JREF Forum Hall of Fame: "Interesting" Ian.

[TLN]

I’ve often thought that this forum would benefit greatly from section devoted to our more troublesome posters; this way, as new people registered, they could see the state of long standing arguments and personalities so they don’t have to tread over the same points over and over again. New posters can’t be faulted for not knowing a particular argument from a particular other poster has been refuted over and over again, so they might just start fresh.

These would not be “flames� (and this post isn’t either), but summaries of long standing debates. It would, hopefully, reduce redundant efforts.

For my first entry I’m going to catalog as thoroughly as possible, yup, you guessed it, “Interesting� Ian. As a new poster to the JREF, here’s what you need to know about this person, his arguments (such as they are), and how he chooses to debate. This could save us all a lot of time…

Ian’s been posting here for over three years now and I largely just read his posts and the responses of others without participating until very recently. Ian seemed obsessed with something called materialism which he learned studying philosophy. Not being a big philosophy fan myself (I prefer the world of scientific fact to philosophical “truth�) and having never heard of materialism, I was content to merely watch my fellow posters who were better versed in philosophy destroy Ian’s flimsy arguments day after day. For a long while this was amusing. Then I began to notice several interesting things that lead me to jump into the fray, philosopher or no.

For starters, Ian is convinced he’s right. If I had a dollar for every time Ian’s typed the phrase “thus materialism is refuted� I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here writing this post; I’d be in a ski lodge somewhere curled up in front of the fire with several gorgeous women, but I digress. Whether I could follow Ian’s philosophical ramblings at all was suddenly besides the point. Ian held the Unequivocal Truth, which I recognized as bogus no matter what the claim. As a science enthusiast I understand that, at best, all we ever have are provisional truths and provisional facts and that nothing is unequivocal for all time… unless you’re Ian. For Ian, materialism is false, period, and no amount of logic from any poster seemed to breach the impenetrable wall of religious-like devotion. Take this gem as a random example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49883&perpage=40pagenumber=2

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because either one acknowledges the existence of consciousness or one does not. If the latter then I say you are flat out false because I know that at least *I* am conscious. If the former then it is subject to my refutation which I have posted many times. Indeed it is subject to the refutation by the "knowledge argument" too (the neuroscientist Mary who is colour blind).

Classic Ian. First he frames things in a false dichotomy: either you acknowledge humans are conscious or you don’t. There’s no intermediate possibilities. How Ian reaches this conclusion is not elaborated on, it’s simply so because he says so. Then, and even more outrageous, no matter which side of Ian’s false dichotomy you fall on Ian’s still right. If you deny there’s something called consciousness you’re just plain wrong because Ian disagrees with you. He’s knows he’s conscious, therefore he is. Notice the overwhelming hubris: it’s not possible Ian is simply mistaken, feeling as if he’s conscious when he’s actually not. He’s conscious and that’s that. Therefore, he’s comfortable throwing out proposition number two in his false dichotomy because it disagrees with his opinion and for no other reason. As you’ll come to learn, that’s actually Ian’s only reason for almost any argument he’s ever made: because he thinks it is so, it is so.

The second portion of his false dichotomy is just as hysterical. Here we learn, because Ian has posted his “refutation�, then even if you accept proposition number one (humans are conscious) materialism is still false because, yup, Ian says so. Nothing close to evidence is offered, just banal word games dressed up as “philosophy�. Since Ian has posted something that’s logical sounding, it’s correct. Noticing a pattern here?

Here it is again:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35542

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've told you, if you do not believe that people actually are conscious, that they do not actually experience the qualitative feelings of hope, or despair, or have yearnings, or experience the warm sun on a hot summers day, or have the experience of redness, or have the actual characteristic experience of a smell of a fart; if people never have any experiences whatsoever, then my argument against materialism fails.

But I know I have these qualitative experiences which amount to more than any overt bodily behaviour on my part. I know this more than anything I could possibly know. Indeed this certainty vastly surpasses Descartes certainty when he said "I think therefore I am". After all, I am not saying it is certain there is an *I*, or a self. But what I'm certain of is that when I drink a pint of pepsi, there really is this certain charateristic qualitative sensation of the taste of pepsi. I am not a p-zombie, I really do have these qualitative experiences! :eek:

Again, Ian knows he’s right, therefore he is. Perhaps this is compelling to philosophers, but not to me and I would think not to most skeptics. Why Ian thinks we’ll be swayed by “arguments� like these is baffling. Still not convinced? Here’s another:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37458&pagenumber=15

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm quite convinced that my argument is correct, and I'm going to expand upon it a little and put it on my forthcoming website.

(Side note: this website has been “forthcoming� for over a year now.)

Ian is also inerrant. There are many examples of this. Here’s just one:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36378

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I requested people to back up their assertions that I have committed fallacies. But obviously this is not possible since I have never committed any.

Of course, Ian’s audience--the members of this board--are probably mostly skeptics, which brings us to the second interesting point about our uninteresting friend: In the world according to Ian, skeptics are materialists. They’re one in the same. I think this is why Ian’s here. He’s got an axe to grind with materialism and he figures skeptics must be materialists so he’ll go show them! Now, I’m not sure why Ian’s got such an axe to grind against materialism, but frankly, he’s clearly obsessed. Almost every Ian thread I reviewed came with the word “materialism� in it, often in threads that had nothing to do with Ian’s pet obsession. He just shows up, injects his agenda, declares himself the victor, then flees direct questions and lengthy, polite posts that completely tear his “arguments� to shreds. I’d reference some threads here, but there’s only twenty-four hours to a day and I like sleep. Just check any Ian thread. Report back to me the ones that don’t contain the word “materialism�. That would be quicker.

Again, I don’t want to speculate about why is Ian obsessed with materialism and its falsification, but he most certainly is obsessed. If you start a thread about baking a cake, expect Ian to show up and talk about the experience of what it’s like to taste frosting and how that experience soundly refutes materialism.

As I observed Ian more and more I noticed this reoccurring pattern as well. Apparently the sole criterion for veracity in the World of Ian is whether a particular proposition is “incoherent� to him or not.

Frustrated with Ian’s selective responses to posts I invited him (Fine, I baited him. Happy now?) to a PalTalk debate. For those of you unfamiliar with PalTalk, it’s essentially a chat program not unlike IRC or an AOL chat room but with the addition of sound. You can speak and be heard by others in the room, providing you have a microphone. I thought fewer people around would help Ian focus on the conversation at hand instead of getting distracted by the latest poster to show up in a thread. It’s also easier to interrupt someone if they decide to go off on an unrelated tangent instead of answering the question you just posed as Ian often does.

For the record, I have a full recording of the entire session as well as the accompanying chat transcript. Unfortunately, there’s no time stamp on the chat log, so it’s difficult to see where it syncs up with the audio recording, but not impossible. I’m working on a way to make these files available to those who request them, but I have limited resources. I think at best I’ll be able to make them available during the (American) day only

Since I was most interested in Ian’s absolutely certainty I spent a great of time asking him how he knew he was correct. I asked how philosophy could prove or disprove a particular proposition and could he give me an example from history. He could not. However, he did go on to say that philosophy could not prove or disprove any particular proposition; but then again, neither could science.

Now, while I agree with the former and strongly disagree with the latter, I put that aside for the moment in favor of a new line of questioning: if neither philosophy nor science can prove or disprove any particular proposition, how could he be so damn sure he’s right? How does he know? Why does he strut about the JREF forums shouting “thus materialism is refuted� and exclaiming that anyone who disagrees with him is either an idiot or didn’t understand his posts? (By the way, those are the only two options. Another classic false dichotomy from our magical false dichotomy machine.) I’m not sure I ever got an answer to those questions. I’ll have to listen to the recording again sometime (shudder).

However, what I did take away was this: a proposition that, to Ian, is “incoherent� is false. It’s that simple.

I then tried talking about Quantum Mechanics and Richard Feynman’s sum over histories for particle motion to demonstrate how this “coherency� benchmark Ian was using was a bad one. I informed him that according to QM, in my very limited understanding, a particle moving from point A to point B does not simply take a single path, but all possible paths from point A to point B. It is the sum of these possible histories of the particle that indicate its actual position.

Now, forgive my layman’s science, and perhaps I got much of that wrong (though I don’t think so). My point was that much of QM, my example aside, would be deemed “incoherent� by the average person and indeed by some above average people! (Einstein never cared for QM.) Nevertheless, the predictions of QM are continually verified by experiments to a remarkable degree of accuracy, regardless of whether they make any sense to Ian or me. Thus, isn’t this a really poor criterion for judging the veracity of any proposition? I’m not sure I got an answer to that question either…

But the important bottom line is this: Ian’s sole criterion for the veracity of any particular proposition is whether or not it makes sense to him. Keep that in mind the next time you choose to debate a topic with him. You’ve already lost.

What’s worse, don’t expect him to be polite about it. It might be your very first response to Ian in a thread and it might be completely polite, but that won’t matter at all. Expect to be called an “idiot� or “stupid� or--get this--a “tithead�, or whatever other playground insult suits his fancy that month, simply for disagreeing with him, no matter how polite.

For example:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870600703#post1870600703

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What an unbelievable stupid tithead you are.

Again, just one from a sea of examples I could shoot like fish in a barrel. Just ask…

After that particular post, Ian was suspended. I think Ian’s been suspended five or six times now for incivility. I’m not sure how many suspensions constitute a banning, or when the administrators will get the message, but that’s another thread. The bottom line is Ian is extremely uncivil and often to people who are completely civil to him. Ian will also frequently blame the bottle, claiming he was drunk so it’s all okay. Just a heads-up… you will be verbally assaulted by this child the longer you respond to him. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t respond to him, only on what to eventually expect when you do.

On the subject of expectations, don’t expect consistency out of Ian, even within the framework of his own assumptions. For example, Ian is obsessed with materialism and its falsification. You’d imagine he’d be very well versed in materialism, wouldn’t you?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35746

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What are you talking about?? I understand materialism perfectly. It simply maintains that there is a realm existing, which enjoys an ontological self-subsistent existence, which certainly includes our sensory perceptions, and is typically supposed to involve the existence of other "stuff". This other "stuff" is somehow responsible for said sensory experiences although, paradoxically, the said "stuff" is only known through our sensory experiences.

Ahh, there we are. Ian understands materialism “perfectly�. Excellent. But wait a second…

http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=8191

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Therefore materialism is false.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Quite frankly I do not know what materialism means; moreover I have never encountered anyone who seems to know either!

In this example, we see Ian has decided to inflict his obsession on some other poor message forum. He states that (1) materialism is false and simultaneously (2) that he doesn’t know what materialism means. So, it’s wrong, even though he doesn’t know what it is. Great, now I have a headache…

Shortly after the above post Ian was banned from the Elba Forums.

As I write it occurs to me that I could go on and on and on, but I trust the point is made. Others I could make with more time and renewed unemployment would include Ian’s selective use of science (depending on the conversation at the time, science can either prove the paranormal or science is useless; whatever suits him that day is fine) or his obsession with whether he’s “liked� or not by the people of this forum (but then, in classic Ian inconsistency, claims the opposite at almost every turn). It’s a lengthy subject. If you feel my point is not made, feel free to poke around for yourself. I certainly don’t expect, and wouldn’t endorse, anyone taking my word for it. Read for yourself. If you want further examples, just ask. I’ll provide them as I find time.

To summarize:


Ian is unequivocally correct.
If you disagree with the above statement you’re stupid.
Ian is unequivocally correct because he says so. So there.
He was drunk, so it’s okay he called you a tithead.
Skeptic = materialist.
Abandon all consistency ye who post in Ian threads, e.g. materialism is false even though Ian doesn’t know what it is, philosophy can’t prove or disprove any particular proposition, but Ian can prove materialism is false, etc.
Ian’s arguments have been refuted dozens and dozens of times before your eyes ever met this post. Do a search before banging your head against this wall.


Or don’t… hey, it’s your time…

[apoger]

These would not be “flames� (and this post isn’t either),

Except it sort of is a flame. It almost can't be helped. Just describing Ian is a way of flaming him.

I think the "Hall of Fame" idea is great, but I fear that it will morph into a "Rouges Gallery".

Sadly I suspect that this thread is on the fast track to the Flame War Forum. I hope I'm wrong.

[Beleth]

I thought Halls of Fame were supposed to honor people who did things you thought were good, not people who did things you thought were goofy.

So, in the "good" vein, I nominate Tricky.

[El Greco]

Hey, apparently it was just a typo; it was supposed to read "Hall of Flame" :D

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by TLN
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49883&perpage=40pagenumber=2

Classic Ian. First he frames things in a false dichotomy: either you acknowledge humans are conscious or you don’t. There’s no intermediate possibilities.

What are the other possibilities besides 'humans are conscious', and 'humans are not conscious'?

Originally posted by TLN
If you deny there’s something called consciousness you’re just plain wrong because Ian disagrees with you. He’s knows he’s conscious, therefore he is. Notice the overwhelming hubris: it’s not possible Ian is simply mistaken, feeling as if he’s conscious when he’s actually not.

You don't also know you're conscious TLN?

How can someone hold a belief that they are conscious, without actually being conscious in the first place?

Originally posted by TLN
Nothing close to evidence is offered, just banal word games dressed up as “philosophy�. Since Ian has posted something that’s logical sounding, it’s correct. Noticing a pattern here?

Since you, admittedly, don't know much about philosophy, maybe you're not qualified to say whether he is just playing banal word games.

You might not agree that the "knowledge argument" refutes materialism (if you know what it is), but it's definitely philosophy, not 'word games'.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN

Not being a big philosophy fan myself (I prefer the world of scientific fact to philosophical “truth�) a


I wonder if the ideas you've presented us with arise from your personal philosophy or hardcore scientific truth?

Let us know..

[CurtC]

"Hall of Infamy"

[Dragonrock]

"The Cupboard Under the Stairs"

[hgc]

Originally posted by TLN
I’ve often thought that this forum would benefit greatly from section devoted to our more troublesome posters; ... I nominate TLN, for this thread and for his petulent pursuit of Ian.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by apoger

Sadly I suspect that this thread is on the fast track to the Flame War Forum. I hope I'm wrong.

I agree. My personal disagreements with Ian aside (and believe me, it takes an effort of will to set them aside), what purpose is served either by airing this much dirty laundry in public, or alternatively (as TLN proposes), to make this public chastisement of Ian a permanent structural part of the forum?

Why not simply force him to wear an embroidered scarlet letter, or to ring a bell and cry out "unclean, unclean" every time he posts? Or I suppose there's always the virtual stocks; we could set up a little CGI script where we click a mouse to throw imaginary tomatoes at a copy of his avatar....

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by new drkitten
snip...
we could set up a little CGI script where we click a mouse to throw imaginary tomatoes at a copy of his avatar....

COOL!! Where is it?!

[Soapy Sam]

I agree with TLN that we do waste time repeatedly going over old ground. A FAQ section , or even an indexed thread containing links to other threads and references would be a useful resource.
This is far from the first time it's been suggested of course.

On Ian- well it has to be said that Ian's threads generally engender far more responses than most posters'. We are not here to agree with one another, after all. If not always interesting he is usually at least provocative , which is more than most of us. I'm not sure he is actually less logical than most of us either. I suspect we often accept the conclusions of the more sceptical members because we agree with them, without questioning how they got there. In the case of Ian, or Jambo, we start by expecting to disagree with the poster's conclusions. Then we look for a reason.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I agree with TLN that we do waste time repeatedly going over old ground. A FAQ section , or even an indexed thread containing links to other threads and references would be a useful resource.
This is far from the first time it's been suggested of course.

On Ian- well it has to be said that Ian's threads generally engender far more responses than most posters'. We are not here to agree with one another, after all. If not always interesting he is usually at least provocative , which is more than most of us. I'm not sure he is actually less logical than most of us either. I suspect we often accept the conclusions of the more sceptical members because we agree with them, without questioning how they got there. In the case of Ian, or Jambo, we start by expecting to disagree with the poster's conclusions. Then we look for a reason.

In that case, I would strongly suggest allowing Ian himself to write up a semi-definitive version of his anti-materialism thesis to which people could be referred. Similarly, some other designated person could write up a semi-definitive response, and then those two documents could be archived and referenced together. (I think, in fact, that that's more or less how talk.origins has done it.)

[Ashles]

In the case of Ian, or Jambo, we start by expecting to disagree with the poster's conclusions. Then we look for a reason.
I think this is more true of Jambo who has gone bonkers (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870739862&highlight=non+magnetic+compass#post1870739862) recently.

[TLN]

Originally posted by new drkitten
In that case, I would strongly suggest allowing Ian himself to write up a semi-definitive version of his anti-materialism thesis to which people could be referred. Similarly, some other designated person could write up a semi-definitive response, and then those two documents could be archived and referenced together. (I think, in fact, that that's more or less how talk.origins has done it.)

This difficulty with that is Ian frequently changes his definitions or the definitions of well understood English words to suit his whimsies. It's not possible to lock him down in this manner, in my opinion.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by new drkitten
In that case, I would strongly suggest allowing Ian himself to write up a semi-definitive version of his anti-materialism thesis to which people could be referred. Similarly, some other designated person could write up a semi-definitive response, and then those two documents could be archived and referenced together. (I think, in fact, that that's more or less how talk.origins has done it.) Ian did start a website which set out his thinking - it was quite well written. Last time I asked him it was offline for updating or something.

TLN - not a bad idea. However your OP seems calculated to wind up Ian again. Is that the case?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Dragon
TLN - not a bad idea. However your OP seems calculated to wind up Ian again. Is that the case?

No.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by new drkitten
In that case, I would strongly suggest allowing Ian himself to write up a semi-definitive version of his anti-materialism thesis to which people could be referred.

I could do that. Is it ok if it is about 10,000 words?

[Ashles]

Only if you include a short paragraph explaining what you don't like about Huntsman's avatar.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I could do that. Is it ok if it is about 10,000 words?

Cool, and if you send a few letter bombs you might get it published in the N.Y. Times.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ashles
Only if you include a short paragraph explaining what you don't like about Huntsman's avatar.

What is Huntsman's avata? Is it something one should recognise, or, is it (as it looks to me) a generic "Cowboy vigilante type bounty hunter with a big moustache and dark glasses"?

Maybe Ian sees this figure follow him home from the pub on Friday nights. Then it just disappears in the fog -- spooky!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I could do that. Is it ok if it is about 10,000 words?

You've been "doing that" for over a year. Get it done so we can all show you the refutation you claim doesn't exist.

[Smike]

Originally posted by TLN
For starters, Ian is convinced he’s right. If I had a dollar for every time Ian’s typed the phrase “thus materialism is refuted� I certainly wouldn’t be sitting here writing this post; I’d be in a ski lodge somewhere curled up in front of the fire with several gorgeous women, but I digress.

I doubt it. Ian's post count at the time of this post is 4450. Even if he wrote it twice in every post, it's still not very much.:D

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
What is Huntsman's avata? Is it something one should recognise, or, is it (as it looks to me) a generic "Cowboy vigilante type bounty hunter with a big moustache and dark glasses"?

Maybe Ian sees this figure follow him home from the pub on Friday nights. Then it just disappears in the fog -- spooky!

It's a spiders head on the body of what I believe is a character from The Lord of the Rings. Ian is desperately afraid of spiders but he has never explained why a picture which he knows can't hurt him is so frightening.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
It's a spiders head on the body of what I believe is a character from The Lord of the Rings. Ian is desperately afraid of spiders but he has never explained why a picture which he knows can't hurt him is so frightening.

And, of course, if he had never made an issue of it and attempted to demand that I change it (as if he has any authority whatsoever, here or real-world), it'd probably be gone by now.

But I can't resist a little spite :)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Huntsman
And, of course, if he had never made an issue of it and attempted to demand that I change it (as if he has any authority whatsoever, here or real-world), it'd probably be gone by now.

But I can't resist a little spite :)

That's right Bruce, and Huntsman's avatar is scary too.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I could do that. Is it ok if it is about 10,000 words?

Tell you what:

Keep it around 2000 words and I will read it.;)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
It's a spiders head on the body of what I believe is a character from The Lord of the Rings. Ian is desperately afraid of spiders but he has never explained why a picture which he knows can't hurt him is so frightening.
Explain? No, probably not. (We wouldnt ask Luciana to explain her cockroach phobia, would we?)

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Smike
I doubt it. Ian's post count at the time of this post is 4450. Even if he wrote it twice in every post, it's still not very much.:D

Oh, I don't know. It's possible. Just make that "dingy motel room next to an artificial ski slope" and "several cheap gorgeous women" and it puts an entirely different complexion on it! :D

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
It's a spiders head on the body of what I believe is a character from The Lord of the Rings. Ian is desperately afraid of spiders but he has never explained why a picture which he knows can't hurt him is so frightening.

Cripes! A vigilante, wizard, cowboy, bounty hunting spider with John Lennon glasses and face fur like a Highland Terrier.

I get it now . . .;)

Maybe I need new glasses.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hgc
I nominate TLN, for this thread and for his petulent pursuit of Ian.

No way. TLN vs. Interesting Ian is nothing compared to CFLarsen vs Clancie, or shanek.

[T'ai Chi]

Not being a big philosophy fan myself (I prefer the world of scientific fact to philosophical “truth�)


While an undergraduate I had a class titled the Philosophy of Science. And I got a B+ in it. :)

Your "scientific fact" seems to have quit a lot of philosophy in it. So much so that people are able to fill books about it.


Just check any Ian thread. Report back to me the ones that don’t contain the word “materialism�. That would be quicker.


Ok, I'll do your work for you.

Ian currently has 4451 total posts. Out of these posts, 366 contain the word "materialism". So 91.47% of Ian's posts don't contain the word "materialism".


Again, I don’t want to speculate about why is Ian obsessed with materialism and its falsification, but he most certainly is obsessed.


Apparently only 8.3% "obsessed"...

I'm not defending Ian, and I don't agree with him on many topics. I'm only looking at the actual data to test your claim. I'd say Ian is simply interested in philosophy and likes to explore it and talk about it. Sure he has his opinions on it, who doesn't have opinions?


It’s also easier to interrupt someone if they decide to go off on an unrelated tangent instead of answering the question you just posed as Ian often does.


If you started up a room, would Ian have the opportunity to interrupt you if you went on a tangent?


For the record, I have a full recording of the entire session as well as the accompanying chat transcript.


I've heard the audio, and I'd like to see the actual transcript. Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it. Please email it to my email address found on my webpage.


After that particular post, Ian was suspended. I think Ian’s been suspended five or six times now for incivility.


You should have been suspended for even hinting suicide to people. However, since technically there were no official rules in effect when you stupidly typed those stupid words (about a half dozen times), you were spared. The fact that you thought it ok to do it even though there was no official rule still amazes me. So please, with those of us that know the actual history, your talk about incivility is a little pot and kettle. Because that is actually dangerous behavior, rather than just Ian's annoying insults, which are trivial by comparison.

[jj]

Originally posted by jzs
You should have been suspended for even hinting suicide to people. However, since technically there were no official rules in effect when you stupidly typed those stupid words (about a half dozen times), you were spared. The fact that you thought it ok to do it even though there was no official rule still amazes me. So please, with those of us that know the actual history, your talk about incivility is a little pot and kettle. Because that is actually dangerous behavior, rather than just Ian's annoying insults, which are trivial by comparison.

I can't see any difference, other than degree, between what he did, which wasn't against the rules at the time being, and what you do, things like call people names, insult them, dispute obvious facts, invent your own private version of american english, and so on.

Your complaining here is hypocriticial by a charitable estimation.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj
I can't see any difference, other than degree, between what he did, which wasn't against the rules at the time being,


jj, here the "degree" is huge. Hinting at suicide is on a whole other level than schoolyard insults.


and what you do, things like call people names, insult them, dispute obvious facts, invent your own private version of american english, and so on.


Or your constant exageration. Like when I asked pragmatist something and you called it an "attack". :rolleyes:

Or your words dencouncing incivility out of one corner of your mouth and then your incivility out of the other corner of your mouth. :rolleyes:

jj, do you really think you're fooling anybody here?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
No way. TLN vs. Interesting Ian is nothing compared to CFLarsen vs Clancie, or shanek.

The CFLarsen vs. Clancie one: Don't get me started. :)

Apparently part of being a self-proclaimed skeptic is to hound others.

[jj]

Originally posted by jzs


jj, here the "degree" is huge. Hinting at suicide is on a whole other level than schoolyard insults.


Ooh. You get to decree this, then, and we all have to buy your personal standard, eh?


Or your constant exageration. Like when I asked pragmatist something and you called it an "attack". :rolleyes:


You mean like your claim that he was engaging in some kind of subjective something or other? That was an attack, plain and simple.


Or your words dencouncing incivility out of one corner of your mouth and then your incivility out of the other corner of your mouth. :rolleyes:


I think you need to figure out who thinks I'm incivil, and then look right into their own garbage pail.


jj, do you really think you're fooling anybody here?

You aren't, that's for sure. Your agenda is shining on your sleeve.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Explain? No, probably not. (We wouldnt ask Luciana to explain her cockroach phobia, would we?)

Sorry, it wasn't that he wouldn't explain his fear of spiders, it was that he completely lost it while demanding, or rather ordering Huntsman to change his avatar. The discussion turned to phobias and what was rational. His fear of spiders was somewhat rational. His fear of a picture of a spider's head was not. He refused to even discuss it and kept repeating his demand that Huntsman change his avatar.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Sorry, it wasn't that he wouldn't explain his fear of spiders, it was that he completely lost it while demanding, or rather ordering Huntsman to change his avatar. The discussion turned to phobias and what was rational. His fear of spiders was somewhat rational. His fear of a picture of a spider's head was not. He refused to even discuss it and kept repeating his demand that Huntsman change his avatar. One of the great moments in JREF history. We could use a few more original thinkers like Ian around here.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Cripes! A vigilante, wizard, cowboy, bounty hunting spider with John Lennon glasses and face fur like a Highland Terrier.

I get it now . . .;)

Maybe I need new glasses.

Actually, just a wizard/spider....the glasses are the priamry eyes.

It's the face of a jumping spider...they're cute little buggers. I used to play with them when I was younger.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
I've heard the audio, and I'd like to see the actual transcript. Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it. Please email it to my email address found on my webpage.

Unless you have been having private communications with Claus on this subject, that's an outright lie.

A. Claus never said that he had the Paltalk text.

B. You never explicitly asked for it.

C. Claus never refused to give it to you.

Just to put this in context I've quoted a few bits from the relevant thread below arranged into context order. I've missed a few things out because I don't want to have to quote too much stuff, I've given the link to the thread so anyone who is interested can read it for themselves.

In addition, I think I ought to point out that I gave jzs two post links where Ian had said something along the same lines on the forum - which is what he asked for.

I also note jzs, that you avoided answering my simple question on the other thread - I'll repeat it here: "By the way Ian has already explained what he meant. So I still don't understand what more you want. Do you think Ian was lying when he told you what he meant?"

And here is a new question: why do you keep hounding Claus about what Ian meant, when Ian himself has already explicitly told you what he meant?


Here are the quotes, from here (and onward):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50108&perpage=40&pagenumber=4

Originally posted by jzs
Please provide the exact post(s) where Interesting Ian said "God allows it" on this forum.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's how he explains how the non-physical affects the physical world. I don't think he has said it directly here, but on PalTalk. Do you want a sound clip?

Originally posted by jzs
Please post the audio and provide us a link when you have done so. Or email it to the email address I have sent you.

Originally posted by jzs
Summary of the audio. It is a little incomplete since we can't see the Paltalk text as well.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Irrelevant. I was the only one there without a microphone. I hardly participated, the discussion was mainly between TLN and Ian.

Originally posted by jzs
So you say, but maybe you were mistaken, as you were above on the file size. Maybe there was additional text, as Paltalk has that feature. You don't expect us to blindly believe you, do you?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You knew that you got the audio.

Originally posted by jzs
Of course. I downloaded it.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Bringing up this "can't see the Paltalk text" is simply a way for you to find a way out of this

Originally posted by jzs
Out of what? You haven't even explained the relevance of having the audio of Ian yet.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You got what you asked for: Evidence. I now expect you will go into Language-Redefinition-Mode, and/or claim that you never got what you asked for.

Originally posted by jzs
I got the audio file anyway.

Originally posted by jzs
Why didn't any of the forum participants ask Ian what he meant by "god"? There are a lot of interpretations afterall. Even Gardner believes in a god.

Ian, if you are reading this thread, could you elaborate on what you meant? Thanks.

Next post in thread:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How the nonphysical reacts with the physical is no more inherently mysterious than how the physical reacts with the physical. Basically it's just the way the world is. Alternatively, if one believes in a "God", one might instead say " God allows it ".

I do not believe that anyone can define God; indeed I do not believe that people really know what they are talking about in talking about God. Nevertheless, if everything is simply an expression of God's will, then describing basic facts about the world, which are not amenable to further analysis, as occurring because "God allows it", seems to me to be appropriate.

5 posts and nearly 2 hours later:

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, he did say that, I agree. Now I'd like to know what he meant by 'god', since there are many interpretations.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Or your constant exageration. Like when I asked pragmatist something and you called it an "attack". :rolleyes:

Just so we're clear. This is the "asking me something" that you're referring to?

Originally posted by jzs
So your subjective hand-waving is ok, but mine is not? I don't think so.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by TLN
Just check any Ian thread. Report back to me the ones that don’t contain the word “materialism�. That would be quicker.

Originally posted by jzs
Ok, I'll do your work for you.

Ian currently has 4451 total posts. Out of these posts, 366 contain the word "materialism". So 91.47% of Ian's posts don't contain the word "materialism".

Thanks jzs. Since you offered, how many THREADS meet/don't meet the criterion?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
Sorry, it wasn't that he wouldn't explain his fear of spiders, it was that he completely lost it while demanding, or rather ordering Huntsman to change his avatar. The discussion turned to phobias and what was rational. His fear of spiders was somewhat rational. His fear of a picture of a spider's head was not. He refused to even discuss it and kept repeating his demand that Huntsman change his avatar.

Where was this? I could really use a good laugh this morning.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by TLN
Where was this? I could really use a good laugh this morning.

Can't recall offhand, but it was shortly after I returned from Iraq, IIRC....sometime around April last year, maybe?

And the thing is, if he'd asked me, nicely and respectfully, I'd have probably changed it. A simple post or Pm like "Hey, I really have this thing about spiders, could you please pick a different avatar?" and I'd probably do it. I'm not a bad guy.

I do react poorly to assumed authority were none exists, however :) So I tried to make it even more disturbing :D

[TLN]

Why not just go with Shelob then? :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Thanks jzs. Since you offered, how many THREADS meet/don't meet the criterion?

What's the big deal? One would think that you were talking about the word f*** rather than materialism.

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by TLN
Where was this? I could really use a good laugh this morning.

This (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39203&perpage=40) is the thread where he demands that Huntsman change his avatar. But, the discussion about his fear of spiders doesn't appear to be in that same thread. It looks like this discussion might have spread across threads.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Huntsman
...
I do react poorly to assumed authority were none exists, however :) So I tried to make it even more disturbing :D

It's odd-- try as I might, I can't see the spider's face in your avatar. I know what a jumping spider's face looks like, and right now I even have a separate window open w/ a pic of a jumping spider, but I don't see it.

All I see is an old guy with sunglasses, wearing Gandalf's clothes and wearing his beard parted in the center.

Maybe your avatar counts as an optical illusion? :con2:

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What's the big deal? One would think that you were talking about the word f*** rather than materialism.

Oh I don't care whether you use the word or not. But since jzs offered to check I just thought I'd take him up on the offer. Remember he was the one who thought it important enough to claim he'd checked all your posts for it.

He was challenging Ted's statement, but Ted only mentioned your threads, he didn't mention your posts.

[T'ai Chi]

Ooh. You get to decree this, then, and we all have to buy your personal standard, eh?


If one doesn't feeling hinting at suicide is on a more serious level than schoolyard insults, then that person is really out of touch with reality.


You mean like your claim that he was engaging in some kind of subjective something or other? That was an attack, plain and simple.


An estimate, without any actual calculations is handwaving. Still, saying it is handwaving is not an attack at all. That is just exageration on your part.


I think you need to figure out who thinks I'm incivil, and then look right into their own garbage pail.


Write me a haiku about it..


You aren't, that's for sure. Your agenda is shining on your sleeve.


Question dodging noted.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Thanks jzs. Since you offered, how many THREADS meet/don't meet the criterion?

I counted Ian's posts that had the word "materialism" in it. The number of threads Ian said "materialism" in would be less, of course. Less than 100.

Unless you are interested in people besides Ian in the thread who say "materialism". If you are, I'd be confused why, since it would be other people bringing up "materialism", not Ian.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

A. Claus never said that he had the Paltalk text.


That's true, he didn't.



B. You never explicitly asked for it.


That is wrong. Check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870744047&highlight=text#post1870744047). I ask


PseudoSkeptic, what Paltalk text was there? Do you expect me to take you on faith that it wasn't important? Where is the evidence?


He is known for being an archivist so I assumed he had it. If I am wrong, that is fine. I'd like to see the entire context. I want to see people's comments while others are talking. There is quiet time on the audio as well; perhaps people are typing during that time?


Just to put this in context I've quoted a few bits from the relevant thread below arranged into context order. I've missed a few things out


Yes, like the part where I did ask what Paltalk text there was.


And here is a new question: why do you keep hounding Claus about what Ian meant, when Ian himself has already explicitly told you what he meant?


So now asking for evidence is "hounding"? I don't think so.

I want to see the actual transcript of the Paltalk session in question. TLN? Ian? Claus? Anybody?

[TLN]

Originally posted by jzs
I want to see the actual transcript of the Paltalk session in question. TLN? Ian? Claus? Anybody?

PM me your email address and I'll send it to you.

I think it would be largely useless without the audio as most of the debate takes place there. As I stated in the opening post, I can make that available to you during the daytime if you request it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
PM me your email address and I'll send it to you.


My email address can be found on my webpage, which can be found in my profile.


I think it would be largely useless without the audio as most of the debate takes place there.


Claus already got me the audio.


As I stated in the opening post, I can make that available to you during the daytime if you request it.

I thought I already did:


I've heard the audio, and I'd like to see the actual transcript. Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it. Please email it to my email address found on my webpage.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
I counted Ian's posts that had the word "materialism" in it. The number of threads Ian said "materialism" in would be less, of course. Less than 100.

Unless you are interested in people besides Ian in the thread who say "materialism". If you are, I'd be confused why, since it would be other people bringing up "materialism", not Ian.

O.K. Less than 100 threads. And no, I am not interested in the latter case, that would be unfair and unreasonable to Ian. But that "less than 100 threads" would make a significant, material difference to your statistics wouldn't it? It means that it would probably be considerably more than "8.3%" of THREADS in which Ian mentions materialism wouldn't it?

By the way, there is something I don't understand. I'm not an expert statistician as you claim to be, so perhaps you could explain something to me. It relates to the post of yours below:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870747429#post1870747429

Originally posted by jzs
Ok, I'll do your work for you.

Ian currently has 4451 total posts. Out of these posts, 366 contain the word "materialism". So 91.47% of Ian's posts don't contain the word "materialism".

Apparently only 8.3% "obsessed"...

Can you explain to me how 366 out of 4451 equates to 91.47% that don't contain...etc? I just don't get it. Perhaps there is some special statistical technique you used there?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
That's true, he didn't.

O.K. So we're in agreement that Claus never claimed to have the text.

Originally posted by jzs
That is wrong. Check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870744047&highlight=text#post1870744047). I ask

"PseudoSkeptic, what Paltalk text was there? Do you expect me to take you on faith that it wasn't important? Where is the evidence?"



It seems that you and I have radically different interpretations of the English language. Let me rephrase your question in similar terms to illustrate what I mean:

"jzs, what is stored at Fort Knox? Do you expect me to take it on faith that it's nothing important? Where is the evidence?"

Under your interpretation of the language that is an explicit request from me that you deliver the contents of Fort Knox to me! In which case I'll P.M. you an address, and expect you to send me the contents of Fort Knox forthwith! :)

The way I read your remark I don't interpret that as an explicit request that Claus deliver the Paltalk text to you. However, not to be churlish, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it as the request for delivery of said text you claim it to be. So I will concede point B to you despite my reservations about the wording.

However that leaves point C. Claus never refused to give you the text.

And there I find a big problem. When did Claus refuse to give you the text? I note that your post, the one above in which you claim you asked Claus for the text, was posted on 01-10-2005 at 8:23 AM EST. But if I do a simple search on Claus's posts I find the last post that Claus made on the forum before he left for TAM was on 01-10-2005 at 4:18 AM EST. Which means that your claimed "request" came 4 hours and 5 minutes after Claus made his last post on the forum to date. And if that is the case, then how could Claus have possibly refused to give it to you as you claim? Which is quite aside from the probability that Claus hasn't even seen your alleged request yet!

To make quite sure I haven't misrepresented what you said, here it is (my emphases):

Originally posted by jzs
I've heard the audio, and I'd like to see the actual transcript. Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it. Please email it to my email address found on my webpage.

Your claim is that Claus has actively prevented you from seeing it, after you asked for it. You see the problem. Because if, as you claim above, your remark of 01-10-2005 at 8:23 AM EST was when you asked, then it is absolutely impossible that Claus could have refused you, or prevented you or anything else, because he hasn't posted since 4 hours and 5 minutes before you claim you asked!

I'm sorry, but I can't come to any other conclusion (on the basis of the evidence before me) than that you have proven yourself to be a liar. I think you owe Claus an apology.

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, like the part where I did ask what Paltalk text there was.

I didn't intentionally leave out anything I thought was relevant. As I said above I didn't interpret that as a request for the text. And in any event, since your claim was that you'd asked and that Claus "wouldn't let you see it" after you'd asked, I didn't think that anything you said after Claus had left for TAM could possibly be relevant!

Did you honestly think you would get away with a false accusation like that just because Claus isn't here to defend himself?

Originally posted by jzs
So now asking for evidence is "hounding"? I don't think so.

No, actually asking for evidence isn't hounding - unless you willfully avoid asking the people who most certainly do have the evidence (or can testify first hand to it) - and ignore the evidence they supply - and keep insisting that someone who never claimed to have it, is the one who should give it to you. That's hounding. And making false accusations against that person in addition. That's hounding.

This: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870743931#post1870743931 is Claus' last post to the forum at the time of me writing this.

[TLN]

Originally posted by jzs
Claus already got me the audio.

Not all of it (I think), just the "becuase God allows it" portion.

You now have the full audio and text of the debate in your email. Enjoy...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
But that "less than 100 threads" would make a significant, material difference to your statistics wouldn't it? It means that it would probably be considerably more than "8.3%" of THREADS in which Ian mentions materialism wouldn't it?


Looking at the number of threads in which Ian mentions materialism (68) out of the number of theads Ian has started (376), results in 82% where Ian does not mention materialism.

So to summarize:

Threads: Materialism 18%, No Materialism 82%
Posts: Materialism: 8.22%, No Materialism 91.77%

Interpreting the statistics is difficult, since TLN didn't really say what, numerically, % that Ian mentions materialism constituted "obsessed". 8.3%? 18%? Who knows, as "obsessed" is an opinion.


I'm not an expert statistician as you claim to be,


Would you be kind enough to show me where I supposedly claimed that?


Can you explain to me how 366 out of 4451 equates to 91.47% that don't contain...etc? I just don't get it. Perhaps there is some special statistical technique you used there?

Typo. Should be 91.77%, not 91.47%.

But I didn't say that 366 out of 4451 equates to 91.47%, but rather that because we know that Ian currently has 4451 total posts and out of these posts, 366 contain the word "materialism", which is 8.22%, that yields 100-8.22% = 91.77% of Ian's posts which don't contain the word "materialism".

[TLN]

Originally posted by jzs
Interpreting the statistics is difficult, since TLN didn't really say what, numerically, % that Ian mentions materialism constituted "obsessed". 8.3%? 18%? Who knows, as "obsessed" is an opinion.

Correct, it's my opinion.

Are you done with the audio download yet?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
O.K. So we're in agreement that Claus never claimed to have the text.


Yes, that is why I said "That's true, he didn't."


Under your interpretation of the language that is an explicit request from me that you deliver


When I ask

", what Paltalk text was there?" and "Where is the evidence?"

That is pretty clear that I am asking about the text and am interested in it. Larsen was aware of my stressing the text in addition since about 1/9.


The way I read your remark I don't interpret that as an explicit request that Claus deliver the Paltalk text to you. However, not to be churlish, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and take it as the request for delivery of said text you claim it to be.


Thank you.


When did Claus refuse to give you the text?


I never explicitly say that Claus refused. He was simply aware that I wanted it and considered it important for context and didn't send it. I assume he had it as he is known as an archivist. I agree that I could be wrong there.


I note that your post, the one above in which you claim you asked Claus for the text, was posted on 01-10-2005 at 8:23 AM EST. But if I do a simple search on Claus's posts I find the last post that Claus made on the forum before he left for TAM was on 01-10-2005 at 4:18 AM EST.


Please explain how am I supposed to know when Claus left.


I'm sorry, but I can't come to any other conclusion (on the basis of the evidence before me) than that you have proven yourself to be a liar. I think you owe Claus an apology.


First, please answer

1) how am I supposed to know when Claus left
2) where I supposedly claimed to be an expert statistician

or you just may be the liar and the one owing apologies here.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
Correct, it's my opinion.

Are you done with the audio download yet?

Yes. I didn't download the audio, since Claus already got me the audio.

It is nice to see the entire evidence, thank. Although sometime it is like teeth pulling, and that when I ask for evidence people stupidly think that I am disputing that Ian mentioned god, etc. I wasn't at all; just wanted to see the whole picture since Paltalk is more than just audio- it is audio and text.

[TLN]

Originally posted by jzs
I wasn't at all; just wanted to see the whole picture since Paltalk is more than just audio- it is audio and text.

Yes, but as you can now see, the text is largely useless. It's just a series of exclimations and "yeses" and "nos" and such. The action is all in audio.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
Yes, but as you can now see, the text is largely useless. It's just a series of exclimations and "yeses" and "nos" and such. The action is all in audio.

Yes, as I can now see. I wasn't going to just take anyone by faith on it. That is why I asked for the actual evidence.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Looking at the number of threads in which Ian mentions materialism (68) out of the number of theads Ian has started (376), results in 82% where Ian does not mention materialism.

So to summarize:

Threads: Materialism 18%, No Materialism 82%
Posts: Materialism: 8.22%, No Materialism 91.77%

Interpreting the statistics is difficult, since TLN didn't really say what, numerically, % that Ian mentions materialism constituted "obsessed". 8.3%? 18%? Who knows, as "obsessed" is an opinion.

Thank you.

Originally posted by jzs
Would you be kind enough to show me where I supposedly claimed that?

Since I have neither the time nor the inclination to go searching for evidence of such, I'll simply say that at the present time I have no evidence that you made that claim and I apologise if I am mistaken.

Originally posted by jzs
Typo. Should be 91.77%, not 91.47%.

But I didn't say that 366 out of 4451 equates to 91.47%, but rather that because we know that Ian currently has 4451 total posts and out of these posts, 366 contain the word "materialism", which is 8.22%, that yields 100-8.22% = 91.77% of Ian's posts which don't contain the word "materialism".

Shouldn't that be typos - plural? You mentioned 91.47% and 8.3%. Neither is correct so that's 1 typo + 1 typo = 2 typos. I imagine an expert statistician would know that 1+1=2, but since I have no evidence that you claim to be one, then I certainly won't hold it against you. :)

I apologise if my wording was unclear, I understood what you meant in the original context. I just couldn't make sense of your figures which were both wrong and which didn't add up to 100%.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

Since I have neither the time nor the inclination to go searching for evidence of such, I'll simply say that at the present time I have no evidence that you made that claim and I apologise if I am mistaken.


Next time, make sure to 'have the inclination' to get your facts straight. You know, make sure the things you said that people claimed were actually claimed by those people.


Shouldn't that be typos - plural? You mentioned 91.47% and 8.3%. Neither is correct so that's 1 typo + 1 typo = 2 typos. I imagine an expert statistician would know that 1+1=2, but since I have no evidence that you claim to be one, then I certainly won't hold it against you.


There you go; focusing on typos, focusing on me personally, and ignoring the actual issues at hand of the percentages.

The numbers I typed when I typed


Threads: Materialism 18%, No Materialism 82%
Posts: Materialism: 8.22%, No Materialism 91.77%


are correct.

So now what? How do we assess these? TLN already said 'obsessive' was an opinion. How do you view 18% and 8.22%? Is that high levels or small?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
When I ask

", what Paltalk text was there?" and "Where is the evidence?"

That is pretty clear that I am asking about the text and am interested in it. Larsen was aware of my stressing the text in addition since about 1/9.

It is irrelevant whether Larsen was aware of you "stressing" anything. I refer you (yet again) to your specific claims:

From this post: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870747429#post1870747429

Originally posted by jzs
I've heard the audio, and I'd like to see the actual transcript. Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it. Please email it to my email address found on my webpage.

In answer to my statement that you didn't ask for it, you said here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870748430&highlight=text#post1870748430), that the reference below was where you did ask for it.

Originally posted by jzs
That is wrong. Check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870744047&highlight=text#post1870744047). I ask

"PseudoSkeptic, what Paltalk text was there? Do you expect me to take you on faith that it wasn't important? Where is the evidence?"

If that was where you actually asked for it, then everything that came before that is irrelevant because you hadn't asked for it before. And remember, you, yourself, admitted that you hadn't asked before that. Because when I quoted everything before that in an earlier post, you accused me of omitting your request - in that same post I referred to above:

"Yes, like the part where I did ask what Paltalk text there was."

Originally posted by jzs
I never explicitly say that Claus refused. He was simply aware that I wanted it and considered it important for context and didn't send it. I assume he had it as he is known as an archivist. I agree that I could be wrong there.

From above: "Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it."

Your word games aren't going to work here, that is clear and explicit. You accuse Claus of some active act by which he prevents you from seeing it after you asked for it.

That statement is blatantly false. Claus has not posted on here since before you claim you asked. He has not refused you. He has done nothing to prevent you from seeing it. You have no evidence that he even had it. There is no reasonable interpretation whatsoever that allows you to truthfully say "Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it."

The statement in the first instance is false as I have already said. Now that you have been shown proof that Claus hasn't posted here at all since before you asked, yet you still maintain that it is true (and even deny saying it!) which means that it is now indisputably a lie and not just a mistake.

And please show evidence for your claim to know what Claus was, or wasn't aware of, i.e. "He was simply aware that I wanted it".

Originally posted by jzs
Please explain how am I supposed to know when Claus left.

The same way I did - by checking.

Originally posted by jzs
First, please answer

1) how am I supposed to know when Claus left
2) where I supposedly claimed to be an expert statistician

or you just may be the liar and the one owing apologies here.

Irrelevant. (1) has been answered above and (2) relates to a totally different post on a totally different subject and has been already addressed in the appropriate post.

And neither, in any event, has any relevance to the specific claim that Claus actively did something to prevent you from seeing it, after you asked for it. It doesn't make the slightest difference whether you knew Claus had left or not if Claus had actually done something to prevent you seeing it. The fact that Claus didn't do anything after he left - which was before you even asked - proves the statement to be false.

[T'ai Chi]

The same way I did - by checking.


What, specifically, do you mean, "by checking"?

My point is that you stupidly assume that because Claus posted last on 1/10/05, that he didn't see a post on after that time. On what basis do you assume that? Because of the Amazing Meeting. OK. So my question to you, again, is how am I supposed to know exactly when Claus left?


Irrelevant. (1) has been answered above and (2) relates to a totally different post on a totally different subject and has been already addressed in the appropriate post.


You brought up 2, in this thread, so don't be surprised when I ask you about it. I guess your point about me making stuff up about Claus would be a lot stronger if you hadn't made stuff up about me, eh? ...

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Next time, make sure to 'have the inclination' to get your facts straight. You know, make sure the things you said that people claimed were actually claimed by those people.

Is that it? Or do you have any other orders sir? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jzs
There you go; focusing on typos, focusing on me personally, and ignoring the actual issues at hand of the percentages.

A. "Focusing on typos": You don't believe that accuracy in basic arithmetic is important?

B. "Focusing on me personally": How do you come to that conclusion? What I implied, in effect, was that if an expert statistician had made a series of such elementary mistakes in basic arithmetic his credibility would be shot to hell. But since you do not claim to be an expert statistician there is no reason to hold it against you - therefore the comment explicitly does not relate to you - unless of course, you believe yourself to be an expert statistician... Since you chastise me (even after I apologised) for mistaking you for an expert statistician, but then appear to interpret a comment which is somewhat denigratory of expert statisticians who make basic arithmetic errors personally - then it would tend to imply that you do think of yourself as an expert statistician. In which case I was probably right in the first place... Or is it simply that you feel that pointing out your errors is "focusing on your personally"? Now I'm confused. :confused:

Perhaps you would care to explain.

And let's settle this misunderstanding: are you or are you not an expert statistician? Yes or no will do. Thanks.

C. "Ignoring the actual issues at hand of the percentages": Hardly. If I were ignoring them, then how did I spot your errors?

Originally posted by jzs
The numbers I typed when I typed

Threads: Materialism 18%, No Materialism 82%
Posts: Materialism: 8.22%, No Materialism 91.77%

are correct.

Agreed - taking you on trust of course since I haven't counted the posts/threads myself. I never implied otherwise. You gave the correct figures after I pointed out your errors of basic arithmetic. Or your typos. As you wish - I don't care either way what you choose to call it.

Originally posted by jzs
So now what? How do we assess these? TLN already said 'obsessive' was an opinion. How do you view 18% and 8.22%? Is that high levels or small?

Since TLN obviously didn't know the actual figures when he stated his opinion earlier, it is clear that his opinion is based on something other than raw percentages. So how would you expect me to know what the criteria he based his opinion on are?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
What, specifically, do you mean, "by checking"?

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=checking&r=67

v. checked, check·ing, checks
v. tr.

1. To arrest the motion of abruptly; halt: checked the flow by shutting a valve.
2. To hold in restraint; curb: check an impulse to laugh. See Synonyms at restrain.
3. To slow the growth of; retard.
4. To rebuke; rebuff.
5. To inspect so as to determine accuracy, quality, or other condition; test: checked the brakes and lights for defects; checked out the system to make sure there were no errors in the software.
6. To verify by consulting a source or authority: checked her facts before speaking; check a spelling in the dictionary.
7. To put a check mark on or next to: checked off each item on the shopping list.
8. To deposit for temporary safekeeping: checked his coat at the door.
9. To consign (luggage, for example) for shipment on a transportation vehicle: checked her bags and boarded the plane.
10. To make cracks or chinks in: Sunlight dried and checked the paint.
11. Games. To move in chess so as to put (an opponent's king) under direct attack.
12. Sports. To block or impede (an opposing player) in ice hockey by using one's body or one's stick.

In this case, no 5 would seem to be the appropriate definition.

Originally posted by jzs
My point is that you stupidly assume that because Claus posted last on 1/10/05, that he didn't see a post on after that time. On what basis do you assume that? Because of the Amazing Meeting. OK. So my question to you, again, is how am I supposed to know exactly when Claus left?

A new claim! Kindly point me to the evidence of how you could possibly know what I assume ("stupidly" or otherwise)? Thanks.

It makes no difference at all whether Claus saw your post or not before he left. Your specific claim - which I have to keep reminding you of - is that Claus, "won't let me see it after I've asked him for it.". I have proved that he did nothing to prevent you from seeing it at all - and, completely incidental to that, you have shown no evidence to indicate he ever even had it, all you have done is stated your opinion that he might have had it, without specific evidence in support of it. Your opinion does not constitute evidence.

Originally posted by jzs
You brought up 2, in this thread, so don't be surprised when I ask you about it. I guess your point about me making stuff up about Claus would be a lot stronger if you hadn't made stuff up about me, eh? ...

I told you that I had no evidence to support my claim and as such I apologised if I was mistaken. What more do you want? A pound of flesh? Blood perhaps? :rolleyes:

And no, my point about you making up stuff about Claus stands fairly and squarely on the evidence, nay proof, that I have already shown. My credibility is irrelevant to the facts in this particular case. Or are you suggesting perhaps that we should start a personality cult?

And I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that if I were to make up "stuff" about you, that that would somehow justify you making up "stuff" about Claus? Are you?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Is that it? Or do you have any other orders sir? :rolleyes:


Asking you to get your facts straight before you accuse others is usually a good thing.


A. "Focusing on typos": You don't believe that accuracy in basic arithmetic is important?


In this case, you are clearly focusing on the typos in a lame attempt to take a stab at me. The typos have no relevance here. The typos were pointed out and the corrected numbers were given to you. So what more do you want? What do you think about the actual numbers?


B. "Focusing on me personally": How do you come to that conclusion? What I implied, in effect, was that if an expert statistician had made a series of such elementary mistakes in basic arithmetic his credibility would be shot to hell. But since you do not claim to be an expert statistician there is no reason to hold it against you


Did you forget you claimed that I said that I was an expert statistician and therefore your comments are based off of that. Do you really think you are fooling anyone here?


And let's settle this misunderstanding: are you or are you not an expert statistician? Yes or no will do. Thanks.


No, I am not even a statistician.

Perhaps you should have me your question before you claimed that I said I was an expert statistician.


C. "Ignoring the actual issues at hand of the percentages": Hardly. If I were ignoring them, then how did I spot your errors?


The actual issue is whether the percentages warrant Ian being 'obsessive', not the typos of 91.77% as 91.47% and 8.22% as 8.3%.

You know that though...


So how would you expect me to know what the criteria he based his opinion on are?

I'm not saying you know what his criteria are. I am asking you for your opinion on the percentages.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist

v. checked, check·ing, checks
v. tr.
(etc)


I have a dictionary. I'm asking, like I said, what specifically.

I said

"Please explain how am I supposed to know when Claus left."

and then you replied

"The same way I did - by checking."

So how did you check when Claus left?


A new claim! Kindly point me to the evidence of how you could possibly know what I assume ("stupidly" or otherwise)? Thanks.


How did you check when Claus left?


I told you that I had no evidence to support my claim and as such I apologised if I was mistaken. What more do you want? A pound of flesh? Blood perhaps? :rolleyes:


Why would I want those things?

Just pointing out that you pointing out things I've said about others holds little sway as an argument given given what you've said about me.


And no, my point about you making up stuff about Claus stands fairly and squarely on the evidence, nay proof, that I have already shown.


If you wish to believe that, go right ahead.


And I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that if I were to make up "stuff" about you, that that would somehow justify you making up "stuff" about Claus? Are you?

It doesn't justify anything. It does point out, however, that you are a raging hypocrite, at least in this particular case.

Again: how did you check when Claus left?

[TLN]

Still going... (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870750516)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm afraid I emphatically disagree with you there! Materialism seems to me to be the one with the intractible difficulties, not to mention its incredible implausibility and uncommonsensical nature!

Remember kids, materialism has "intractible [sic] difficulties" even though Ian can't tell us what they are and why, nor can he even, by his own admission, define materialism

Amazing...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I've heard the audio, and I'd like to see the actual transcript. Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it.

That is a bald-faced lie. I have never refused to let you see the actual transcript.

Originally posted by jzs
That's true, he didn't.

So, you admit you lied? How can I refuse to let you see the transcript if I don't have it?

Originally posted by jzs
He is known for being an archivist so I assumed he had it. If I am wrong, that is fine. I'd like to see the entire context. I want to see people's comments while others are talking. There is quiet time on the audio as well; perhaps people are typing during that time?

Only you didn't want to see the transcript. You wanted to know where Ian said "God allows it". When you got that evidence, you merely moved the goalposts by demanding something else.

Originally posted by jzs
So now asking for evidence is "hounding"? I don't think so.

So why is me asking Clancie for evidence "hounding"? Is it because it's me?

Originally posted by jzs
I want to see the actual transcript of the Paltalk session in question. TLN? Ian? Claus? Anybody?

Why do you (now) want to see it? You asked where Ian said "God allows it", and you got it. What did you have in mind, when you asked for it? You merely thought I couldn't produce the evidence?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I never explicitly say that Claus refused. He was simply aware that I wanted it and considered it important for context and didn't send it. I assume he had it as he is known as an archivist. I agree that I could be wrong there.

You are such a pathetic liar:

Originally posted by jzs
Claus won't let me see it after I've asked him for it.

Are you going to claim that "not letting someone see it" is not the same as "refusing to let someone see it"?

Originally posted by jzs
First, please answer

You are in no position to demand answers from anyone, since you have a history of avoiding questions yourself.

Originally posted by jzs
or you just may be the liar and the one owing apologies here.

You lied about me, T'ai. Don't you owe me an apology?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
It is nice to see the entire evidence, thank. Although sometime it is like teeth pulling, and that when I ask for evidence people stupidly think that I am disputing that Ian mentioned god, etc. I wasn't at all; just wanted to see the whole picture since Paltalk is more than just audio- it is audio and text.

Liar. All you wanted was to see if I could provide evidence. I could.

Know why you are a liar? Because you haven't done anything with the evidence. You have merely asked (and gotten it), and that's all.

Now that you have gotten the evidence you asked for, what will you do with it?

[metacristi]

http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=8191


So he arrived even there...Ah yes, probably via the www.philosophyforums.com or infidels.org

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Liar.


I was mistaken in my assumption that you had archived the Paltalk text and that you had seen my post asking for it.


All you wanted was to see if I could provide evidence.


Here's where you make an woo-woo out of yourself.. by claiming to read my mind. Nope, I just wanted the complete evidence. You got me the audio, and TLN got me the text. All happy now.

Nice to see you're back! :)


Because you haven't done anything with the evidence.


I've listened to it. I've also sought out the complete evidence, and read that. That isn't doing anything? Really?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I was mistaken in my assumption that you had archived the Paltalk text and that you had seen my post asking for it.

Baloney. You claimed I had refused. I had not. You are a liar.

Originally posted by jzs
Here's where you make an woo-woo out of yourself.. by claiming to read my mind. Nope, I just wanted the complete evidence. You got me the audio, and TLN got me the text. All happy now.

You never claim to read someone else's mind? Didn't you just claim to read my mind? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jzs
I've listened to it. I've also sought out the complete evidence, and read that. That isn't doing anything? Really?

Yeah, really. What did you make of it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by metacristi
[B]http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=8191



I should let people know that I gave a comprehensive response where I showed that this Hugo Hobbling guy simply did not know what he was talking about; in short I made him look like a fool. A few hours later - having not had any emails informing he had responded (he normally responds to me within 30 mins) - I tried to go back on the forum wondering if he had replied, but that I simply wasn't getting emails. I found I couldn't access the ebla board at all. I use Netscape, so I tried explorer, and found that my post had been deleted and I'd been banned. (and now 4 browsers which I've tried all have been blocked). I did not swear (or "cuss" as people in the usa call it).

Also on another board called hyporboreans he is also a moderator. He kept deleting loads of my posts on there as well, and resolutely refused to answer any questions and kept pointing me to links on the net.

He's a pseudointellectual, and a despicable piece of you know what . . . . I would use vastly more appropriate language if I were not on probation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by metacristi
http://eblaforum.org/main/viewtopic.php?p=8191


So he arrived even there...Ah yes, probably via the www.philosophyforums.com or infidels.org

What's your problem? I arrived there via an email from someone who goes on infidels and ebla, and who suggested that the people on ebla are more intelligent. The problem is that just about the only person who responded to me was Hugo Hobbling. The same goes for the Hyperboreans forums.

[Interesting Ian]

Yeah, and he continually makes out he's outargued me, when he simply deletes my responses! Makes it somewhat difficult to win an argument when my responses simply get deleted. Doesn't stop him insinuating he's got the better of me though when I apparently haven't responded. I passionately hate the guy.

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Read your last couple of posts and tell me you don't have serious problems.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

Read your last couple of posts and tell me you don't have serious problems.

Do you have anything of relevance to say to me? If you disapprove of those posts then report me.

[Nex]

Ian, he's got a point. It's just a webforum. It's not like he's kicked your dog and eaten your first born.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you have anything of relevance to say to me? If you disapprove of those posts then report me.

Your reply emphasizes that you have problems. Deal with them, instead of trying to make it sound as if it is the other guys' problems.

You are in complete denial.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Your reply emphasizes that you have problems. Deal with them, instead of trying to make it sound as if it is the other guys' problems.

You are in complete denial.

I agree I have problems with cheats and liars and people who go to devious lengths in order to win arguments. I don't dislike many people, but he is one of them. If therefore I have a problem because of my dislike of this one guy, then a fortiori almost every human being has a problem.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree I have problems with cheats and liars and people who go to devious lengths in order to win arguments. I don't dislike many people, but he is one of them. If therefore I have a problem because of my dislike of this one guy, then a fortiori almost every human being has a problem.

But, Ian...you have problems with everyone. You never win arguments, you consistently lose them, then blame the others for it.

Do you still insist that you have never been beaten in an argument?

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you still insist that you have never been beaten in an argument?

Man, I'd love to hear the answer to this one.

But Claus, as I’m sure you’re aware, Ian’s incompetence actually prohibits him from recognizing his own incompetence. Indeed, Ian thinks of himself as brilliant and inerrant. The fact that he could so torture the events at the Elba forums to paint himself the victor just proves this point.

New posters to the JREF should check the Elba thread for themselves. Here's the summary as I read it:

Ian: Materialism has deep logical flaws and is incorrect. Moreover, I can prove it.

Elba forum members: Please define what you mean by materialism.

Ian: I don't know what materialism means. You define it for me.

Elba Forum members: Errr... what? You said you could prove materialism is wrong. Surely you know what it is. Before we can have this discussion we need to know what you mean by materialism.

Ian: No! You do it!

Elba Administrator: You're banned for being a dolt.

Ian: I win this debate.

Ian, c'mon. Even you can't be this foolish.

Ian, please read the following. (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html)

[Dr Adequate]

Listen, Interesting Ian.

You are a stupid waste of time.

The gibble about materialism is a particularly stupid waste of time. No-one is interested in watching you discuss a doctrine which

(1) You invented
(2) You have never clearly defined
(3) No-one believes in...
(4) ... including you.

And then you go prancing about saying how clever you are to be able to debunk your own idea (but without telling anyone what it is).

Your prancing about looks just as fatuous as your gibbling on, let me tell you.

This is why you get banned from other forums and mocked here.

I've given you TLN's link before. I don't suppose you bothered to read it, but have a shot. You may even understand it. And if so, you may get some of that self-awareness you so desperately need.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Man, I'd love to hear the answer to this one.

But Claus, as I’m sure you’re aware, Ian’s incompetence actually prohibits him from recognizing his own incompetence. Indeed, Ian thinks of himself as brilliant and inerrant. The fact that he could so torture the events at the Elba forums to paint himself the victor just proves this point.

New posters to the JREF should check the Elba thread for themselves. Here's the summary as I read it:

Ian: Materialism has deep logical flaws and is incorrect. Moreover, I can prove it.

Elba forum members: Please define what you mean by materialism.

Ian: I don't know what materialism means. You define it for me.

Elba Forum members: Errr... what? You said you could prove materialism is wrong. Surely you know what it is. Before we can have this discussion we need to know what you mean by materialism.

Ian: No! You do it!

Elba Administrator: You're banned for being a dolt.

Ian: I win this debate.

Ian, c'mon. Even you can't be this foolish.

Ian, please read the following. (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html)

What an interesting post! I am sure Ian would love to see it...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Listen, Interesting Ian.

You are a stupid waste of time.

The gibble about materialism is a particularly stupid waste of time. No-one is interested in watching you discuss a doctrine which

(1) You invented
(2) You have never clearly defined
(3) No-one believes in...
(4) ... including you.

And then you go prancing about saying how clever you are to be able to debunk your own idea (but without telling anyone what it is).

Your prancing about looks just as fatuous as your gibbling on, let me tell you.

This is why you get banned from other forums and mocked here.

I've given you TLN's link before. I don't suppose you bothered to read it, but have a shot. You may even understand it. And if so, you may get some of that self-awareness you so desperately need.

And this one, too....

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What an interesting post! I am sure Ian would love to see it...

Thanks, but that's unnecessary. Ian's already quoted me in the ghost thread. He's not ignoring my posts.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Thanks, but that's unnecessary. Ian's already quoted me in the ghost thread. He's not ignoring my posts.

Doing the "Clancie Dance", eh? Tsk, tsk, tsk....

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Doing the "Clancie Dance", eh? Tsk, tsk, tsk....

They must have a handbook they all follow or something.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
They must have a handbook they all follow or something.

No, they merely observe each other, and think that they can get away with it.

Of course, they can't. They are only fooling themselves. But, then again, they are used to that.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Doing the "Clancie Dance", eh? Tsk, tsk, tsk....

It is ok, just let her go. You'll be all right.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
It is ok, just let her go. You'll be all right.

Oh, you've been doing the dance as well: Putting people on ignore when you got in trouble, then taking them off again, when you felt it was safe.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, you've been doing the dance as well: Putting people on ignore when you got in trouble, then taking them off again, when you felt it was safe.

Someone wake me when its over...

[TLN]

Originally posted by jzs
Someone wake me when its over...

Nudge...

Don't worry, I'll get this thread back on track.

Ian's latest thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51433) is a doozy. In it, we learn what lessons we should stop trying to teach Ian. He just dosen't want to listen...

Lessons Ian refuses to learn:

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Ian loves talking about stories of paranormal experiences as if they constituted evidence. According to Ian, he can tell the veracity of a particular story just by hearing it. The plausibility of any particular story is all contained within the words of the story itself. No outside verification is necessary. Ian can detect if someone was lying or mistaken just by reading their words. If Ian thinks it's plausible, then it is.

(Anecdotes) X (Any very large number) still doesn't equal evidence.

Ian loves ignoring this one. According to him, if a particular account of a paranormal experience is repeated many times it makes it even more probable that it's true. Ian ignores all alternative explanations for this phenomena. This is perfectly understandable though since, according to Ian, the brain does not generate the mind, so we can rule out alternative explanations regarding the common physiology of human beings.

So again, don't bother telling Ian anecdotes aren't evidence. They are, he can detect the true from the false using just his mighty intellect, and you're just wrong. I'll catalog more of Ian's mental blocks as they come up.

[TLN]

Wow, how could I neglect this one:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They wouldn't do to the type of person that one finds on this board. Skeptics (but not of course sceptics) apparently already know the truth about the world. Nothing I can say will alter that; I accept that.

Ian loves redefining well understood English words to suit his whimsies. In this case, there's apparently some difference between the words "skeptic" and "sceptic". The dictionary disagrees, but that doesn't bother Ian. In case you forgot, Ian in the supreme arbiter of the truth and you're just an idiot.

Ian can't substantiate these new definitions of these words, can't point to where they're being used in the same fashion he's using them, and generally can't backup up his claim that these two words are different at all. But hey, we're used to this, right?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by TLN
Nudge...

Don't worry, I'll get this thread back on track.

Ian's latest thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51433) is a doozy. In it, we learn what lessons we should stop trying to teach Ian. He just dosen't want to listen...

Lessons Ian refuses to learn:

Anecdotes are not evidence.
(Anecdotes) X (Any very large number) still doesn't equal evidence.
Actually it is interesting to note that Ian flounders rather badly when he deviates from his usual philosophical discussions.

I have seen some poor arguments as to why anecdeotal evidence should be considered valid (it shouldn't), but the linked thread one is a really bad argument.

Ian's argument:
Ian asks which ghost story A or B is most likely?
People answer with opinions (mostly saying they think both are baloney).
Ian goes "Aha!" A is made up! How could you think they were equally unlikely when one has been told loads of times and the other is made up.
"Get real" he adds, bizarrely.

Ian sadly has failed to note that ghost story A is actually every bit as common as B. Also that people didn't believe either of them. Also that repeated tellings don't make a story true. Also that there are many well known ways in which people get stories wrong or lie or are mistaken.

Ian then, as a final comic flourish, declares:
I'm just thankful that a few of us are able to give a more objective assessment.

[TLN]

Reference quotes which demonstrate the above.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Type B ghosts are not made up! They have have occurred throughout human history, across all cultures, and are extremely common. About 50% of all widows/widowers experience an apparition of their dead spouse!

Again, an anecdote that's commonly reported is more likely to be true than an infrequently reported anecdote.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no interest in this. I'm addressing what a rational person ought to believe, and it ain't your interpretation! :eek:


Ian's interpretation is rational because he says so. Therefore, he's right. Ian's opinions somehow equal facts.

[TLN]

I apologize for the multiple posts. As I stated in the opening post, this is a lengthy subject that I could probably write a book on. I just want to catalog more Ian silliness as it occurs.

The latest (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870755143#post1870755149) is yet another Ian classic you should be aware of.

If you disagree with an Ian post it must be because you didn’t understand that post, not because you posted a lengthy, polite and logical response (which you probably did). Ian’s just such a tortured genius that no one understands him. The poor guy…

Observe:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ashles, will you please read my posts and try to take them in. Unless you do I will not be responding to anymore of your inane posts. You're not remotely addressing anything I have said, and I really would prefer not to waste my time.

Now again, this is just one example in a sea of examples I can harvest upon request.