hey, something similar, in a different scale, just happened recently to me, here. I decided to ignore a user who repeatedly called me a liar. I didn't even announce that, I just shut up. I let him have the last word, no prob. I realized there was no room in my life for people like him and end of story. Oh, the peace!

So, in relation to your first paragraph... there's *nothing* you can't ignore. You can, Clancie. Hypothetically speaking ;) that's what I advise everybody to do once they're feeling harrassed.

[Clancie]

Hi Luciana,

First, thank you so much for your thoughtful and helpful response. I appreciate that you managed to give me excellent advice (to be 100% consistent in my choice), while at the same time not taking sides. (Seems like a good skill for a mod, doesn't it? :) ).

I have to admit that situation you described with that unpleasant woman would have been extremely difficult for me. I probably would have given up and left the community--but I agree that your choice was so much better. Why sacrifice something that you enjoy just because someone else doesn't like you?

The advice about not worrying about what others think is helpful, too. I remember when I first started posting online (in an online classroom) that it was kind of a shock to see how contentious online communities are. So I don't know why i should expect everyone to see this situation here the same way that I do. As you say, some will, some won't, and most people won't notice or care.

Anyway, thanks the helpful advice--basically to decide ithat if -I= feel there's a problem, to use "ignore" and be totally consistent with it, and just tune out the people who are critical or just don't get it.

Tx,

:)

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Beanbag


As a relative newcomer, there is a lot going on that doesn't make itself readily apparent to me. Like any community, the long-time members have a rich and varied relationship with each other, which makes it a community worth becoming a part of.

Regards;
Beanbag
I agree with you, Beanbag. And, sometimes it just doesn't make sense to participate in a thread because there is something going on in the background but you don't know what. It's better to watch and wait.

[Cleopatra]

When I read this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870351666#post1870351666) where we tolerate somebody who came here by herself--none forced her to--calling us various things, even murderers, I can't help but thinking that if we are a cult we are a rather kinky one otherwise I don't understand why we tolerate such things....

[Darat]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
...snip...

if we are a cult we are a rather kinky one otherwise I don't understand why we tolerate such things....

"Kinky Cult" - the only type of cult worthwhile to be in.

And after hearing about some of the exploits at TAM2 I think we can accurately apply the descriptor “kinky” to many, many JREFers…

Perhaps it’s time for another schism?

Anyone up for the KEAC – included in all memberships will be oil, a dirty ditty by MoeFaux and poster of Girl 6’s legs?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
"Kinky Cult" - the only type of cult worthwhile to be in.

"Kinky Cult" sounds like a very good name for a band...

Originally posted by Darat
And after hearing about some of the exploits at TAM2 I think we can accurately apply the descriptor “kinky” to many, many JREFers…

One word: Chocolate. It was everywhere, and on everybody. It was a mess, an orgy, the police were called, the National Guard, (black) choppers, searchlights, Defcon 1.....

[MLynn]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
When I read this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870351666#post1870351666) where we tolerate somebody who came here by herself--none forced her to--calling us various things, even murderers, I can't help but thinking that if we are a cult we are a rather kinky one otherwise I don't understand why we tolerate such things....

I went to "this thread" and I was appalled at the rudeness and apparent hostility of Karen Boensen. Is she still a part of the Forum? I'm embarrassed for her. Cleopatra, did she personally attack you?

[Cleopatra]

No she hasn't insulted me personally but she claimed that in this boad, Randi wanted to banned her for a week but he was forced not to ( sic), JREF harbors nasty behaviors, skeptics are worse than notorious gangs... etc etc etc

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MLynn


I went to "this thread" and I was appalled at the rudeness and apparent hostility of Karen Boensen. Is she still a part of the Forum? I'm embarrassed for her. Cleopatra, did she personally attack you?

Hmmmm . . let me guess . . .she's a non-skeptic?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmmm . . let me guess . . .she's a non-skeptic?

First of all she wasn't addressing you. Who asked you? Finally you have somebody to compete in rudness.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hmmmm . . let me guess . . .she's a non-skeptic?

hm.... Stereotyping again Ian?

Edited to add:
Oops. I didn't mean to step on Cleo's toes there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


First of all she wasn't addressing you. Who asked you? Finally you have somebody to compete in rudness.

I am mortified. I don't like to be beat in anything! :mad:

[Beanbag]

Originally posted by Garrette
Yes, beanbag, what hammegk says is true, though he was not supposed to reveal it to you until you reach the 5th Level (Acolyte) status in the Sooper Sekrit Skeptic Society.

At the 6th Level (P Zombie) you will have to choose which Conspiracy you wish to join. You can be like most fools and join the original but now wishy-washy EAC (Evil Atheist Conspiracy) or the splinter-group ECA (Evil Conspiracy of Atheists) who are much more militant and write better limericks. I am the Sekrit Poobah of the ECA but nobody knows about this so please keep it quiet; some others here have denied my Poobahsity but they are dead now; please keep that quiet, too.

The only rule is that you may never ever whatsoever anytime at all not even once criticise another skeptic. Unless of course he or she or it is in the EAC (or the ECA if you join the EAC which you know by now is not a wise choice). Oh, yes, you may also criticize your fellow ECAers if and only if you disagree with them, but this is a very radical step and never ever happens not even once ever at all in the EAC/ECA camps especially since I will be sending you periodic newsletters (as soon as I finish processing your ECA application) which will tell you what opinions to hold.

I hope that helps.

Robes and face masks are down the hall to the left.


Edited for reasons I cannot reveal; after all, it is a conspiracy

That's OK, as long as I get the telescope and decoder ring.

How many box tops was it I need?

Regards;
Beanbag