An Appeal to Honest Skeptics [Archive] - Page 2

Clancie

1st July 2003, 08:53 AM

Another lie from Claus

The following is a perfect example of your dishonest tactics in action. From this thread, this page:
Posted by CFLarsen

CFLarsen: You said yourself that if you answered one of my questions, I should answer one of yours.

Clancie: Did I, Claus? Where?

In support of this (and used to call me a liar--you have nerve!), you quoted my post on another thread totally out of context. Here is how you quoted me (above):
Posted by CFLarsen

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by Clancie on 05-28-2003 03:51 PM:

And, if it makes you happy to rehash them point by point, Claus, I'd be willing to respond, as long as you make each point/counterpoint into a separate post.
You intentionally, maliciously, misrepresented what I actually said. How can people here respect tactics like this?

In reality, on that thread we were talking about the cold reading at TVTalkshows. You were claiming that I couldn't explain the difference between Neil's reading and JE's (even though I listed many differences, as you know). I responded--complete context now--as follows:
The complete quote, in context now, from Clancie, inaccurately cited by CFLarsen above:

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by Clancie on 05-28-2003 03:51 PM:

I had forgotten how many excellent points I made about the differences between Neil's reading at TVTalk and JE's elsewhere.

And, if it makes you happy to rehash them [the points I made about Neil's reading] point by point, Claus, I'd be willing to respond, as long as you make each point/counterpoint into a separate post.
Claus, you are an unbelievable liar! You took the last sentence to make it seem I committed to answering general questions from you one at a time if you posted them separately. That was a lie and you knew it was!

To quote someone intentionally out of context in order to intentionally misrepresent what they said is despicable. Then you had the gall to add this, based on your deception:
Another lie posted by CFLarsen

You are so busted, Clancie. What a liar you are. Liar, liar, liar.
And you know you're doing it, too, because this post you took out of context to support a lie was from 5/28....You posted your long thread of "(30) Questions for Clancie" on 6/12.

I have to admit I'm a little shocked. I always gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't know what you were doing, maybe you didn't intentionally twist and misrepresent people's statements.

Now we know differently, though, don't we?

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Now we know differently, though, don't we?
Well, Clanci, what we (you and I) know is what you wrote at 11:53. What they (everybody who wasn't looking at the thread in those 14 minutes) don't know is what a lame attempt to redefine "it" you attempted. I was in the midst of gathering the clear evidence of what "it" actually meant. You, meanwhile, were editing your post to remove your assertion. Nice work, Clancie.

Now that I've watched you in actiion, I've got to say it is charitable to refer to you as disingenuous.

Lurker

1st July 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Well, Clanci, what we (you and I) know is what you wrote at 11:53. What they (everybody who wasn't looking at the thread in those 14 minutes) don't know is what a lame attempt to redefine "it" you attempted. I was in the midst of gathering the clear evidence of what "it" actually meant. You, meanwhile, were editing your post to remove your assertion. Nice work, Clancie.

Now that I've watched you in actiion, I've got to say it is charitable to refer to you as disingenuous.

Bill, what ARE you talking about?

Lurker

Leroy

1st July 2003, 09:35 AM

I told you I didn't look at it. I just checked back to see how long you had said it was. That is obvious.
It is obvious, so why the extremely long thread about he lied/she lied? Is this necessary? It looks like baiting going on here instead of debating :confused:

Uh...did you forget something? It wasn't 18mb of mine alone. I was incorrectly assuming that, from the context. So, obviously, I hadn't opened it. Nor did I say I did. I wanted you to list two or three of my "lies" right there on the thread. Not link to an 18 mb (zipped) file from TVTalkshows.

Thanks for explaining [again] I think most of us understand, the others will probably catch up later.

I'm not going to keep going over and over these same corrections with you any more. If you continue to repeat these untruths, it will only show how intentional your misrepresentations and lies really are.

The rest of us understand the misunderstanding. If CF doesn't by now, he never will.

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

Bill, what ARE you talking about?

Lurker

Clancie's last post was edited to remove the claim that the "it" she referred to in earlier posts was actually the "No general seating" thread itself, rather than the 18MB zipped TVTalk posts. While I was composing a response, Clancie removed the claim entirely.

Cheers,

Leroy

1st July 2003, 09:43 AM

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars" And, if it makes you happy to rehash them point by point, Claus, I'd be willing to respond, as long as you make each point/counterpoint into a separate post.

Claus, you are an unbelievable liar! You took the last sentence to make it seem I committed to answering general questions from you one at a time if you posted them separately. That was a lie and you knew it was! - To quote someone intentionally out of context in order to intentionally misrepresent what they said is despicable. Then you had the gall to add this, based on your deception:

OUCH! That is misleading of CF!

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

OUCH! That is misleading of CF!

Ooooh! (squeal!) Do again, make sockpuppy talk. Do again do again.

Leroy

1st July 2003, 10:22 AM

Ooooh! (squeal!) Do again, make sockpuppy talk. Do again do again.

Do you have a question, something to say?

What I see going on is that people are focusing on personal issues, speaking about how stupid or illogical someone is, instead of focusing on the actual topic. Name calling, bashing, twisting, misleading, and a lot of immaturity.

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Do you have a question, something to say?

What I see going on is that people are focusing on personal issues, speaking about how stupid or illogical someone is, instead of focusing on the actual topic. Name calling, bashing, twisting, misleading, and a lot of immaturity.

Oooh. Me like sockpuppy! Do again. Do again.

Leroy

1st July 2003, 10:41 AM

Nothing intellegent to say? No questions? Cool, G'Day to ya then :rolleyes:

Clancie

1st July 2003, 10:54 AM

Posted by BillHoyt

Lurker: Bill, what ARE you talking about?

BillHoyt: Clancie's last post was edited to remove the claim that the "it" she referred to in earlier posts was actually the "No general seating" thread itself, rather than the 18MB zipped TVTalk posts. While I was composing a response, Clancie removed the claim entirely.
I don't know what you're talking about either, Bill. What "claim"?

I did try to edit my posts to make them clearer to Claus, since at first I assumed he was just honestly confused.

But, whatever the clarifications in that particular post were, I certainly haven't "removed the claim" that I was referring to going back to look at his post in the "No General Seating" thread, so I could be sure how large the file was (since he wouldn't tell me). I never said I read through his 18mb zipped file from TVTalk. All I've ever said (ad nauseum) was that I checked his post on that thread.

Also, I've already said this so many times that--far from "deleting the claim"--it has become boringly repetitive. I'm sure you can find numerous examples of it on this thread, including once again, here. If you still don't get it, then....

1. No, I did not open the 18mb attachment in the "No Seating" thread. If you don't believe me, go back and look at that thread for yourself. (I think his post is around pg. 14-17, to save you some time :) ). I never made any comment about his zipped file at all there.

In fact, if I'd opened it, I definitely would have commented. I had asked Claus for specific examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy". Instead of examples, he chose to obfuscate the issue by posting 94mb (unzipped) of TVTalkshow posts and threads. What's with that? :confused: I was waiting for him to post a list of "lies", and, knowing him, I figured the attachment was a diversion not worth bothering with. Now I know what it does contain, I see that I was right. :p

Did you look at it, Bill? How do you think that 94mb file shows proof of my "lies"?

2. I consistently said I hadn't open it, here and there. I did go back to check the size he claimed it was on that thread, since he wouldn't confirm whether my memory of it was right or wrong.

That accounts for why I (inaccurately) assumed it only contained my posts from TVTalk. In the context of that thread (re: "my lies") I expected his file to be about me, not a generic file about all TVTalkshow posts. I didn't bother with it, because I wanted him to list one or two specific examples, in a thread where everyone could easily see them. That he never did.

Why do you think he's making such a big deal about it? I think its because he has no evidence I'm a "liar" at all, and now is just trying to fabricate some with this total non-issue.

3. And speaking of lying (which I, at least, did not do)...how can you not see the intentional lying in Claus's post that I quoted above? How can you excuse or justify him obviously misrepresenting what I said, and intentionally posting my sentence totally out of context, just to be deceptive?

(Then Claus had the gall to call me a liar based on his lies about what I said re: answering his questions? Such deception is, imo, inexcusable, but I guess you disagree.:( )

"Disingenuous?" Yes, whether we agree or disagree about JE, I doexpect everyone here (including you, CFL, and thaiboxerken) to value honesty. Apparently that is very disingenuous, if you think what he posted was okay.

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 12:18 PM

Clancie,

I apologize about my comments on your post editing. I reviewed this thread and found I was confusing an earlier post with the one you were editing at the time.

Here, now, is my response to the pivotal "it" post. You claim that Claus misunderstood the referent. Here is the exchange:

Claus: 1) You looked at "it" again. "It" being 18Mb. Ergo, the zip file.
Clancie:As I said before, "it" was your post in the "No General Seating..." thread. (It wouldn't have been necessary to look it up if you had just told me I was right about the size of the file. But, no....).
Here, however, is the earlier exchange in which it is clear that was not the referent:
Clancie: How many (of my posts) did you say you have stored again, Claus? And, just curious, how much have you saved from all your "favorite" TVTalkshow posters?
CFLarsen (rather unpleasantly): I already told you that. Don't ask for evidence, if you are not going to look at it.
Clancie:Evidence of what? I wrote them all, remember?

And, okay, I looked again. It was 18 MB that you have, just of mine alone.

But still...no evidence of my "lies". No evidence of my "hypocrisy" anywhere to be found.....

Clearly, you and Claus agreed that the referent was the TVTalkShow post collection that Claus had offered as evidence to support the lies and hypocrisy claims. Claus offered it as evidence, you continued to claim you saw no such evidence. As you posted more, you were caught in the details.

Clancie, you asked for apples. Claus said, "here's your box of apples." You said, "I see no apples in that box." Now it becomes obvious you never opened the box.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 12:22 PM

Clancie, you asked for apples. Claus said, "here's your box of apples." You said, "I see no apples in that box." Now it becomes obvious you never opened the box.

Ooops! :D

Clancie

1st July 2003, 12:34 PM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Clancie, you asked for apples. Claus said, "here's your box of apples." You said, "I see no apples in that box." Now it becomes obvious you never opened the box.
Another one who apparently doesn't mind Claus's lying (as specifically referenced in my post above). :confused:

thaiboxerken,

Did you look at his 94mb file? Well, did you? I asked him for "evidence of my lies" (which he has accused me of at JREF). He indicated he was posting a file of evidence of my lies from TVTalkshows. (The "box of apples I asked for", as you see it :rolleyes: ).

So...since you are giving the impression that you've looked at his file of "evidence", tbk, please tell me how he has showed my "lies" with it. Go on. I dare you to find even one. :p

And just in case you're missing the point...it's this: I don't appreciate people lying about me. Which reminds me...are you planning to correct your repeated misstatement (on several threads now) that I claim "paranormal abilities"...or not?

A note to you, Claus, and BillHoyt: It should not be necessary for a skeptic to resort to lying about someone in order to discredit their points. (Can you say, "ad hominem"? lol :rolleyes: )

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 12:43 PM

You have claimed to have paranormal abilities, or maybe I'm confusing you with the other wacko named Luci.

1) You looked at "it" again. "It" being 18Mb. Ergo, the zip file.
2) You claimed it was just your posts alone (It was not). Ergo, you claim to have read the 18Mb zip file.

Since you did not read it before, you must have read it in 43 minutes. Since you claim to have found no evidence, you must have read it all.

94Mb of text, in 43 minutes.

Either that, or you lied about reading it. (I think we can rule out the speed-reading option...) Considering that you claimed the posts were all yours (they were not), you simply haven't read it.

Ergo: You lied.

Your credibility has been flushed down the toilet.

Lurker

1st July 2003, 12:53 PM

Well, I won't get involved in whether Clancy lied or not I do find it pretty unfair to post a whole newsgroup as evidence that someone is lying. Sheesh, if she lies so much just find the specific instances.

So now it is ok to call someone a liar and when called on evidence that peson can post a URL to the entirity of the Randi forum? WHAT HELP IS THAT in providing evidence? Come on, show the specific lies already!

On an aside, people are too quick to throw out the name 'liar'. There can be plenty of possibilities;

1. Mistaken
2. different interpretation
3. Opinion
4. Unproven fact

You get the idea. Nobody is moving a discussion forward by so quickly accusing someone else of lying.

Lurker

neofight

1st July 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
The rest of us understand the misunderstanding. If CF doesn't by now, he never will.

BINGO! And neither will his water carriers! :D ....neo

Clancie

1st July 2003, 01:32 PM

thaiboxerken,

How interesting that the only thing you can post is a quote from Claus. :confused: Did you bother to read his 94mb file that you said contained "evidence" I'd asked for?

It certainly doesn't seem so. If you didn't, you're creating a false impression. If you did...what'd you think of his "evidence"?
Posted by thaiboxerken

You have claimed to have paranormal abilities, or maybe I'm confusing you with the other wacko named Luci.
Well, is it asking too much of you to sort that out for yourself?

You keep saying this, tbk, (5x's now, despite my correcting you over and over).

At this point, either back it up or admit you confused me with "the other wacko" (...nice...:rolleyes: ) and apologize.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

At this point, either back it up or admit you confused me with "the other wacko" (...nice...:rolleyes: ) and apologize.

Ok, I guess I mistook you with the other fool.

;)

But, if I ever catch you claiming to have esp or anything, I'll be sure to point it out.

Clancie

1st July 2003, 01:40 PM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Ok, I guess I mistook you with the other fool.
Five times you repeated a totally false, nasty comment about me and, when you finally realize it's false, this is the best you can come up with. Sad.

How many times are you going to ignore this (2 parts, to help)?
Posted by Clancie

Did you look at his 94mb file? Well, did you? I asked him for "evidence of my lies" (which he has accused me of at JREF). He indicated he was posting a file of evidence of my lies from TVTalkshows. (The "box of apples I asked for", as you see it ).

and...

Posted by Clancie

So...since you are giving the impression that you've looked at his file of "evidence" [and accept it as such], tbk, please tell me how he has showed my "lies" with it. Go on. I dare you to find even one.
You take a lot of cheap shots at me, tbk, without backing them up. Can you back up your claims or are you just Claus's sockpuppet?

In other words, why not stop hurling the insults at me and instead"put up (the "evidence" from his 94mb files that I lie) or shut up"?

1st July 2003, 03:36 PM

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but I just gave it 5 stars for longevity!

neofight

1st July 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by RC
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but I just gave it 5 stars for longevity!

Why thank you, RC! And to think that BillHoyt said that this thread had died back on page four! lol Well, perhaps that was just wishful thinking on his part. ;)

As for what this thread is about, RC, it's what it was always about. Claus' less than admirable debating tactics, and the reluctance of some here to call him on them. :D ......neo

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 05:59 PM

As for what this thread is about, RC, it's what it was always about. Claus' less than admirable debating tactics, and the reluctance of some here to call him on them. ......neo

Actually, it's just your whining because you cannot provide real evidence for your paranormal beliefs. You call yourself skeptic, but you believe in ghosts.:rolleyes:

neofight

1st July 2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by neofight
[b]As for what this thread is about, RC, it's what it was always about. Claus' less than admirable debating tactics, and the reluctance of some here to call him on them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Actually, it's just your whining because you cannot provide real evidence for your paranormal beliefs. You call yourself skeptic, but you believe in ghosts.:rolleyes:

Speak of the devil! Here's one of those sychophants that I just mentioned who won't call Claus on his dishonest debating tactics! lol

Oh, and tbk, could you please find the quote where I called myself a skeptic? It's not that I don't consider myself a skeptic, mind you, but I've never before stated that here that I can remember, simply because I didn't feel like arguing the point with dopes like you. :p So where exactly did I call myself skeptic, if you wouldn't mind pointing that out for me. :confused: .....neo

Clancie

1st July 2003, 06:19 PM

And, thaiboxerken, as CFL would say, "There's a question waiting for you on another thread" (since you seem to be unable to answer it--asked twice already--on this one).

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Speak of the devil! Here's one of those sychophants that I just mentioned who won't call Claus on his dishonest debating tactics! lol

Oh, and tbk, could you please find the quote where I called myself a skeptic? It's not that I don't consider myself a skeptic, mind you, but I've never before stated that here that I can remember, simply because I didn't feel like arguing the point with dopes like you. :p So where exactly did I call myself skeptic, if you wouldn't mind pointing that out for me. :confused: .....neo

You just did. :rolleyes:

That was too easy.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
And, thaiboxerken, as CFL would say, "There's a question waiting for you on another thread" (since you seem to be unable to answer it--asked twice already--on this one).

I'll answer it when I want to. Maybe after you answer all of CFL's questions towards you.

Clancie

1st July 2003, 06:41 PM

Its not a "question" in that sense, thaiboxerken, so don't try to weasel out of it with this little trick.

You made a claim at this board about me. You claim that I am a liar and that Claus's 94mb file provides evidence of that.

Apparently you don't actually have any evidence (and probably hadn't even read the file that you so eagerly cited against me).

Again, in keeping with neo's topic here, this is an example of totally dishonest skepticism.

You have a lot of nerve criticizing others for ad hominems, tbk. You've attacked my honesty, accused me of lying (which I resent), without a single fact to back it up.

"Evasion noted".

Lord Kenneth

1st July 2003, 06:44 PM

Let's settle it this way...

thaiboxerken sends me, via PM, the evidence to back up his claim, and Clancie answer the questions thai wants answered. When they are answered, thai can post them and I will tell whether or not thai's evidence is an an ad hoc explanation or not...?

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not a "question" in that sense, thaiboxerken, so don't try to weasel out of it with this little trick.

You made a claim at this board about me. You claim that I am a liar and that Claus's 94mb file provides evidence of that.

Really?

Apparently you don't actually have any evidence (and probably hadn't even read the file that you so eagerly cited against me).

Are you sure?

Again, in keeping with neo's topic here, this is an example of totally dishonest skepticism.

There is nothing dishonest about being honest. You have yet to provide any evidence for your paranormal claims, nothing that can be validated.

You have a lot of nerve criticizing others for ad hominems, tbk. You've attacked my honesty, accused me of lying (which I resent), without a single fact to back it up.

"Evasion noted".

I have lots of ad-hominem that I would like to unleash upon you, but I'll refrain.

neofight

1st July 2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You just did. :rolleyes:

That was too easy.

That obviously doesn't count. Ask Claus! What are you saying here, that you are prescient? :rolleyes: ....neo

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 07:00 PM

For a person that started a thread that proclaimed himself to be a believer and a skeptic, you sure do try to avoid the fact that you made that very claim.

Oops.. I had you confused with Orb.

Clancie

1st July 2003, 08:40 PM

Lord Kenneth,

Sorry but that suggestion doesn't make any sense.

thaiboxerken, has publicly accused me of being a liar and needs to provide his proof in the same forum (if he has any).

He indicates the "proof" of my lies was included in CFLarsen's 94mb file, yet he can't post a single example.

****

thaiboxerken, you made the attack on me, and when asked to back it up, your response is evasions and more insults. Is that your idea of good skepticism?

If you had any integrity, you'd back it up with evidence of your claim...or apologize.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 08:55 PM

...or apologize

I only apologize to people that I respect.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
It is obvious, so why the extremely long thread about he lied/she lied? Is this necessary? It looks like baiting going on here instead of debating :confused:

Because Clancie has accused me of lying, without being able to back it up. Now, when I show her to be a liar, she makes all kinds of dishonest attempts to conceal the fact.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Another lie from Claus

Let's see about that, shall we?

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus, you are an unbelievable liar! You took the last sentence to make it seem I committed to answering general questions from you one at a time if you posted them separately. That was a lie and you knew it was!

Ehh....excuse me, Clancie, but if I took this out of context, why did you answer questions that were not related to the Neil/JE comparison? Why would you answer a question on psychic surgery? Is this not clear evidence that you accepted to go one-for-one?

Not a lie at all.

Originally posted by Clancie
I have to admit I'm a little shocked. I always gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't know what you were doing, maybe you didn't intentionally twist and misrepresent people's statements.

I have to admit that I am not the least shocked. You are a liar, Clancie. You erase the evidence of your lies. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Originally posted by Clancie
Now we know differently, though, don't we?

Yeah. I think the picture is, oh, so clear.

Originally posted by Clancie
I did try to edit my posts to make them clearer to Claus, since at first I assumed he was just honestly confused.

No, not to "make them clearer". To erase your lies.

Originally posted by Clancie
so I could be sure how large the file was (since he wouldn't tell me).

Oops, another lie:

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by CFLarsen on 06-11-2003 11:18 AM:
Here they are. Free to download. 18 Mb in all.

I did tell you, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
1. No, I did not open the 18mb attachment in the "No Seating" thread. If you don't believe me, go back and look at that thread for yourself. (I think his post is around pg. 14-17, to save you some time :) ). I never made any comment about his zipped file at all there.

Thank you for admitting that you lied. You did claim that you read the files. You didn't. No "clarification" needed.

Originally posted by Clancie
In fact, if I'd opened it, I definitely would have commented. I had asked Claus for specific examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy". Instead of examples, he chose to obfuscate the issue by posting 94mb (unzipped) of TVTalkshow posts and threads. What's with that? :confused: I was waiting for him to post a list of "lies", and, knowing him, I figured the attachment was a diversion not worth bothering with. Now I know what it does contain, I see that I was right. :p

You lied again, then. You claimed it contained "only" your posts. Now, after you were caught, you know better.

You were not "right", Clancie. You lied. Many times.

Originally posted by Clancie
Did you look at it, Bill? How do you think that 94mb file shows proof of my "lies"?

Why should Bill look at it when you refuse???

Originally posted by Clancie
2. I consistently said I hadn't open it, here and there. I did go back to check the size he claimed it was on that thread, since he wouldn't confirm whether my memory of it was right or wrong.

Why on earth should I confirm what your memory is??

Originally posted by Clancie
Why do you think he's making such a big deal about it? I think its because he has no evidence I'm a "liar" at all, and now is just trying to fabricate some with this total non-issue.

A "total non-issue"? You lie and that is a "total non-issue"?

Originally posted by Clancie
3. And speaking of lying (which I, at least, did not do)

Rrrrrrrrrright. We have seen how you do "not" lie.

Originally posted by Clancie
...how can you not see the intentional lying in Claus's post that I quoted above? How can you excuse or justify him obviously misrepresenting what I said, and intentionally posting my sentence totally out of context, just to be deceptive?

You are the one being deceptive here. You don't see me go back and edit my posts, do you?

Originally posted by Clancie
(Then Claus had the gall to call me a liar based on his lies about what I said re: answering his questions? Such deception is, imo, inexcusable, but I guess you disagree.:( )

A lie? Not at all: You answered questions unrelated to the Neill/JE-comparison. Ergo, you agreed to a point/counterpoint. Ergo, you are wrong in trying to drag Thanz into this.

Originally posted by Clancie
"Disingenuous?" Yes, whether we agree or disagree about JE, I doexpect everyone here (including you, CFL, and thaiboxerken) to value honesty. Apparently that is very disingenuous, if you think what he posted was okay.

Actually, honesty is valued very much on this board. And you can be sure that if any is detected - as in your case - it will be exposed.

Originally posted by Clancie
thaiboxerken,

Did you look at his 94mb file? Well, did you? I asked him for "evidence of my lies" (which he has accused me of at JREF). He indicated he was posting a file of evidence of my lies from TVTalkshows. (The "box of apples I asked for", as you see it :rolleyes: ).

Why should other people look at it, when you refuse???

Originally posted by Clancie
A note to you, Claus, and BillHoyt: It should not be necessary for a skeptic to resort to lying about someone in order to discredit their points. (Can you say, "ad hominem"? lol :rolleyes: ) [/B]

It isn't necessary for us to lie. You do that splendidly on your own.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, thaiboxerken, as CFL would say, "There's a question waiting for you on another thread" (since you seem to be unable to answer it--asked twice already--on this one).

So....let's see: You demand other people answer your questions, yet you refuse to answer those put to you.

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not a "question" in that sense, thaiboxerken, so don't try to weasel out of it with this little trick.

Oh, right. It's always something different, when the shoe is on the other foot. Do try to be a little more consistent, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
"Evasion noted".

Y....up.

We have established that you are a liar and that you tried to cover it up. Can we get back to some issues now?

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, these tedious, idiotic and pointless posts of yours are what turn so many people off. You deliberately go off on tangents like this to deflect the valid criticisms that people make away from you. These are pathetic arguments you are making here. You are, in essence, only attempting to muddy the waters and cloud up the real issue.

Wha...? You want to talk about "real" issues, neo?? I'm all for it.

If you think it is "tedious, idiotic and pointless" that Clancie lies, then you have my sympathy.

Originally posted by neofight
You know, you are not only a dishonest debater, but it's quite clear that you are also extremely immature as a person. Same for the Claus wannabes out there! :( .....neo

Never a post without a personal attack, eh?

Originally posted by neofight
Cheers yourself, Bill. If you can't acknowledge that Claus has a problem, then I think that might indicate that you share it.
:eek: .....neo

Are you blind, neo? Clancie told a lie. She edited her post. She now tries (in vain) to make it look as if she didn't lie. Why do you ignore this?

Originally posted by neofight
That obviously doesn't count. Ask Claus! What are you saying here, that you are prescient? :rolleyes: ....neo

Why is it that it never counts when your a55 is on the line?? Can we see a little consistency here?

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have answered Thanz. Guess you want to chicken out, eh?

Now I am going to call YOU a liar. You have not answered my questions. Please refer to the other thread.

neofight

2nd July 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why is it that it never counts when your a55 is on the line?? Can we see a little consistency here?

Claus, don't be an imbecile! How is my @$$ on the line? You guys are such losers! :confused: Thaiboxerken keeps saying that I proclaimed myself to be a believer AND a skeptic. I stated to him that I don't remember ever making that statement, and asked him for a reference. Now, it seems from his post, (below) that he had me confused with some other person, so I guess this is as close to an apology or acknowledgment of being wrong as I am going to get from him, since he doesn't seem to know how to be gracious in defeat. :(

For a person that started a thread that proclaimed himself to be a believer and a skeptic, you sure do try to avoid the fact that you made that very claim.

Oops.. I had you confused with Orb.

I guess the "Oops" part is his apology. :rolleyes:

Leroy

2nd July 2003, 09:20 AM

So now it is ok to call someone a liar and when called on evidence that peson can post a URL to the entirity of the Randi forum? WHAT HELP IS THAT in providing evidence? Come on, show the specific lies already!

Yes please, if Clancie is a liar I don't have an interest in maintaining a conversation with her.

You just did. That was too easy.

:D I give you credit for having a good sense of humor

I'll answer it when I want to. Maybe after you answer all of CFL's questions towards you. :D That is the same excuse I give when I don't have a good answer - it must be a male thing.

Because Clancie has accused me of lying, without being able to back it up. Now, when I show her to be a liar, she makes all kinds of dishonest attempts to conceal the fact.

You haven't shown her to be a liar :confused: We are waiting in suspense for the evidence. Can you post the [quotes] here? What I've read so far doesn't show her to be a liar.

This thread is getting to be a bore.

Clancie

2nd July 2003, 09:38 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

Now, when I show her to be a liar, she makes all kinds of dishonest attempts to conceal the fact.

Clancie told a lie. She edited her post. She now tries (in vain) to make it look as if she didn't lie.

Back it up, Claus, you liar. (You're grasping at straws in accusing me of this. What is it that I "lied about and changed"? I ask you. Spit it out).

You try to smear me by innuendo. But you, on the other hand, intentionally took my post out of context just to make a phony point). Your tactics have been exposed already, Claus, no matter how much you keep calling me a liar here.

Re: editing. Even BillHoyt admitted he was wrong about his claim and had the grace to apologize, unlike you or thaiboxerken (who can't even answer a direct question about his claims either, just like you).

btw, I often re-read and edit right after posting to improve my wording or fix the code--have a look. If you have proof of what you're claiming--that I changed some important incriminating statement after the fact (again, a complete and despicable LIE from you)...then provide the evidence of it. My explanation of your trivial little point (whether I looked at your 18mb link) has been completely consistent and honest--as anyone honest himself would easily see.

You're a liar, Claus. And you wallow in it.

And, Leroy, you're right. The thread's getting to be a bore. I just don't like being lied about. But I'll give it a rest.

CFL and thaiboxerken, read my sig line. If the shoe fits....

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 09:56 AM

Clancie,

I have indeed shown you to be a liar. I know this stings, but the evidence is there. You lied, repeatedly.

Now, can we address some issues, e.g. ADC and/or psychic mediums? Anyone?

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

I have indeed shown you to be a liar. I know this stings, but the evidence is there. You lied, repeatedly.
I am going to have to ask you for evidence of this assertion as well. Please give me actual evidence, and don't point me to 94 MB of posts you saved from another board. You did not accept a link to a single thread as proof of allegations against you. I will not accept a link to text that is 36 times as long as "War and Peace" as evidence either.

Please post evidence in the form of quotes, with links to the source if you can for context. I hope that you will post enough of the quote and surrounding posts for context so that anyone reading your response will be able to determine if Clancie lied or not.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 11:05 AM

Thanz,

I have given the answers. You don't like them. Not my problem.

I have to inform you that what you are doing is equivalent to badgering. You will stop this immediately or I will report you to the moderators.

Yep...two can play that game.....

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

I have given the answers. You don't like them. Not my problem.

I have to inform you that what you are doing is equivalent to badgering. You will stop this immediately or I will report you to the moderators.

Yep...two can play that game.....
Well, you haven't answered the questions. Are you saying that you refuse to answer the questions? Isn't that the criteria you have laid out?

If you refuse to answer the questions, fine. But at least admit that you are refusing to answer. Because your insistence that you have answered them is simply a lie.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, you haven't answered the questions. Are you saying that you refuse to answer the questions? Isn't that the criteria you have laid out?

If you refuse to answer the questions, fine. But at least admit that you are refusing to answer. Because your insistence that you have answered them is simply a lie.

No, I am not "refusing" to answer, because I have answered.

What I am asking you - for the last time - is to stop posing questions which I have answered. I consider this badgering, and - according to forum rules, you have to stop.

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, I am not "refusing" to answer, because I have answered.

What I am asking you - for the last time - is to stop posing questions which I have answered. I consider this badgering, and - according to forum rules, you have to stop.
I haven't posed any questions that you have answered, so I can easily comply with your request not to do so.

Now, are you ever going to answer my original questions in the "Taken in by John Edward" thread?

Are you going to answer my questions re:lies of Clancie posed in this thread?

What is that phrase you are so fond of? Oh yeah.

Put up or shut up.

Leroy

2nd July 2003, 11:53 AM

I have indeed shown you to be a liar. I know this stings, but the evidence is there. You lied, repeatedly.

Where have you shown this? Where is this evidence?

I have given the answers. You don't like them. Not my problem

you haven't given any proof of clancies lies :confused:

I have to inform you that what you are doing is equivalent to badgering. You will stop this immediately or I will report you to the moderators.

I get it now, you badger clancie claiming she is a liar, when asked for evidence you have none, you can't back up this claim, so you are going to report Thanz for badgering :confused:, in hopes that it is dropped. Whoaaaa sir, that is pathetic.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 12:01 PM

Leroy,

If you choose not to see Clancie's lies, then that is your privilege.

Thanz,

You already know the answers. End of discussion.

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

You already know the answers. End of discussion.
I do? Really? Do I have psychic powers? Can I get the million? Because I certainly don't know them from anything you have told me.

However, if you want me to imply answers from your silence, I would say that the answers to my questions are as follows:

Thanz:Do you think that Clancie has said that "nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings"?

Claus: Nope.

Thanz: If so, where?

Claus: Nowhere.

Thanz: Can you quote/direct me to the post?

Claus: Nope - they don't exist.

Thanz: Do you have any back up for your claim that "Believers in John Edward on the TVTalkshow-board have been fond of claiming that nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings" in the form of posts from those "Believers" that make this claim?

Claus: Nope, don't have any back-up at all. I basically made up the assertion because it was easier to refute and I wanted to parse believer responses into categories for my own amusement.

Thanz: Can you give me any evidence in the form of quotes, with links to the source if you can for context, in support of your assertion that Clancie is a liar?

Claus: Nope, can't really support this either. Now, would you please go away so I can continue to taunt the believers without actually backing up anything I say?

So, Claus, am I right? Do I get the million? Because that is how I see your answers....

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
So, Claus, am I right? Do I get the million? Because that is how I see your answers....

That may be so. That doesn't make you right.

Instig8R

2nd July 2003, 12:31 PM

Hey! What about me? I attended the seminar last May at Westbury Music Fair. I complained bitterly about JE's performance over at TVTalk. My complaints were dissed and dismissed by some believers.. . (Hi, Neo! You know who you are, LOL!).

The Westbury seminar was videotaped by JE's crew for broadcast on the Crossing Over TV show. Later, when I viewed those same readings on TV, I was appalled by the radical editing of readings. IMO, it was done solely to make mediocre readings appear better than they were. Again, my criticism was made over at TVTalk, and my criticisms were disputed.

However, it cannot be said that no one ever complained after a seminar. I complained a lot!

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 12:34 PM

Instig8R,

If you say so. :)

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

That may be so. That doesn't make you right.
Another non-answer. You said that I know the answers. The answers that I think I know are posted above.

Are they correct?

If they are incorrect, which ones are incorrect?

If they are incorrect, what are the correct answers?

Lurker

2nd July 2003, 12:49 PM

Well, I wouldn't say that I complained but I did come out of the seminar I attended still feeling that JE was a fake. But I was surprised that JE was a bit better than I had expected. Still, no special hits in my opinion.

Lurker

Leroy

2nd July 2003, 01:05 PM

If you choose not to see Clancie's lies, then that is your privilege.

It isn't a matter of choice, it is a matter of the lies not being there. If they are you have failed to present them.

Once again, WHERE did clancie lie? What post, what did she say?

I think Thanz nailed you bud ;)

CF, You are the kind of skeptic who gives the rest of us a bad name.

Lurker, Inst. I would enjoy hearing about your experience at a John Edward seminar. I don't think I could make myself sit through one.

neofight

2nd July 2003, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R
Hey! What about me? I attended the seminar last May at Westbury Music Fair. I complained bitterly about JE's performance over at TVTalk. My complaints were dissed and dismissed by some believers.. . (Hi, Neo! You know who you are, LOL!)..............However, it cannot be said that no one ever complained after a seminar. I complained a lot!

Instig8R, you silly girl, we were referring to people who had been read by JE, and who were so unhappy with the reading he gave them that they complained. :fg: ......neo

neofight

2nd July 2003, 03:10 PM

neofight

2nd July 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

I think Thanz nailed you bud ;)

Indeed! :D

CF, You are the kind of skeptic who gives the rest of us a bad name.

Yes and no, Leroy. We are very much aware that there are honest skeptics out there, and we value them, yourself included. :) Claus is quite unique I think, thank goodness! ;)

Lurker, Inst. I would enjoy hearing about your experience at a John Edward seminar. I don't think I could make myself sit through one.

You might be very pleasantly surprised, Leroy. I think you just might enjoy the experience......neo

Instig8R

2nd July 2003, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, you silly girl, we were referring to people who had been read by JE, and who were so unhappy with the reading he gave them that they complained. :fg: ......neo

Hey, Neo! Have you forgotten that I have been read by JE, on numerous occasions? I have had many successful "me too" readings, right in my very own home, as I watched JE on television. However, at the seminars I attended, the readings were unsuitable for me.

The clincher for me was that the "malibu shrimp" reading didn't suit me when I saw it at Westbury, live. Thereafter, I was able to get a "me too" experience from that reading when the EDITED version of it was broadcast on TV. I guess that Deborah (the person who was read) had the same experience, because she wasn't validating very much at the seminar. The reading was more like an interrogation, for cryin' out loud!

neofight

2nd July 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hey, Neo! Have you forgotten that I have been read by JE, on numerous occasions? I have had many successful "me too" readings, right in my very own home, as I watched JE on television.

I knew that was coming! lol :rolleyes:

The clincher for me was that the "malibu shrimp" reading didn't suit me when I saw it at Westbury, live. Thereafter, I was able to get a "me too" experience from that reading when the EDITED version of it was broadcast on TV. I guess that Deborah (the person who was read) had the same experience, because she wasn't validating very much at the seminar. The reading was more like an interrogation, for cryin' out loud!

She validated plenty at the seminar, Instig8R. I strenuously disagree with your characterization of this reading, both before and after the editing. To give the impression that Deborah validated things in the edited version, that were not validated at the seminar, is just not right. :hit: ......neo

Instig8R

2nd July 2003, 09:56 PM

Oh, yeah? Sez you! :mad:

CFLarsen

3rd July 2003, 12:35 AM

Amazing.

Here we have a hard-core believer who simply denies that a person could have "me-too" readings with JE. A hard-core believer who has an invariably favorable perception of what happened at the seminar.

A classic text-book case. "Fanatic" is a term that comes to mind.

Lucianarchy

3rd July 2003, 02:26 AM

Dear Hal,

I know we have had our debates in the past over moderation issues, like my title being changed by Jeff, Ed calling me a "faggot", etc, but since Mr Randi's latest wishes that the forum be rid of taunting, un-civil behaviour and the like and your admirable action of doing your best to carry out those wishes, the forum had become a better place. Even I stopped using terms like 'pseudo-skeptic'

I am a skeptic. I think the JREF does a good job exposing the frauds and scammers who fleece people of their money. But I believe that majority of people think that there are some things beyond known science that have very compelling evidence to suggest that their extraordinary being demands more than a 'challenge' .

The JREF is the forum to discuss those things.

Not many people seriously involved in the scientific research of so-called 'paranormal' or more appropriately, parapsychology, are going to want to post to a forum where people are uncvil by calling names like "woo-woo", posting 'lists of questions' threads, etc,.

If the changes do not properly take effect, then this will become purely a 'back-slapping' forum and offer nothing in terms of rational, educational debate with people who are proponents or scientific researchers of the 'paranormal' / Parapsychology.

Sadly, it seems that no action will be taken against those who continue with the uncivil behaviour. You will note that I have been called a liar numerous times in the thread on the question of being 'civil', which is not only un-civil, it is completely defamaotory and without cause or reason.

Perhaps, the JREF is going to become the 'back slapping' cozy nest for skeptics to toast 'woo-woo's by, despite Mr Randi's open wishes and recent statement that the uncivil behaviour in this forum cease.

The tactics of the likes of Claus / TLN who go around calling people liars with impunity will eventually completely censor all open debate with proponents of parapsychology. Maybe that is, after all, what they want.

But is it what the JREF wants?

RonSceptic

3rd July 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Dear Hal,

I know we have had our debates in the past over moderation issues, like my title being changed by Jeff, Ed calling me a "faggot", etc, but since Mr Randi's latest wishes that the forum be rid of taunting, un-civil behaviour and the like and your admirable action of doing your best to carry out those wishes, the forum had become a better place. Even I stopped using terms like 'pseudo-skeptic'

I am a skeptic. I think the JREF does a good job exposing the frauds and scammers who fleece people of their money. But I believe that majority of people think that there are some things beyond known science that have very compelling evidence to suggest that their extraordinary being demands more than a 'challenge' .

The JREF is the forum to discuss those things.

Not many people seriously involved in the scientific research of so-called 'paranormal' or more appropriately, parapsychology, are going to want to post to a forum where people are uncvil by calling names like "woo-woo", posting 'lists of questions' threads, etc,.

If the changes do not properly take effect, then this will become purely a 'back-slapping' forum and offer nothing in terms of rational, educational debate with people who are proponents or scientific researchers of the 'paranormal' / Parapsychology.

Sadly, it seems that no action will be taken against those who continue with the uncivil behaviour. You will note that I have been called a liar numerous times in the thread on the question of being 'civil', which is not only un-civil, it is completely defamaotory and without cause or reason.

Perhaps, the JREF is going to become the 'back slapping' cozy nest for skeptics to toast 'woo-woo's by, despite Mr Randi's open wishes and recent statement that the uncivil behaviour in this forum cease.

The tactics of the likes of Claus / TLN who go around calling people liars with impunity will eventually completely censor all open debate with proponents of parapsychology. Maybe that is, after all, what they want.

But is it what the JREF wants?

It's interesting that you choose to make this post in a thread that was started with the sole intention of attacking Claus. I would have thought that your comments should be directed at neofight.

You claim that you are a sceptic, but what are you sceptical of exactly? In the other thread you took exception to being called a woo-woo. In reply I asked that you confirm that you beleive in certain things. You did not respond there but chose to make your point here instead. You have obviuosly spotted a few like minded individuals on this thread.

For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Answer these questions and then we can leave it other posters to decide whether you are best described as a sceptic or as a woo woo.

I consider myself to be a sceptic and take great exception to you using that term to describe youself given the views you expouse. It is a deliberate tactic designed to irritate sceptics and you know it. So if you really want to encourage civil behaviour on this board you need to look rather closer to home.

CFLarsen

3rd July 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic
For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Don't forget: Dowsing works if you want it to.

neofight

3rd July 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

It's interesting that you choose to make this post in a thread that was started with the sole intention of attacking Claus. I would have thought that your comments should be directed at neofight.

RonSceptic, I did not start this thread for the purpose of "attacking" Claus. I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate. Several of your fellow skeptics have acknowledged that his debating tactics are less than honest. If you read through this thread, and others, you would have to agree with them. I had hoped that bringing this issue out into the open, might result in some changes around here. Changes for the better....neo

BillHoyt

3rd July 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by neofight

RonSceptic, I did not start this thread for the purpose of "attacking" Claus. I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate. [/B]

*ahem*
My purpose in doing this, is to demonstrate for you, even if you do not feel free to openly agree with me, that Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired.

:wink8:

Cheers,

RonSceptic

4th July 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by neofight

RonSceptic, I did not start this thread for the purpose of "attacking" Claus. I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate. Several of your fellow skeptics have acknowledged that his debating tactics are less than honest. If you read through this thread, and others, you would have to agree with them. I had hoped that bringing this issue out into the open, might result in some changes around here. Changes for the better....neo [/B]

If Claus makes misreprentations in a debate you can challenge him on them specifically. Posters on this board are routinely called to account for things they post. You may have noticed this.

Thanz

4th July 2003, 05:00 AM

RonSceptic

4th July 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

I have done this, and Claus steadfastly refuses to answer my questions.

Well you could always start up a 'List of questions for Claus'. :D

neofight

4th July 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

If Claus makes misreprentations in a debate you can challenge him on them specifically. Posters on this board are routinely called to account for things they post. You may have noticed this.

All well and good, RonS, if it were an occasional occurrance with Claus. Unfortunately, it's not the exception, but the norm, and no one has that kind of time to devote to this board. His record on accuracy is abominable.

I see you are not a newbie, but I don't remember seeing you post on any of the more recent threads here where we've been discussing Claus' debating tactics. If you read through this, and some of the other threads, you will see plenty examples of what it is I am referring to. regards, neo

neofight

4th July 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

*ahem*

:wink8:

Cheers,

And you're suggesting that there's some sort of a contradiction here I presume? Is this supposed to be a "gotcha" moment? :con2: .....neo

Clancie

4th July 2003, 08:59 AM

Posted by neo

His record on accuracy is abominable
Yes, neo, and correcting him always becomes a long-winded back-and-forth effort that I doubt most people take an interest in anyway.

Unfortunately, that also means the corrections of his points are often missed (as when he recently posted a comment from me out of context in order to make it mean something completely different--something I still find shockingly dishonest, even from Claus. I'm sure most people didn't notice, or probably even care, though, but at least there's a record of it here).

That's why discussion moves along so much better whenever I can discipline myself to ignore all his baiting and misstatements, avoid a "back and forth" with him about them completely, just keep him on "Ignore", and let discussion stay focused on the topics at hand instead.

Difficult to do, but it definitely improves the chances of having an actual discussion about something.

neofight

4th July 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
That's why discussion moves along so much better whenever I can discipline myself to ignore all his baiting and misstatements, avoid a "back and forth" with him about them completely, just keep him on "Ignore", and let discussion stay focused on the topics at hand instead.

Difficult to do, but it definitely improves the chances of having an actual discussion about something.

I know. That seems to be the biggest complaint about Claus, even from his fellow-skeptics, that he derails the threads off their original topics with all the bickering and nonsense that he causes. :( .....neo

CFLarsen

5th July 2003, 04:18 AM

Originally posted by neofight
His record on accuracy is abominable.

Funny how you were unable to show just one of my inaccuracies.

Originally posted by neofight
I see you are not a newbie, but I don't remember seeing you post on any of the more recent threads here where we've been discussing Claus' debating tactics. If you read through this, and some of the other threads, you will see plenty examples of what it is I am referring to. regards, neo

Yeah, just leave it to others to find evidence of your claims.

Originally posted by neofight
I know. That seems to be the biggest complaint about Claus, even from his fellow-skeptics, that he derails the threads off their original topics with all the bickering and nonsense that he causes. :( .....neo

Thanks for generalizing wildy, creating the impression that I have received a lot of complaints. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm sure most people didn't notice, or probably even care, though, but at least there's a record of it here).

Where??

Originally posted by Clancie
That's why discussion moves along so much better whenever I can discipline myself to ignore all his baiting and misstatements, avoid a "back and forth" with him about them completely, just keep him on "Ignore", and let discussion stay focused on the topics at hand instead.

Ah, back to yet another "ignore"-period from you? You know, I've lost count of how many times that has happened. Somehow, your ego always makes you break your own promise...

Originally posted by Clancie
Difficult to do, but it definitely improves the chances of having an actual discussion about something.

You want to discuss issues?? Fine with me! I have no problems leaving this personal flubber behind.

Let's see who can refrain from getting personal the longest.

neofight

5th July 2003, 05:18 AM

:dl:

neofight

7th July 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanks for generalizing wildy, creating the impression that I have received a lot of complaints. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

Not complaints, Claus. Contructive criticism, and honest acknowledgement from your fellow-skeptics that your debating tactics are less than stellar, and at times even seemingly dishonest.

No one said that any "complaints" have been made to you, Claus. Some comments, supportive of my position, have been made both on these threads, and privately via PM to myself and to other believers who post here. Go back and re-read this thread, and you will see that what I say is true.

Furthermore, I have no desire to keep rehashing MY complaint about the way you debate, Claus. I've made my point, and I've noted the responses. The only reason I am still talking about the issue, is because you, apparently, despite the evidence right in front of you, keep denying first, that you have a chronic problem, and secondly, that I am not the only one who has acknowledged that fact.

As far as I'm concerned, my thread has served it's purpose, and unless you keep denying what I've shown to be true, I have no more to say on the subject. (unless the status quo continues in the new subjects that come up in debate) In that case, I will ask unanimous consent to address the forum as needed and to revise and extend my remarks. lol ;) ......neo

CFLarsen

8th July 2003, 03:57 AM

neo,

So, now you back down, without having been able to show just one example.

Nice going.

neofight

8th July 2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neo,

So, now you back down, without having been able to show just one example.

Nice going.

Surely you are not serious? :roll: Very well then! Have it your way. Keep bumping the thread so that all the newcomers can catch up to speed and see Claus......being Claus! :rolleyes: ....neo

CFLarsen

8th July 2003, 05:20 AM

Sure, neo. Let's keep this alive a little longer. Don't forget the reason for this thread:

Originally posted by neofight
But I'd like to post one of those old threads, just to give you an example of Claus' poor logic and unfair debating practices. I think I'll begin a new thread after all, so as not to mix it up with the general topic. It's rather long, but even if you just read "Page 1" it includes at least one of Claus' offending posts.

Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".

Nor were you.

Thanz

8th July 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".
I just took a quick look back, and as I see it at least 4 people pointed out problems with your postings in the other thread - Lurker, Loki, RichardR and me. And these are just from the people I would not classify as "believers". Others (LukeT was one) pointed out that your style may be too aggressive.

So, are you lying here Claus? Or do you simply refuse to accept criticism?

Leroy

8th July 2003, 06:30 AM

You might be very pleasantly surprised, Leroy. I think you just might enjoy the experience......neo

I might enjoy a seminar neofight, but maybe for different reasons that what a believer would enjoy it. :D Then again if I saw obvious fraud in JE during the seminar, I might not be able to hold my tongue!

I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate.

Are you talking about how he will BOMBAST, Nit-Pick, take things out of context, use the LUNATIC FRINGE, ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION, Have SELECTIVE MEMORY, call you a LIAR without and evidence or proof? Act like he answered questions when he didn't. Avoid the subject by attacking the person?

Posted by Neofight: My purpose in doing this, is to demonstrate for you, even if you do not feel free to openly agree with me, that Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired

So, Ron you believe this is an attack on CF? So, if I steal a car, try to outrun the law, get caught with drugs in my possession, and the arresting officer tries to point this out to the judge, than that officer is attacking me?

Cousin Bill used to take credit for work I accomplished. I would mow granny's lawn and Bill would take credit for it. I would chop wood for granny and Bill would take credit for it. If I had gone to granny and said "Mammie, I hate to bother you with this, but cousin Bill is dishonest." Would this would be an outright attack on Bill?

So, what should one do if they had a legitimate complaint about another person? Ignore it?

Leroy

8th July 2003, 06:49 AM

Funny how you were unable to show just one of my inaccuracies.

G'morning to you sir. How about on the "Taken in by John Edward Thread"

You claimed that Posted by CFLarsen: - The "trend" here on JREF is that, if you ask, you get an answer.

Yet Lurker asked you specific questions and for three pages you have failed to answer them. :confused:

Yeah, just leave it to others to find evidence of your claims.

On the "Takin in" thread you claimed:

originally posted by CFLarsen: - I was criticized on TVTalkshows for not wanting to disclose my real name to Valyou.

Yet you couldn't provide one shred of evidence for this, you simply mentioned some board the evidence was supposedly on, and left it at that.

hello! posted by CFLarsen: Thanks for generalizing wildy, creating the impression that I have received a lot of complaints. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

[COLOR=blue] how about on the John Edward thread, there's Lurker, Thanz, Neofight, Myself, and Clancie. That isn't alot, but we five have complained about how you avoid answering questions, call posters liar without a shred of evidence, when asked for evidence fail to give it.

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
So, Ron you believe this is an attack on CF? So, if I steal a car, try to outrun the law, get caught with drugs in my possession, and the arresting officer tries to point this out to the judge, than that officer is attacking me?

Cousin Bill used to take credit for work I accomplished. I would mow granny's lawn and Bill would take credit for it. I would chop wood for granny and Bill would take credit for it. If I had gone to granny and said "Mammie, I hate to bother you with this, but cousin Bill is dishonest." Would this would be an outright attack on Bill?

So, what should one do if they had a legitimate complaint about another person? Ignore it?

Well if someone had proved that you stole the car you might have a point. From what I have seen on this thread the case against Claus is not proven.

Infact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion. Frankly I would rather we all got down to talking about issues rather than personailities.

The point is that posters here can read, and are very capable of reaching their own conclusions.

neofight

8th July 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Well if someone had proved that you stole the car you might have a point. From what I have seen on this thread the case against Claus is not proven.

Infact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion. Frankly I would rather we all got down to talking about issues rather than personailities.

The point is that posters here can read, and are very capable of reaching their own conclusions.

Sorry, RonSceptic, but I have to respond to your comments. It's true, as you say, that the posters here can read these claims against Claus, and decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.

But it really doesn't help the cause of truth, Ron, if people like you, for instance, regardless of whether or not you agree with us that Claus' debating tactics are dishonest in general, won't at least admit that his claim that.......

Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".

is just downright inaccurate and untruthful! If you continue to support Claus unconditionally, despite all the evidence that he is not being honest here, then I don't know what else to say. :confused: If you're not part of the solution, then imo, you are part of the problem. :( .....neo

Clancie

8th July 2003, 08:26 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".

May I help? Here are a few examples from this thread and others:

1. Not answering the direct questions from Lurker

2. Not answering the direct questions from Thanz

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

3. Calling me a liar on the "No General Seating" thread and elsewhere and never, ever, giving a shred of evidence for it

4. Offering a 94 MB file ("36 times longer than War and Peace") as "evidence" about my posts. It contained nothing to support your claim at all.

It's true that you get a "pass" here from some, Claus, because, imo, they want to believe your claims and therefore don't demand the evidence from you to support them.

But it's also obvious that many others are fully aware of what you're doing. :rolleyes:

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Sorry, RonSceptic, but I have to respond to your comments. It's true, as you say, that the posters here can read these claims against Claus, and decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.

But it really doesn't help the cause of truth, Ron, if people like you, for instance, regardless of whether or not you agree with us that Claus' debating tactics are dishonest in general, won't at least admit that his claim that.......

is just downright inaccurate and untruthful! If you continue to support Claus unconditionally, despite all the evidence that he is not being honest here, then I don't know what else to say. :confused: If you're not part of the solution, then imo, you are part of the problem. :( .....neo

I've seen Claus in action on many threads over the last couple of years. I can't remember any instances where he has been deliberately dishonest. So I think it's pretty unfair of you to suggest that his debating tactics are 'dishonest in general'. It 's a sweeping comment that doesn't tally with my own experience of his posting.

However I clearly haven't seen every thread he has posted on so I am not in a position to give any unconditional support of any kind. Nor am I interested in doing so.

Sorry if my opinion makes me a problem, but there it is. It's just an opinion. I only came to this thread because I was dragged her by Luci's peculiar tactic of posting her complaint about me here rather than on the thread where the original comments were made. Frankly I think this thread has become pretty tedious.

You seem to be a pretty interesting poster, and no doubt we will debate each other in the future. Let's hope that we can do so constructively. As I said, let's talk about issues rathger than personalities.
:cool:

neofight

8th July 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by RonscepticInfact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Clancie

Really? What has he demolished, Ron? How has he answered these charges he's made about my lies, and about believers. How has he responded to questions from skeptics like Lurker and Thanz?

Really, I'd like to know.

I would too! I'm sorry that got by me, Clancie. Claus' bogus accusations against you are really despicable, and it would seem that Ron's *opinion* has more than a little bit of bias behind it......neo

Clancie

8th July 2003, 08:34 AM

Thanks, neo.

I kind of gave up on that post to RonSkeptic and took it out. I decided to post a list to Claus of his lies and evasions instead, since he indicates being unaware of them. :rolleyes:

Ron seems like a nice enough person, but it's kind of depressing that someone can accept Claus's mixture of lies about me and evasions of direct questions from his fellow skeptics and interpret it somehow as "demolishing" me.

Oh well. I just hope more skeptics here than just Lurker and Thanz will start to recognize Claus's tactics and hold him accountable for them..

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by neofight

I would too! I'm sorry that got by me, Clancie. Claus' bogus accusations against you are really despicable, and it would seem that Ron's *opinion* has more than a little bit of bias behind it......neo

I think that it's always possible to pick out some inconsistancy and build it into a case if you really want to. What Claus did was apply the technique to the 'did she/didn't she read the file' issue. In my opinion he was doing this to turn the tables on those who were attacking him. I think, but again it's my opinion, that he did this quite effectivly, more effectively than neo's attack on Claus. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Utimately though it's probably splitting hairs. I am not convinced by either case. They are both excercises in futility. And for the record I am not saying that Clancie is a liar, anymore than I would say that Claus is generally dishonest.

Am I biased? Probably yes. I clearly have sceptical leanings and so I can well imagine that at an unconsious level I might instinctively tend to side with a fellow sceptic under personal attack from those I perceive to be beleivers in the paranormal.

neofight

8th July 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

I've seen Claus in action on many threads over the last couple of years. I can't remember any instances where he has been deliberately dishonest. So I think it's pretty unfair of you to suggest that his debating tactics are 'dishonest in general'. It 's a sweeping comment that doesn't tally with my own experience of his posting.

Well, although it's true that a whole lot of our negative experiences with Claus/Cantata come from the past year or two over at TVTalkShows, Ron, there are also plenty of examples of Claus' dishonesty right here on this thread, and several other current threads. I guess you just missed them.

However I clearly haven't seen every thread he has posted on so I am not in a position to give any unconditional support of any kind. Nor am I interested in doing so.

I realize that, Ron, and I understand how you feel. If you were going to simply remain neutral on the issue, I wouldn't have had a problem with you at all. But if you are going to weigh in on the subject, as you did, and not only dispute the fact that Claus has made unfounded claims and avoided direct answers to direct questions, but ALSO praise the job he did of *demolishing* Clancie, :con2: when nothing could be further from the truth, then that's another story altogether.

Frankly I think this thread has become pretty tedious.

LOL Actually, even though I'm the one who started this thread, I tend to agree with you, and I even offered to stop posting here, if only Claus would stop his immature denials of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, he prefers to continue arguing the point, even though he has been nailed quite effectively. But then, you disagree with that assertion. :)

You seem to be a pretty interesting poster, and no doubt we will debate each other in the future. Let's hope that we can do so constructively. As I said, let's talk about issues rathger than personalities.:cool:

I'll look forward to it, Ron. I agree that this sort of thing is nothing but a drag, but I felt it was necessary to finally bring this thing to a head. I was foolish enough to think that Claus might be big enough to acknowledge the validity of some of our complaints, and try to address them, but alas......so such luck. :rolleyes: .......neo

Clancie

8th July 2003, 10:00 AM

RonSkeptic,

Just curious. You mentioned Claus's 18 MB file.

I know this is tedious, but surely you understand what it's like to have someone repeatedly claim you're a liar.

Since you seem to feel he's given evidence of his claim, could you please explain how the contents of the file he linked supports his claim that it shows that I'm "a liar"?

Thank you.

(btw, It's on the "No General Seating at John Edward Seminars" thread, pg 14-17--I think p. 17, but don't feel like checking again. Around there, though. No need to scroll through the whole thing).

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by neofight
I'll look forward to it, Ron. I agree that this sort of thing is nothing but a drag, but I felt it was necessary to finally bring this thing to a head. I was foolish enough to think that Claus might be big enough to acknowledge the validity of some of our complaints, and try to address them, but alas......so such luck. :rolleyes: .......neo [/B]

Neo,

I'd like to share something with you.

When I first came across you name (containing 'fight'), your avatar, and the fact that you had started a thread which looked like it had the sole intent of attacking another poster, I just assumed that you were an agressive troll looking to pick a fight. That's why the tone of some of my initial comments towards you were the way they were. Having now actually read a few of your posts I see that I was mistaken. I unreservedly apologise threfore if any of my comments were ofensive. However, I hope that you take on board, in the spirit in which it is intended, that the way you have chosen to present yourself might give off an unfortunate first impression which might color the way other posters percieve you.

As is no major suprise given mt chosen name, I regard myself as a sceptic. By that I mean to say that I am not currently persuaded by arguments for mediums, ESP, dowsing, Geller, and the paranormal in general. I guess that puts me in the majortity on this board. I do however know what it feels like to be in the monority here.

Some months ago there was a thread about legalising pot. It's not a subject on which I hold any particularly strong views. However, I though the thread was pretty one sided so I just thought I'd raise a couple of issues for discussion, namely the possible increase in drug use among children, and health risks.

Well, you'd have thought I had just shot the President! I got agressive, flipant, and ultimately abusive replies. Some posters couldn't be bothered to read what I had actually posted, preferring instead to attack views which they assumed I must hold. I was asked to defend positions I had never actually advocated, and generally castigated. At first I responded in kind. But then I realised how futile it was. The actual issue had become secondary. Now it just a case of trying to score points off the opponent.

That is so typical of so many exchanges on these boards. But it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. We all leave the room with the same prejudices that we walked in with.

On that very same thread however, there were one or two posters who presented reasoned arguments, accepted some points, conceded others and generally advanced the discussion in a constructive way. That was was so very much more interesting,informative and persuasive.

Since then I have tried to be more constructive, though I have from time to time failed. For example in the Police and Psychics thread I got so exasperated by what I though was a particularly innane response to a question that I used the term 'woo woo'. As you can imagine, it didn't advance the debate very far.

So what I am coming round to is this. Just because you disagree with a persons belief, or lack it, does not mean that you can not have a dialogue with that person and actually learn something form them. I think it would be a worthwhile excersise for sceptics and non sceptics to at least try and understand each other.

It may be difficult to do that here because speaking openly and honestly about why one thinks and feels the way one does leaves one open to sniping by the zealots on both sides. But if we can refrain from making value judgements on other people views, and be willing occasionaly to admit mistakes, this board may yet prove to have some merit.

So that's how I'll try to proceed from now on.

Sermon over.

Ron.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
RonSkeptic,

Just curious. You mentioned Claus's 18 MB file.

I know this is tedious, but surely you understand what it's like to have someone repeatedly claim you're a liar.

Since you seem to feel he's given evidence of his claim, could you please explain how the contents of the file he linked supports his claim that it shows that I'm "a liar"?

Thank you.

(btw, It's on the "No General Seating at John Edward Seminars" thread, pg 14-17--I think p. 17, but don't feel like checking again. Around there, though. No need to scroll through the whole thing).

Yes, I can well understand that it must be very irritating to be called a Liar and for the avoidance of any doubt let me say that I am not saying that Claus has proved that you are.

To be honest I have only scanned quickly through this thread, and haven't delved deply into all the posts. It doesn't really interest me enough. So given that, my earlier comments are probably ill judged.

I therfore withdraw my comments about 'the demolition job'.

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Infact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion. Frankly I would rather we all got down to talking about issues rather than personailities.

That, unfortunately, does not seem to be the goals of the believers here. I'm all for it, but no takers, so far.

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
1. Not answering the direct questions from Lurker

2. Not answering the direct questions from Thanz

I will not go on answering the same questions again and again.

Originally posted by Clancie
3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

If there were no such agreement, then why did you engage in non-related (to the Neil/JE-comparison) Q&As after the agreement?

Originally posted by Clancie
3. Calling me a liar on the "No General Seating" thread and elsewhere and never, ever, giving a shred of evidence for it

I have given plenty of evidence.

Originally posted by Clancie
4. Offering a 94 MB file ("36 times longer than War and Peace") as "evidence" about my posts. It contained nothing to support your claim at all.

So, now you read the files, Clancie?? Can you make up your mind, because I'm very confused here?!?!

Originally posted by Clancie
It's true that you get a "pass" here from some, Claus, because, imo, they want to believe your claims and therefore don't demand the evidence from you to support them.

Believe me: If I screw up, they will take me to task.

Originally posted by Clancie
But it's also obvious that many others are fully aware of what you're doing. :rolleyes:

"Many" others...yes...appeal to popularity again.

thaiboxerken

9th July 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
RonSkeptic,
Since you seem to feel he's given evidence of his claim, could you please explain how the contents of the file he linked supports his claim that it shows that I'm "a liar"?

So, how many times has CFL called you a liar?

Thanz

9th July 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I will not go on answering the same questions again and again.
Just once would be fine, if you actually answered the questions. But you know that you haven't, and that the true answers would show that you were incorrect in your statements, so you just keep avoiding them.

But, I agree with RonSceptic that there should be more discussion of issues and less squabbling. You, Claus, and your confrontational posting style, are part of the noise problem that drowns out the signal in threads. You seem to be too busy trying shove people into positions so that you can catch them in a "lie" that really isn't a lie that you don't actually spend much time debating the issues.

Here is a tip - stop trying to get believers to "admit" anything with regards to your arguments. It does not matter whether or not Clancie admits that there are chances for JE to hot read. It does not make one bit of difference. Just present your arguments and let everyone make up their own minds. If you spent less time trying to get the believers to admit their mistakes and more time just pointing them out, we'd all be a lot farther ahead.

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 05:42 AM

Thanz,

I don't like lies. And, unfortunately, a considerable part of the claims that come from woowoos are built on lies.

Uri Geller. Sylvia Browne. Peter Popoff. Steve Grenard. The list is much longer, I'm sad to say.

No, I will not stop pointing out lies, where I find them. But I am all for discussing issues, and finding some real evidence - if it is there.

Leroy

9th July 2003, 06:25 AM

Well if someone had proved that you stole the car you might have a point. From what I have seen on this thread the case against Claus is not proven.

So we shouldn't bring it up at all?

The point is that posters here can read, and are very capable of reaching their own conclusions.

Which I've done concerning C.F. after reading his very weird postings on the JE thread. I saw the same things that clancie saw from CF. He doesn't practice what he preaches, and he expects what he does not give.

[1. Not answering the direct questions from Lurker

2. Not answering the direct questions from Thanz

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

3. Calling me a liar on the "No General Seating" thread and elsewhere and never, ever, giving a shred of evidence for it

4. Offering a 94 MB file ("36 times longer than War and Peace") as "evidence" about my posts. It contained nothing to support your claim at all.]

She is right in what she posted above - all the while CF is stating how we should answer questions, as he does, and show proof of our cliams? Is there something wrong with the man? A learning difficulty? Seriously.

Leroy

9th July 2003, 06:28 AM

I've seen Claus in action on many threads over the last couple of years. I can't remember any instances where he has been deliberately dishonest. Do you read everything? Do you not think it dishonest to:

One can outright lie, or one can take things out of context to portray something that isn't there, either way it is dishonest.

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

Is my assumption that the agreement is not restrained to just one subject not justified when Clancie answers questions on things unrelated to the agreement?

If the agreement was only restricted to one subject, why does she engage in one-for-one anyway??

Perhaps you are of the opinion that she can change the rules on-the-fly, change them back, and accuse me of wrong-doing?

I'm most insterested to hear your reply.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Do you read everything? Do you not think it dishonest to:

One can outright lie, or one can take things out of context to portray something that isn't there, either way it is dishonest.

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

No I haven't read everything. I said so in the post which you quote from above...........

However I clearly haven't seen every thread he has posted on so I am not in a position to give any unconditional support of any kind. Nor am I interested in doing so.

I've also admited that I have not delved deeply into this thread and that I'm not really in a position to make any definitive pronouncements.

I think this is an issue you should take up directly with Claus. I'm sure he can answer for himself.

Thanz

9th July 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

I don't like lies. And, unfortunately, a considerable part of the claims that come from woowoos are built on lies.
Not fond of lies myself. But the claim that you make to start the "Taken In by John Edward" thread has not been substantiated, despite my repeated requests of you to do so. This makes your thread "a claim built on lies".

You have said one thing, and then refused to back it up. Similarly with what you claim to be Clancie's "lies". This sort of behaviour is exactly what you complain of when it is done by believers.

So, either answer my questions or I will be forced to conclude that you can't, and are a liar.

Leroy

9th July 2003, 09:24 AM

I'm most insterested to hear your reply.

I'm most interested to hear your reply on the "taken in by John Edward" thread, that you seem to be avoiding :roll:

btw, you made a comment that everyone else could see where clancie lied, so I asked anyone who could see it to speak up. So far nobody has :confused: - which is a shame because I was hoping, since you couldn't point out where she lied, that they could.

I think this is an issue you should take up directly with Claus. I'm sure he can answer for himself.

Thank you for your honest response, I certainly wish CF would answer, but he seems to have difficulty with answering questions. He won't even respond on the thread he started about JE I think it has gotten too difficult for him.

Clancie

9th July 2003, 07:12 PM

Posted by CFLarsen

Is my assumption that the agreement is not restrained to just one subject not justified when Clancie answers questions on things unrelated to the agreement?

What are you talking about, Claus?

Way back, on the "No General Seating" thread, we argued about Neil's cold reading demo at TVTalkshows. I said I'd answer your questions about that topic we were discussing if you didn't bunch them all together in one post.

Several days later, unrelated to that thread, you went ahead and started another long long post to me in a thread you titled "(55) Questions for Clancie". It had questions about everything, I think, but the proverbial kitchen sink. :rolleyes:

Clearly, at that time you didn't think we had any "Q/A agreement" based on my post in the "No General Seating" thread. Neither of us thought so.

That so-called "agreement" was something you have recently made up since then, only in order to try (futilely, imo) to justify misrepresenting my post about cold reading, posting it completely out of context, and trying to turn it into some kind of general "Point Counterpoint" agreement, which it never was. (As evidenced by your long "55 Questions...." thread subsequent to it).

Why can't you be honest about what you tried to do, and just admit you got caught using my post deceptively--and that you knew it was deceptive when you did it?

Why is it so hard for you to just say, "Yes, using your post in a completely different context was wrong. I'm sorry."? :confused:

neofight

9th July 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Neo,

I'd like to share something with you.

When I first came across you name (containing 'fight'), your avatar, and the fact that you had started a thread which looked like it had the sole intent of attacking another poster, I just assumed that you were an agressive troll looking to pick a fight. That's why the tone of some of my initial comments towards you were the way they were. Having now actually read a few of your posts I see that I was mistaken. I unreservedly apologise threfore if any of my comments were ofensive.

Hello, Ron! Apology happily accepted, although I'm not sure that one was needed. :) It's sometimes a little difficult to get an immediate and accurate take on a fellow poster, which is why I usually try not to be too confrontational when first addressing someone new. Don't worry, we all mess up at times, despite the best intentions. lol

However, I hope that you take on board, in the spirit in which it is intended, that the way you have chosen to present yourself might give off an unfortunate first impression which might color the way other posters percieve you.

I suppose that is true, Ron, but as with yourself, those posters who are worth exchanging ideas with, will in time recognize that I'm not a trouble-making rabble-rouser. ;) I came up with the "fight" in neofight a few years ago, when I was new to message boards, and I was posting exclusively on an aggressive, no-nonsense political board. I spelled it that was to give a little extra edge to my username. Over at JohnEdwardFriends, where I do occasionally post, I'm the softer and gentler NEOPHYTE. lol

With regard to my avatar, I actually came close to picking out an animated gif of a flower with a butterfly. How milquetoasty can I get? lol So then I thought to myself that I should really pick out an image of something that means something to me. During the Elian Gonzales affair, I was very active on my political board, and I got very caught up, as well as extremely emotionally invested in that whole saga, so I thought it would be appropriate for me to use that photo. It was either that or the planes crashing into our WTC, and I may just use that one also, on a rotating basis with this one, just because I believe that there are some things that one should not forget, nor shy away from. :(

I do however know what it feels like to be in the monority here.......Well, you'd have thought I had just shot the President! I got agressive, flipant, and ultimately abusive replies.

Yep, I know the pattern. :D That's why not too many people here ever noticed that Claus is not the fairest of debaters. For a good many of the issues, the skeptics are all on the same side, so most of them had no occasion to butt heads with him. lol

That is so typical of so many exchanges on these boards. But it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. We all leave the room with the same prejudices that we walked in with.

Very true indeed! :)

On that very same thread however, there were one or two posters who presented reasoned arguments, accepted some points, conceded others and generally advanced the discussion in a constructive way. That was was so very much more interesting,informative and persuasive.

Absolutely, Ron! That's what debating is, a meaningful exchange of ideas. I hate it when the topic gets completely side-tracked, not even by related subject matter, but by utter nonsense. I don't think too many people appreciate when that happens.

I used the term 'woo woo'. As you can imagine, it didn't advance the debate very far.

LOL No, that is not exactly one of my favorite terms either. :roll:

So what I am coming round to is this. Just because you disagree with a persons belief, or lack it, does not mean that you can not have a dialogue with that person and actually learn something form them. I think it would be a worthwhile excersise for sceptics and non sceptics to at least try and understand each other.

That is the sort of give-and-take relationship that several of us have established both here and over at TVTalk, Ron. Although, due to that site being inaccessible for a good while, many of us have gotten out of the TVTalk habit. That was our real home. We may go back there yet if we can drum up enough interest, although I've gotten to feel much more at home here than I used to be. :)

It may be difficult to do that here because speaking openly and honestly about why one thinks and feels the way one does leaves one open to sniping by the zealots on both sides. But if we can refrain from making value judgements on other people views, and be willing occasionaly to admit mistakes, this board may yet prove to have some merit.

So that's how I'll try to proceed from now on.

Good show! Ron, I can't tell you how pleased I was when I read your post. Here's to a new beginning! Clancie and I both had the same instincts about you, and I'm happy to say that we were right. Not to brag or anything, but we do have excellent instincts and judgement where people are concerned. ;)

Anyhow, Ron, thanks again for expressing yourself in such an honest manner..........neo

neofight

9th July 2003, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Why is it so hard for you to just say, "Yes, using your post in a completely different context was wrong. I'm sorry."? :confused:

Wouldn't that be refreshing, Clancie? Then we could all have one great big cyberhug and get on with more important issues. lol :D ....neo

RonSceptic

10th July 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by neofight
During the Elian Gonzales affair, I was very active on my political board, and I got very caught up, as well as extremely emotionally invested in that whole saga, so I thought it would be appropriate for me to use that photo.
[/B]

Sorry to show my ignorance but can you tell me what the Eilia Gonzales affair was. I take it that it must be an assassination or terrorist outrage?

And many thanks for your comments!:)

neofight

10th July 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Sorry to show my ignorance but can you tell me what the Eilia Gonzales affair was. I take it that it must be an assassination or terrorist outrage?

And many thanks for your comments!:)

Your very welcome, Ron! :)

The Elian Gonzales affair occurred a few years ago in the Clinton Administration. A Cuban mother lost her life while trying to escape Castro's murderous regime. She had her young son with her, as well as her common-law husband and 11 other Cubans. She drowned along with the others, but Elian miraculously survived and was picked up by two cousins who were out fishing.

The mother's family had known that the escape was about to happen, and when the boy was brought ashore, he was placed under his uncle's care in Miami. Problem was that Castro wanted this kid back in Cuba, for his own selfish political reasons, and with Clinton's blessing, the Janet Reno Justice Department, turned our Constitution on it's head and ran circles around our child custody laws, to give Castro what he wanted.

The boy's biological father was in Cuba, and the Clinton Administration used the bogus excuse of father's rights to force this family to give up the child, as though a father, or anyone else for that matter, really had any rights in Communist Cuba. :rolleyes:

They refused, which was their right, since this was a custody case, and by law, should have eventually been heard and decided in a family court of law. Instead, the DOJ raided this uncle's house in the dead of night, with federal agents armed with assault rifles, and plucked this terrorfied child right out of the sanctity of his uncle's house. In fact, they grabbed him right from the closet where they were hiding when the agents forcibly broke into the house in a pre-dawn raid, the morning before Easter. My avatar shows little Elian being held in the arms of Donato Dalrymple, one of the men who had actually saved his life when they found him floating on an innertube off the coast of Florida.

So you are correct, Ron. This was akin to a terrorist act, and it is something that I will never, ever, as long as I live, get over. To wake up that morning and see that terrifying picture all over the place, was truly a blood-chilling moment for this country. :(

Well, sorry, but you did ask! ;) ...........neo

Sundog

10th July 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Well, sorry, but you did ask! ;) ...........neo

I suggest he reads about it in the news, rather than relying on this fantastically biased version. But thanks for sharing. We hadn't heard NEARLY enough about poor little Elian.

:rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 03:37 PM

CFL's credibility has little to do with the fact that people do not have superpowers. John Edward might talk to the dead, but they certainly don't talk back. There is no credible evidence of an afterlife, ghosts or spirits, nor is there credible evidence that JE talks to spirits.

Get JE to take the JREF million and I'll believe. Until then, I'll just take JE's own words at face value "for entertainment purposes only" and "not to be construed as factual statements".

:cool:

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Sundog

I suggest he reads about it in the news, rather than relying on this fantastically biased version. But thanks for sharing. We hadn't heard NEARLY enough about poor little Elian.

:rolleyes:

Elian is no more special than any other kid. Screw Elian, I'll take care of US citizens instead.

Jeff Corey

10th July 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by neofight

The boy's biological father was in Cuba, and the Clinton Administration used the bogus excuse of father's rights to force this family to give up the child, as though a father, or anyone else for that matter, really had any rights in Communist Cuba. :rolleyes:
Roll your eyes all you want to, but the kid's father legally was the boy's rightful guardian. You wouldn't know about that kind of thing.

Sundog

10th July 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Roll your eyes all you want to, but the kid's father legally was the boy's rightful guardian. You wouldn't know about that kind of thing.

Absolutely. End of story. Roll up the carpet. Next case.

I will NEVER forgive those whining idiots in Florida for helping elect Bush out of revenge for the awful crime of returning a boy to his father. If anyone ever figures out a way to deport them, they've got my vote.

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 03:56 PM

Clinton Administration used the bogus excuse of father's rights to force this family to give up the child, as though a father, or anyone else for that matter, really had any rights in Communist Cuba.

So because "Communist Cuba" doesn't allow people rights, the USA shouldn't allow those same citizens right's as well?

Wow, you must be a genius.:rolleyes:

It was an illegal immigration, he was an illegal alien. He was parasite living off of the rest of the USA society while responsible citizens pay taxes.

neofight

10th July 2003, 04:03 PM

Hey, Ron asked me, and I told him. :p Touched a soft spot with you liberals, did I? I personally don't think that any of you have any idea of what you are talking about. If you want to go start a new thead about the Elian saga, then feel free to do so.

I'm all for a father's right to custody, but they do not apply in this case since the child was born 2 years after the mother divorced Juan Gonzales. You want to talk rule of law, Jeff? He was not married to Elian's mother at the time he was conceived, so sorry, you are making an invalid argument. He would have had to either re-marry her at the time Elian was born, or he would have had to adopt him afterwards. Neither was the case here. He had no father's rights to Elian. He was simply Castro's pawn here. :(

And if Ron is interested, he is perfectly capable of reading any old newspaper accounts of this case that he'd like to. :D .....neo

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 04:09 PM

Hey, Ron asked me, and I told him. :p Touched a soft spot with you liberals, did I?

I think you are rather confused, it's the liberal position to help out illegal aliens.

I personally don't think that any of you have any idea of what you are talking about. If you want to go start a new thead about the Elian saga, then feel free to do so.

I know that Elian was not a USA citizen, and therefore has no rights as a USA citizen. You should STFU about parasites like that.

I'm all for a father's right to custody, but they do not apply in this case since the child was born 2 years after the mother divorced Juan Gonzales.

I'm all for shipping out illegal aliens, infants and children included.

You want to talk rule of law, Jeff? He was not married to Elian's mother at the time he was conceived, so sorry, you are making an invalid argument.

Biological fathers have rights, married or not. Especially since Elian isn't a USA citizen, he belongs in his country of origin.

He would have had to either re-marry her at the time Elian was born, or he would have had to adopt him afterwards. Neither was the case here. He had no father's rights to Elian. He was simply Castro's pawn here. :(

Cuba has rights to it's citizens, not us.

neofight

10th July 2003, 04:19 PM

[i]It was an illegal immigration, he was an illegal alien. He was parasite living off of the rest of the USA society while responsible citizens pay taxes. [/B]

Tbk, if you don't know what you are talking about, you should just bow out of this debate. This debate that I just said that I didn't want to get into. :roll:

Elian was not an illegal alien, fyi. He had made it to our shores, so that doesn't fly according to our country's policy on Cuba. Elian's Miami family was waiting for the custody question to be decided by the family courts. The courts had already ruled that until that happened, Elian had refugee status, and was under the guardianship of his uncle. So get your facts straight if you want to discuss this.

Sad to say that our own INS, under the disasterous and dangerous Doris Meisner, violated their own warrant by seizing him from his relatives in this manner. But then, when do these people ever let the 4th Amendment, or any other Amendment get in their way of their politics, ummm? :mad: ......neo

Jeff Corey

10th July 2003, 04:21 PM

Neo,
You stated he was the "biological father", right? Here, that would mean he would become the "adjudicated father" by the courts, unless evidence were presented that he was somehow unfit. If the mother died, that father would get custody. Period. Case closed.
My wife is an investigator for DSS, Child Protective Services, so I know a bit about how it works.

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 04:24 PM

Elian was not an illegal alien, fyi. He had made it to our shores, so that doesn't fly according to our country's policy on Cuba.

Then our policies need to be changed. Elian didn't apply for immigration, and he certainly doesn't pay taxes. Did Elian have a green card?

Elian's Miami family was waiting for the custody question to be decided by the family courts. The courts had already ruled that until that happened, Elian had refugee status, and was under the guardianship of his uncle. So get your facts straight if you want to discuss this.

Liberal legal system allows for parasites to live off of tax money all too often.

Sad to say that our own INS, under the disasterous and dangerous Doris Meisner, violated their own warrant by seizing him from his relatives in this manner.

Good for them.

But then, when do these people ever let the 4th Amendment, or any other Amendment get in their way of their politics, ummm? :mad: ......neo

4th amendment is for USA citizens.

Why is Elain so important to you? Are you a super-socialist?

neofight

10th July 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I think you are rather confused, it's the liberal position to help out illegal aliens.

I'm not confused, tbk, you are. Generally speaking, I have big problems with illegal immigration, and even disagree with President Bush on this issue. That's not what this was about.

If you are not a liberal, then why don't you have a problem with our Constitution being trashed every time you turn around? I guess that's all right with you?

And stop hijacking my thread! :mad: ......neo

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 04:38 PM

I'm not confused, tbk, you are. Generally speaking, I have big problems with illegal immigration, and even disagree with President Bush on this issue. That's not what this was about.

I have a problem with illegal immigration, even Cubans.

If you are not a liberal, then why don't you have a problem with our Constitution being trashed every time you turn around?

I do have a problem with things like the Patriot Act and Gun Controls. That would make me not a liberal or a conservative, but more of a libertarian. I make too much money to be a liberal. I don't like the race-card. Welfare is a socialist program that I don't like. I'm a capitalist.

I guess that's all right with you?

Nope.

neofight

10th July 2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Neo,
You stated he was the "biological father", right? Here, that would mean he would become the "adjudicated father" by the courts, unless evidence were presented that he was somehow unfit. If the mother died, that father would get custody. Period. Case closed.
My wife is an investigator for DSS, Child Protective Services, so I know a bit about how it works.

Well, that's all peachy dandy, Jeff, and I may be a bit dense, :rolleyes: but how exactly was it supposed to be determined that Juan was the adjudicated father, or even that he was a fit father, if the case was not even allowed to be brought to the courts, I'd like to know? Is it okay to just skip that small annoying procedure?

Ask your wife how often it happens in cases like this, that one side or the other simply takes it upon themselves to have the child abducted from the home of their guardian by agents armed with assault rifles, sanctioned by our own government, no less, and given to the favored party? I think perhaps you are not thinking this out, Jeff.......neo

neofight

10th July 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I have a problem with illegal immigration, even Cubans.

Fine, but unless and until we change our Cuban policy, if they make it to land, they are not considered illegals, okay? They are refugees trying to escape a dictatorship.

I do have a problem with things like the Patriot Act and Gun Controls. That would make me not a liberal or a conservative, but more of a libertarian. I make too much money to be a liberal. I don't like the race-card. Welfare is a socialist program that I don't like. I'm a capitalist.

Well then, for the most part, we agree a lot more ideologically than we do about mediumship, that's for sure. lol And Elian, obviously. Still, imho, your concern over the government trashing our 4th Amendment should trump any negative feelings you might have for this one poor little, at the time, 6-yr-old. Get your priorities straight, will ya? ;) .....neo

Jeff Corey

10th July 2003, 04:55 PM

Neo,
You appear not to be thinking it out. It could be that your political bias is blinding you.
If the biological mother is dead, the child should be with the biological father, if fit. Maybe your definition of "fit" doesn't fit a Cuban father.
Don't you believe in Family Values?

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Well then, for the most part, we agree a lot more ideologically than we do about mediumship, that's for sure. lol And Elian, obviously. Still, imho, your concern over the government trashing our 4th Amendment should trump any negative feelings you might have for this one poor little, at the time, 6-yr-old. Get your priorities straight, will ya? ;) .....neo

It didn't violate my 4th ammendment rights at all when they sent the vile and parasitic Elian back to Cuba.

If someone is harboring parasites, it's not a violation of the 4th ammendment to get them from that house.

neofight

10th July 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Neo,
You appear not to be thinking it out. It could be that your political bias is blinding you.
If the biological mother is dead, the child should be with the biological father, if fit. Maybe your definition of "fit" doesn't fit a Cuban father.
Don't you believe in Family Values?

Well, since you asked, Jeff, if, as was purported, Juan Gonzales really gave his consent for the illegal raid to take Elian by force, and was willing to put his son in that dangerous and volatile situation, then perhaps the question of Juan Gonzales' fitness as a father should be seriously questioned.

Then again, had he really been a free man in all this, instead of just another of Castro's slaves, he would not have waited five months to come to America to see Elian. He could have gone to Miami to see him as soon as he heard about his ex-wife's death, and he would have been welcomed by his wife's family.

But we know that he was just an agent being used by Castro in this case, Jeff. His parents and his wife's older son were back home in Cuba, just to make sure that Juan didn't run from his keepers who were with him every minute. He was in a very tough spot. It was indefensible to send this boy back to a place like Cuba when he had made it here at such great expense. Let's agree to disagree.......neo

neofight

10th July 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It didn't violate my 4th ammendment rights at all when they sent the vile and parasitic Elian back to Cuba.

If someone is harboring parasites, it's not a violation of the 4th ammendment to get them from that house.

You're just being stubborn, tbk, as well as disgusting. And yes, the 4th ammendment WAS violated when they raided the family's home in Miami. You are not on solid ground when you think otherwise.

I hate to say it, but you are sounding like a jerk again, tbk. (sigh) I thought for a moment that there may have been a little hope for you. My mistake! :rolleyes: ....neo

thaiboxerken

10th July 2003, 06:45 PM

You're just being stubborn, tbk, as well as disgusting.

Why's that, is it because in response to your appeal to pity, i decided to go the other way?

And yes, the 4th ammendment WAS violated when they raided the family's home in Miami. You are not on solid ground when you think otherwise.

It is not a violation of the 4th ammendment for the government to raid and capture a fugitive that they know is in your house. The 4th ammendment is about ILLEGAL search and seizure, the government did nothing illegal.

I hate to say it, but you are sounding like a jerk again, tbk.

Anyone that disagrees with your fallacies is a jerk, right?

(sigh) I thought for a moment that there may have been a little hope for you. My mistake! :rolleyes: ....neo

I need no hope, as I'm not suffering. You are the one that needs hope, because you believe in fairy tales and then want to make fairy tales in life as well. Elian was just another illegal alien, unregistered and a parasite to society. Let the Cubans have him, they are the communist society that cater to parasites, after all.

You are the disguisting one here, trying to strong-arm people with pity and insults. You have given no reasonable arguements, and have appealed only to emotion when it comes to Elian. Elian is just another welfare case to me, just another "victim" being programmed by society.

Well, emotional appeals don't work on me, as I don't have compassion for those I don't know or care about. If you want governments to take care of cases like Elian, you might consider going to Cuba with your socialist leanings.

I'm just wondering, how is Elian doing in Cuba anyway? Has he been beaten or starved?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60888-2002Mar8&notFound=true

neofight

10th July 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
It is not a violation of the 4th ammendment for the government to raid and capture a fugitive that they know is in your house. The 4th ammendment is about ILLEGAL search and seizure, the government did nothing illegal.

Oh? And who may I ask gave Elian the status of fugitive, tbk? You? He had already been given the legal status of refugee by the courts. Don't let the facts get in the way of your story, thai! In case you were not aware, the administration first tried to get a court order from the 11th circuit Court to let them take Elian, and the court denied it, saying he should just stay where he was until his case came up in family court. That should have been the end of it, boxer! That was the ruling under the law, if that means anything to you.

When that didn't work, the Clinton Adm. went in the evening and found some judge who wasn't at all familiar with the case and got him to give the INS a search and seize warrant for an illegal alien. This was a bogus excuse, since we've already established that he was not an illegal alien, but a refugee who had been granted permission to stay here until the courts rules on his asylum appeal and custody was decided. So, know-it-all Ken, the CA and the INS never even had probably cause to enter that house to search and seize Elian, who was there legally. Worse yet, since the CA and the INS knew this already, that makes them guilty of perjury for even asking for the warrant under false pretenses. Duh!

You have given no reasonable arguements, and have appealed only to emotion when it comes to Elian.

Now that's rich, I must say. I give you facts. You try to dazzle me with BS, and I'm the one who has given no reasonable arguments. HA! You're delusional as well. :roll:

If you want governments to take care of cases like Elian, you might consider going to Cuba with your socialist leanings.

My socialist leanings? rofl. TBK, you are truly an imbecile! .....neo

Clancie

10th July 2003, 08:02 PM

Hi neo,

You know what would really be interesting? One of these days, all the "Paranormal" posters should head to the "Politics" board en masse and debate a hot political topic together on one of the threads.

Call it a "premonition", but I have a feeling the ensuing discussion would be a great illustration of the old adage, "Politics makes strange bedfellows!" lol. :)

neofight

10th July 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi neo,

You know what would really be interesting? One of these days, all the "Paranormal" posters should head to the "Politics" board en masse and debate a hot political topic together on one of the threads.

Call it a "premonition", but I have a feeling the ensuing discussion would be a great illustration of the old adage, "Politics makes strange bedfellows!" lol. :)

Well, we already know that's true, Clancie. But would we really want to actually do what you suggested? lol I really didn't intend to debate the Elian issue. Ron mentioned my username and avatar, and I explained it to him, and then he asked for more info.

Oh well. What's done is done! :eek: .......neo

RonSceptic

11th July 2003, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Well, we already know that's true, Clancie. But would we really want to actually do what you suggested? lol I really didn't intend to debate the Elian issue. Ron mentioned my username and avatar, and I explained it to him, and then he asked for more info.

Oh well. What's done is done! :eek: .......neo

Thanks for the explanation. I realise now what you are referring to. This case was extensively reported in the UK. For what it's worth I agree with you that this matter should have continued through the courts.

I have to say also that IMHO part of what seperates western style democracies from some of the brutal dictatorships around the globe is our collective compassion, and our ability to look at individual cases on their merits rather than be slaves to dogma.

I have no time at all for the mindset that is happy to label children 'vile parasites' because of their circumstances. That sounds somewhat 'Talibanesque' to me.

thaiboxerken

11th July 2003, 08:12 AM

Oh? And who may I ask gave Elian the status of fugitive, tbk? You? He had already been given the legal status of refugee by the courts.

At one point, but when it was ruled that he had to go back to Cuba, he became a fugitive.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your story, thai!

I like facts, I like for ALL of them to come forward in an arguement, not just the ones that support your view.

Now that's rich, I must say. I give you facts. You try to dazzle me with BS, and I'm the one who has given no reasonable arguments. HA! You're delusional as well. :roll:

All of your arguements have been based on the legality of the situation and nothing else. In cases like this, legality is only one factor.

[/b]

My socialist leanings? rofl. TBK, you are truly an imbecile! .....neo [/B]

You're the one that wants everyone's tax-payer money to help out people like Elian.

Oh, and you did you read up on how Elian is doing in Cuba?

Elian is his father's son, he belongs with the father since the mother is dead.

thaiboxerken

11th July 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

I have no time at all for the mindset that is happy to label children 'vile parasites' because of their circumstances. That sounds somewhat 'Talibanesque' to me..

Hah! I use those adjectives to counter-act the appeal to pity that Neo uses for "poor and helpless" Elian.

Elian is just another child, not deserving or any more or less special treatment than any other Cuban child. Our country should not advocate kidnapping of Cuban children from Cuban fathers.

neofight

12th July 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
At one point, but when it was ruled that he had to go back to Cuba, he became a fugitive.

And when and where exactly did this "ruling" that you speak of occur, tbk?

I like facts, I like for ALL of them to come forward in an arguement, not just the ones that support your view.

That's just lip service on your part, thai, since that obviously is not the case. You are attempting to revise history.

All of your arguments have been based on the legality of the situation and nothing else. In cases like this, legality is only one factor.

Why you pitiful ignoramus! It's you, and people like you, that worry me. We are a nation of laws! We live by the rule of law. Our Constitution and our laws are the only thing between us and tyranny. What are these "other factors" that we must consider after so calvalierly dismissing and breaking the existing law? Dolt! I'm sorry, but you are clueless!

Oh, and you did you read up on how Elian is doing in Cuba?

Neither you, nor I, have an inkling of how Elain is doing in Cuba, tbk.

Elian is his father's son, he belongs with the father since the mother is dead.

Why? Because thaiboxerken says so? Juan Miguel Gonzales had absolutely no legal claim on Elian. We don't even know that he and his new wife even truly wanted him. Castro wanted him back, so Juan was forced to do his bidding. He really didn't have a choice in the matter. FYI, Elian was returned as a political favor to Castro, by an administration that went around the law and violated our Constitution to define justice to mean whatever they wanted it to.

Try pursuing the real truth, and not the truth as you would like it to be. But then, I guess "it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." :rolleyes: ......neo

neofight

12th July 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Our country should not advocate kidnapping of Cuban children from Cuban fathers.

LOL So ironic that you should say that, since that's exactly what our own INS did, i.e. kidnap Elian at gunpoint from the very person that the courts had appointed his legal guardian. The more you say, ken, the more ignorant you sound. Better you should put a sock in it! .......neo

12th July 2003, 12:53 PM

Can I safely assume that there will be no more discussion about the various issues this thread was intended to address?

Pyrrho

12th July 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by RC
Can I safely assume that there will be no more discussion about the various issues this thread was intended to address?
Hmm. I wonder if splitting the thread would be advantageous.

12th July 2003, 01:33 PM

People should do what they want, but I have no interest in this political discussion and I thought there was a strong move recently to separate discussions into appropriate folders. If there is interest in continuing discussion on skeptical behavior, etc., then I think it would be good to take the Elian thing to the political board. My 2 cents, respectfully submitted.

thaiboxerken

12th July 2003, 04:04 PM

And when and where exactly did this "ruling" that you speak of occur, tbk?

Quit playing ignorant, it was ruled the Elian must go back to Cuba, so he was taken there.

Why you pitiful ignoramus! It's you, and people like you, that worry me. We are a nation of laws! We live by the rule of law. Our Constitution and our laws are the only thing between us and tyranny. What are these "other factors" that we must consider after so calvalierly dismissing and breaking the existing law? Dolt! I'm sorry, but you are clueless!

Our nation, and other nations live more than just by laws. And yes, sometimes we break laws that we deem to be unfit. Have you ever broken the speed limit? Do you think breaking the speed limit is morally wrong? Legality is not the only issue in this case, it is also about a father's right to his child, Cuba's right to rule over it's citizens and other political factors. You are the clueless one if you think that law is the only thing between us and tyranny. Laws were made to be changed in our government, to help keep the peace, they weren't made to be cages.

Neither you, nor I, has an inkling of how Elain is doing in Cuba, tbk.

No, but I did post an article about his life in Cuba. But, ok, you admit that you have no idea how Elian is doing in Cuba. Why would it be OK to take Elian away from Cuba and his father if you don't know that he was abused, or will be abused there?

Why? Because thaiboxerken says so? Juan Miguel Gonzales had absolutely no legal claim on Elian.

According to your interpretation of USA law. Elian, however, is a Cuba citizen and so is his father. Have you studied Cuban law?

We don't even know that he and his new wife even truly wanted him.

No, but I tend to favor the convention that a father will want his son if he says he does, unless otherwise shown false.

Castro wanted him back, so Juan was forced to do his bidding. He really didn't have a choice in the matter.

And the evidence for this statement is? Do you really know if Juan was forced to ask for his own child, or are you just making this up?

FYI, Elian was returned as a political favor to Castro, by an administration that went around the law and violated our Constitution to define justice to mean whatever they wanted it to.

Find in the constitution where it is legal for the USA to kidnap children from other countries.

Try persuing the real truth, and not the truth as you would like it to be. But then, I guess "it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." :rolleyes: ......neo

I think the truth is what hurts your position. If a father is fit to care for a child, and doesn't abuse the child, then people shouldn't kidnap the child from him.

You can cry and whine all you want, but justice was served in this case. Elian is rightfully living under the care of his father.

thaiboxerken

12th July 2003, 04:07 PM

LOL So ironic that you should say that, since that's exactly what our own INS did, i.e. kidnap Elian at gunpoint from the very person that the courts had appointed his legal guardian.

A twisting of the truth here. Once it was established that Elian was to go back to his father, the legality of that guardian no longer applied. I think the legality of that guardian ship was never valid, as Elian is not a USA citizen. It's not the USA's place to "save" all the children from Cuba.

The more you say, ken, the more ignorant you sound. Better you should put a sock in it! .......neo

Actually, the more I talk, the more fallacy you come up with on your own.

CFLarsen

13th July 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Why you pitiful ignoramus! It's you, and people like you, that worry me....Dolt! I'm sorry, but you are clueless!

neo, could you repeat the thing about you only using a foul mouth if it was related to me?

neofight

13th July 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

neo, could you repeat the thing about you only using a foul mouth if it was related to me?

Claus, if I didn't make it clear that I meant you, AND your sock puppet defenders, then it was an unintentional omission on my part. I clearly look upon tbk as an extension of yourself. :rolleyes:

Since tbk has made it crystal clear that he is one of your brown-nosed, butt-munching, blind defenders, I've made no secret of the fact that I hold him in total contempt, a status which he richly deserves, btw. BillHoyt is rather border-line as well, but I am consistently civil to just about everyone else here. :p .....neo

thaiboxerken

13th July 2003, 10:27 AM

Claus, if I didn't make it clear that I meant you, AND your sock puppet defenders, then it was an unintentional omission on my part. I clearly look upon tbk as an extension of yourself. :rolleyes:

You can think that all you want, but I am not related to Claus in any way. He is just someone that I happen to agree with on most points about the paranormal. Feel free to use foul language though, it doesn't bother me.

Since tbk has made it crystal clear that he is one of your brown-nosed, butt-munching, blind defenders, I've made no secret of the fact that I hold him in total contempt, a status which he richly deserves, btw. BillHoyt is rather border-line as well, but I am consistently civil to just about everyone else here. :p .....neo

All the insults in the world still doesn't take away the fact that you believe people have superpowers. Insults from the insane do not bother me.

I feel a frustration-energy coming from neo.

neofight

13th July 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You can think that all you want, but I am not related to Claus in any way. He is just someone that I happen to agree with on most points about the paranormal.

Agreeing with someone's point of view is one thing, but blindly defending them when they have been shown to be lacking in honesty is an entirely different matter. You are like two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned.

All the insults in the world still doesn't take away the fact that you believe people have superpowers. Insults from the insane do not bother me.

That's good, tbk, then you won't mind my calling you a mental midget and intellectual lightweight, not to mention a closed-minded ninny. :D ......neo

thaiboxerken

13th July 2003, 12:11 PM

Agreeing with someone's point of view is one thing, but blindly defending them when they have been shown to be lacking in honesty is an entirely different matter. You are like two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned.

Defending the point of view that people don't have superpowers is dishonest? Wow.

That's good, tbk, then you won't mind my calling you a mental midget and intellectual lightweight, not to mention a closed-minded ninny. :D ......neo

It would be easy to believe that you are just a childish fool.

neofight

13th July 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by neofight
Agreeing with someone's point of view is one thing, but blindly defending them when they have been shown to be lacking in honesty is an entirely different matter. You are like two peas in a pod as far as I'm concerned.

Defending the point of view that people don't have superpowers is dishonest? Wow.

Is that what you think I just said? WOW! :rolleyes: Tbk, try reading my statement one more time, and then follow it up by reading yours. Are you still not embarrassed? :confused:

It would be easy to believe that you are just a childish fool.

Oh, yes, tbk. Between the two of us, you are undoubtedly the more mature! :roll: ........neo

CFLarsen

14th July 2003, 12:14 AM

neo,

So, everone who agrees with me in the slightest, is my "sock puppet defender". First, you are (as usual) wrong, and merely making arguments based on appeals to emotion, and second, you really should look up the word "sock puppet". It's not what you think it is.

And if you could spare us your foul mouthed insults, the world would be a slightly better place. Spewing insults hurt your case incredibly. Nobody takes somebody like that even remotely serious.

Cut the incessant Jerry-Springer trash talk.

thaiboxerken

14th July 2003, 05:42 AM

Is that what you think I just said? WOW! :rolleyes: Tbk, try reading my statement one more time, and then follow it up by reading yours. Are you still not embarrassed? :confused:

I know what you said, I just don't agree. Just because I defend the position of rationality, reason and logic doesn't mean that I'm anyone's sock-puppet. You have to resort to this childish ad-hominem tactic, it's all but and admittance of failure on your part to justify your position.

Oh, yes, tbk. Between the two of us, you are undoubtedly the more mature! :roll: ........neo

Laughing about it doesn't make it untrue.
Who's the one that believes people have superpowers here?

Leroy

14th July 2003, 06:07 AM

how exactly was it supposed to be determined that Juan was the adjudicated father, or even that he was a fit father,

Was he proven an unfit father? NO.

I watched an update on Elian a few months back. He seemed to be very happy and healthy. I thank God that he made it back to his father.

It didn't violate my 4th ammendment rights at all when they sent the vile and parasitic Elian back to Cuba.

You are calling a child a parasite! What an ignorant immature statement to make. You are as pathetic as I imagined!

:mad:

thaiboxerken

14th July 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

You are calling a child a parasite! What an ignorant immature statement to make. You are as pathetic as I imagined!
:mad:

Why is it wrong to call a child a parasite? Unless I'm mistaken, Elian didn't hold a job and pay taxes.

:rolleyes:

You can call me pathetic, it doesn't bother me, i've been called worse.

Children are no more or less important to me than any other human.

Clancie

14th July 2003, 07:07 AM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Why is it wrong to call a child a parasite? Unless I'm mistaken, Elian didn't hold a job and pay taxes.
:dl:
Not getting into the whole "Elian thing", tbk, but this really is the funniest thing I've read someone say in a long time.

And....hmmmm....Let me guess: you don't have any little parasites (oops, I mean children) of your own. rofl.

thaiboxerken

14th July 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Let me guess: you don't have any little parasites (oops, I mean children) of your own. rofl.

Nope, not yet. Not for a while. I doubt my views on children will change much after I do.

Some people haven't been paying attention though, the whole "parasite" term was used to counter-act the "poor little" comment.

I hardly treat children as if they are parasites, nor do I really believe them to be. I do not, however, place any more value on children's lives as adult's lives.

RonSceptic

14th July 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Nope, not yet. Not for a while. I doubt my views on children will change much after I do.

Thats' what I though too. Boy did I get a suprise! Parenthood turns your life upside down. I have found that when you have a child, part of what you feel for that child rubs off on your perception of children in general.

But that's a discussion for another thread. I'm not sure how many changes of direction one thread can take take.

thaiboxerken

14th July 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Thats' what I though too. Boy did I get a suprise! Parenthood turns your life upside down. I have found that when you have a child, part of what you feel for that child rubs off on your perception of children in general.

Which shows that it's a subjective matter that appeals only to emotion. Calling Elian "poor little" is no more productive to a rational discussion than calling him a "parasite".

Leroy

14th July 2003, 09:20 AM

Why is it wrong to call a child a parasite? Unless I'm mistaken, Elian didn't hold a job and pay taxes.

So, are all children parasites in your eyes?

You can call me pathetic, it doesn't bother me, i've been called worse.

I have absolutely no doubts about that!

Children are no more or less important to me than any other human.

To those of us who have a child, or children, they are far more important than any other human.

Nope, not yet. Not for a while. I doubt my views on children will change much after I do.

Unless you are a selfish, self-centered egotistical a**hole, than having children does change you.

thaiboxerken

14th July 2003, 09:28 AM

So, are all children parasites in your eyes?

Nope.

To those of us who have a child, or children, they are far more important than any other human.

When I have children, they will be important to me, but the same can be said of anyone I have a kinship or relationship with.

Your appeal to emotion is noted.

Unless you are a selfish, self-centered egotistical a**hole, than having children does change you.

This is an appeal to intimidation. You've all but admitted that you have no logic to back up your assertions when you start saying things like this.

RonSceptic

15th July 2003, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Unless you are a selfish, self-centered egotistical a**hole, than having children does change you.

Leroy,

You don't think this guy may be Cousin Bill's sock pupet do you?:D

Leroy

15th July 2003, 06:21 AM

Your appeal to emotion is noted.

Do you believe that having emotional feelings toward ones child is a bad thing?

Your appeal to ignorance and immaturity is noted. :rolleyes:

You don't think this guy may be Cousin Bill's sock pupet do you

Cousin Bill had more Intelligence than Thai, not that he was intelligent :roll:

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 06:39 AM

Do you believe that having emotional feelings toward ones child is a bad thing?

No, but using emotion as an arguement in a discussion is.

Your appeal to ignorance and immaturity is noted. :rolleyes:

Where have I appealed to the unknown?

Cousin Bill had more Intelligence than Thai, not that he was intelligent :roll:

This is just an insult, that's ok, I could care less. When you throw insults without any logical arguements, it only shows that you've conceded your position.

You completely ignore my reason for using the world "parasite". That's ok, I don't expect all people to understand my methods.

I don't believe all children are parasites. I only called Elian a parasite as a knee-jerk response to neo calling him "poor little". I was illustrating the point that he was trying to appeal to sympathy for Elian instead of using logical arguements.

neofight

15th July 2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't believe all children are parasites. I only called Elian a parasite as a knee-jerk response to neo calling him "poor little".

Oh, now we get it! That makes ever so much more sense now. :rolleyes: lol

I was illustrating the point that he was trying to appeal to sympathy for Elian instead of using logical arguements.

My arguments, you cretin, were legal arguments. The law, evidently, matters not to thaiboxerken, as long as he agrees with the outcome. :( ....neo

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by neofight

My arguments, you cretin, were legal arguments. The law, evidently, matters not to thaiboxerken, as long as he agrees with the outcome. :( ....neo

No, the law does not matter when it comes to discussion about whether an action taken was right or wrong.

RonSceptic

15th July 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No, the law does not matter when it comes to discussion about whether an action taken was right or wrong.

Right or wrong. So it's a subjective discussion then? So why the earlier jibe about....

Which shows that it's a subjective matter that appeals only to emotion.

Fair enough to express subjective opinions in the context of a subjective discussion isn't it?

Leroy

15th July 2003, 08:49 AM

Do you believe that having emotional feelings toward ones child is a bad thing?

No, but using emotion as an arguement in a discussion is.

A bad thing for who? Using emotion to win many cases for abused children has been a good thing. So I suppose it depends on who one is argueing with, or for.

Where have I appealed to the unknown? :roll:

I will tell others to simply read your responses on this entire thread to find the answer to that one!

This is just an insult, that's ok, I could care less

I wonder if it is considered an insult if it is the truth?

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 08:50 AM

Right or wrong. So it's a subjective discussion then? So why the earlier jibe about....

To a point, maybe. But the discussion should be based on rational, reasonable and logical arguements.

Fair enough to express subjective opinions in the context of a subjective discussion isn't it?

Yes, but to appeal to those opinions as reason is not.

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 08:53 AM

A bad thing for who?

For rational discussion.

Using emotion to win many cases for abused children has been a good thing. So I suppose it depends on who one is argueing with, or for.

No, it's still not good for rational discussion. Cases about abused children are build on axioms, not just emotional appeal.

I will tell others to simply read your responses on this entire thread to find the answer to that one!

Ok, I'll be waiting.

I wonder if it is considered an insult if it is the truth?

Show that it is true.

Leroy

15th July 2003, 09:09 AM

Thai, in all of those insults you say people have thrown at you, have any called you an idiot?

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Thai, in all of those insults you say people have thrown at you, have any called you an idiot?

Not sure, but you called me unintelligent and neo called me a cretin.

Leroy

15th July 2003, 09:34 AM

Do you ever wonder if maybe they have reason to call you these things - or do you assume that they simply like to insult?

Leroy

15th July 2003, 09:40 AM

I don't think you are stupid. I think you are very young. That age between teenager and adulthood, when we all thought we knew it all. As my grandfather used to say "Still wet behind the ears."

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Do you ever wonder if maybe they have reason to call you these things - or do you assume that they simply like to insult?

I don't assume that they like to insult. They insult me because I have a different view on Elian. There isn't much to wonder about. The appeal to sympathy does not add to the discussion of whether E should've stayed in the USA or not. Heck, they say "poor little" Elian but ignore the fact that Elian is in great health and in good living conditions in Cuba.

Leroy

15th July 2003, 12:31 PM

They insult me because I have a different view on Elian.

I didn't insult you because you have a different view on Elian. I agree 100% that the child belonged with his father. I find your insulting remarks to believers offensive. Calling a child a parasite is not mature. Calling someone woo woo [no matter how intelligent they are] because they believe in something that goes against logic and science is immature. Having the attitude that you are right and believers are idiots is immature.

The things you write show me that you are an immature person, and I suppose until you are much older and have experienced much more in your life, you will probably not understand my point of view.

I dislike JE, I don't believe he is a medium. But you don't find me insulting believers and treating them like they are "woo woo" people. That is childish, immature, and ignorant.

thaiboxerken

15th July 2003, 12:41 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Leroy

Calling a child a parasite is not mature.

I did it to illustrate a point, a mere adjective added to an arguement can make it appeal to emotion. Neo used "poor little" for Elian.

Calling someone woo woo [no matter how intelligent they are] because they believe in something that goes against logic and science is immature.

Why?

Having the attitude that you are right and believers are idiots is immature.

Why?

The things you write show me that you are an immature person, and I suppose until you are much older and have experienced much more in your life, you will probably not understand my point of view.

I doubt it.

I dislike JE, I don't believe he is a medium. But you don't find me insulting believers and treating them like they are "woo woo" people. That is childish, immature, and ignorant.

Why?

Who appointed you to be the manner's police?

voidx

15th July 2003, 03:21 PM

I fault my own stupidity for actually reading it, but this is close to the most pointless thread I have ever read. This topic belonged in an email exchange or private message. To drag a problem with a poster in you're regular forum over into this one, with the intent of exposing his poor debating skills is an exercise in pointlessness. Why should I care 2 cents about the topic of this thread? People will post with CF here and be smart enough to come to their own conclusions as to what his debating skills are like, or not question him at all. Either way it matters not at all. You can't possible be surprised that it devolved into insults and immaturity (on both sides I might add ) given the topic of the thread. What other result did you expect?

neofight

15th July 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No, the law does not matter when it comes to discussion about whether an action taken was right or wrong.

Right or wrong can be subjective, tbk. In any case, that is what the appeals process is for. It's not for you or I to decide what is right or wrong in Elian's case. The courts were supposed to do it, but alas, someone who thinks the same way you do decided that they were above the law, and didn't need to keep that court date. :p ....neo

neofight

15th July 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by voidx
I fault my own stupidity for actually reading it, but this is close to the most pointless thread I have ever read. This topic belonged in an email exchange or private message. To drag a problem with a poster in you're regular forum over into this one, with the intent of exposing his poor debating skills is an exercise in pointlessness.

Hi, voidx! I can understand how you would feel that way. If you were never involved in the sort of exchanges with Claus that we've been describing here, then you don't share the same level of frustration that some of us do, and you are correct that you should not give a flying leap about any of this, and equally correct in blaming nobody but yourself for reading the entire thread. :D

Those here who agreed with you just didn't bother either reading or posting here. I disagree that the thread was pointless, however. I found it to be quite cathartic, actually. :) ....neo

voidx

15th July 2003, 10:06 PM

I merely wish people would restrict their cathartic release threads to private messages or email. They do nothing to further objective discussion on these topics IMO and for lack of a better description, just take up space.

Jeff Corey

15th July 2003, 10:17 PM

I'm sorry, but the Complaint Department's jest down the hall.

Diamond

16th July 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I'm sorry, but the Complaint Department's jest down the hall.

Is this the place for an argument?:D

CFLarsen

16th July 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Diamond
Is this the place for an argument?:D

I told you once!

thaiboxerken

16th July 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Right or wrong can be subjective, tbk. In any case, that is what the appeals process is for. It's not for you or I to decide what is right or wrong in Elian's case. The courts were supposed to do it, but alas, someone who thinks the same way you do decided that they were above the law, and didn't need to keep that court date. :p ....neo

You're correct, it was up to the USA and Cuba to decide together, not just the USA.

Justice was served, Elian was rightfully returned to his father.

Also, appeals process is ok, but protests also work. In a discussion/debate, though, the appeals process or law doesn't really matter much in discussions like this. If, as an asian, I spoke out against segragation in the 1950's, would I be wrong.. .would you tell me "it's legal, take it to the appeals process"?

thaiboxerken

16th July 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by voidx
I fault my own stupidity for actually reading it, but this is close to the most pointless thread I have ever read.

You're correct, the thread is solely aimed at trying to discredit the skeptic position by attacking the skeptic. It's a red-herring planted to try and get people to ignore the fact that believers make absurd claims backed by ZERO reliable evidence.

neofight

16th July 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by voidx
I merely wish people would restrict their cathartic release threads to private messages or email. They do nothing to further objective discussion on these topics IMO and for lack of a better description, just take up space.

And you are perfectly entitled to that opinion, voidx! :p

How does that song go? "If wishes were gumdrops...." ;).....neo

Leroy

16th July 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Leroy - Calling a child a parasite is not mature.

I did it to illustrate a point, a mere adjective added to an arguement can make it appeal to emotion. Neo used "poor little" for Elian.

Okay

Originally posted by Leroy - Calling someone woo woo [no matter how intelligent they are] because they believe in something that goes against logic and science is immature.

Why?

The fact that you have to ask why, shows an immaturity. One of the signs of maturity, is when a person can tolerate the views, opinions and beliefs of others. When you learn to accept others for who they are, and to tolerate their beliefs, [not accept them], but tolerate them - that is a sign that you are a mature person.

Originally posted by Leroy - Having the attitude that you are right and believers are idiots is immature.

Why?

See above

Who appointed you to be the manner's police?

It isn't about manners, it is about being a mature person. It is about learning tolerance, and debating differences in a mature manner.

thaiboxerken

16th July 2003, 12:01 PM

The fact that you have to ask why, shows an immaturity. One of the signs of maturity, is when a person can tolerate the views, opinions and beliefs of others. When you learn to accept others for who they are, and to tolerate their beliefs, [not accept them], but tolerate them - that is a sign that you are a mature person.

I don't agree, I will gladly tell a person that they are wrong. It's immature to simply let the deluded go around telling others that their delusions are fact.

It isn't about manners, it is about being a mature person. It is about learning tolerance, and debating differences in a mature manner.

Sorry, but I don't tolerate illogical arguements.

Leroy

16th July 2003, 12:02 PM

You're correct, the thread is solely aimed at trying to discredit the skeptic position by attacking the skeptic

The skeptic? I didn't find where it tried to discredit the skeptic - trust me, as a skeptic I would have spoken out against it.

thaiboxerken

16th July 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

The skeptic? I didn't find where it tried to discredit the skeptic - trust me, as a skeptic I would have spoken out against it.

You only call yourself a skeptic. But are you really?

Leroy

16th July 2003, 12:09 PM

You only call yourself a skeptic. But are you really? Do you doubt that I am because I try to be fair toward all people, including believers, or do you have other reasons for doubting - if so, please point them out.

thaiboxerken

16th July 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
Do you doubt that I am because I try to be fair toward all people, including believers, or do you have other reasons for doubting - if so, please point them out.

The thing is, I don't know your position and some believers do call themselves skeptics.

Clancie

17th July 2003, 07:36 PM

Note: FFR re: topic of this thread

"Taken in by John Edward" 4, 5, 7-10, 12-15*, 17-19*

"Crossing Over with John Edward" p.1, 2, 4*

"LK, "Question for Clancie" (Community) p.1*

Leroy

18th July 2003, 11:00 AM

, I will gladly tell a person that they are wrong

Telling someone that they are wrong is different than calling someone "woo woo.

"The thing is, I don't know your position and some believers do call themselves skeptics.

Believers of what? On this thread John Edward is mentioned. I do not believe in John Edward, mediums or Psychics.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 11:03 AM

I will add that I know people who do believe in mediums and psychics who are very skeptical people. They are very mature people also.

I also know people who believe in mediums and psychics and these people are not very mature, or very intellegent. I don't judge all believers as being the same intellectually, as you seem to do.

Darat

18th July 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
I will add that I know people who do believe in mediums and psychics who are very skeptical people. They are very mature people also.

I also know people who believe in mediums and psychics and these people are not very mature, or very intellegent. I don't judge all believers as being the same intellectually, as you seem to do.

I agree, in part, with Leroy here - after all being a "sceptic" just means asking questions and wanting evidence. And unfortunately a “sceptic” can be just as wrong as a “believer” in their assessment of the validity of evidence.

The true difference between a “believer” and a “sceptic” is that one asks questions and accepts that their beliefs are provisional and up for re-evaluation whenever new evidence appears, the other doesn’t.

Lucianarchy

18th July 2003, 11:23 AM

A true skeptic questions everything and makes up their own mind. TBK, you are a pseudo-skeptic, that is not an insult, it is an observation of your prejudice.

CFLarsen

18th July 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A true skeptic questions everything and makes up their own mind. TBK, you are a pseudo-skeptic, that is not an insult, it is an observation of your prejudice.
Lucianarchy, you are a woowo, that is not an insult, it is an observation of your prejudice.

Now, go answer the questions put to you in the various threads.

Clancie

18th July 2003, 11:32 AM

Posted by Darat

The true difference between a “believer” and a “sceptic” is that one asks questions and accepts that their beliefs are provisional and up for re-evaluation whenever new evidence appears, the other doesn’t[
I agree with you, Darat. But few people here seem willing to extend that definition to any of the so-called believers, even when it applies.

After all, many of us are continually reevaluating our ideas about this, as well as actively looking for new evidence both pro and con.

CFLarsen

18th July 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
After all, many of us are continually reevaluating our ideas about this, as well as actively looking for new evidence both pro and con.

How have you reevaluated your ideas about JE?

How have you actively looked for new evidence that he is real (or not), both pro and con?

Leroy

18th July 2003, 11:46 AM

Well, will you look at this! :dl: CFLarsen is DEMANDING answers to questions, after he has spent 15 days avoiding questions he was asked!

Posted by CFLarsen on June 12th - Why do you
still claim that nobody has complained about JE's readings, when both Dateline and O'Neill have shown serious cheating?

On July 2nd 2003 Lurker kindly asked CF to answer a few questions:

1. Has Clancie said that 'nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings' one or more times or not at all?

2. And if you don't know because you have not tallied them is it fair to assume a non-zero number?

3. If the answer to #1 is 1 or more, can you provide the reference?

AND NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, the good part, After spending 15 days avoiding the simple task of answering these questions by ignoring them, brushing them off, calling them void, changing the subject, he has said this to Lun.

Posted by CF - Lucianarchy, you are a woowo, that is not an insult, it is an observation of your prejudice. Now, go answer the questions put to you in the various threads.

CF, why don't YOU answer the questions put before you. They are very very simple - YES or NO. :roll:

Leroy

18th July 2003, 11:56 AM

Reminds me of the good ol days with cousin Bill - did anyone see the movie "The Green Mile" Cousin Bill would remind you of that weasel guard who was only there because his grandmother forced them to hire him. The one who squished the mouse with his foot, pissed himself when the prisoner grabbed him from behind, and didn't put water on the sponge which caused a man to fry a little longer than he was suppose to.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 11:59 AM

I will add that I know people who do believe in mediums and psychics who are very skeptical people. They are very mature people also.

Nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't believe in mediums and psychis. You could call them skeptical towards other subjects, but they are still believers.

I also know people who believe in mediums and psychics and these people are not very mature, or very intellegent. I don't judge all believers as being the same intellectually, as you seem to do.

One can be intelligent and be a believer, one can be immature and be a skeptic. The skeptic position, however, is still the strongest one because it's based on not believing unless sufficient evidence is given.

A skeptic can be belligerent, immature and a downright A-hole.. but he's still correct that people don't have superpowers.

A believer can be the nicest, sweetest and kindest person in the world, and they are still wrong about mediumship and ghosts.

CFLarsen

18th July 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
CF, why don't YOU answer the questions put before you. They are very very simple - YES or NO. :roll:

Leroy,

Being wilfully stupid is not the best strategy here. Perhaps you forgot I already answered?

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:10 PM

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

That is a very ignorance response Thai. I hope your ignorance is because of your age, if it is than there is hope that you will eventually learn.

LOL. I think you have it backwards. If you think that a person who believes in pixies is a skeptic, then you are truly the fool.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:15 PM

Ignorant response.

I can tell it is the end of the day.

c0rbin

18th July 2003, 12:21 PM

Leroy,

Perhaps you might not know this, but Claus has been after Lucky (and others) to answer for so long, the origins, were it not for the internet, would be lost to time.

15 days does not compare.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
Ignorant response.

I can tell it is the end of the day.

So you actually believe that it's ok to call a person skeptical if they believe that people have superpowers?

Where does one draw the line between a skeptic and a believer?

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:22 PM

Who here believes in pixies? Does Neofight, Clancie?

*sigh* young ones today, you can't teach them a thing if they already believe they know it all.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
Who here believes in pixies? Does Neofight, Clancie?

*sigh* young ones today, you can't teach them a thing if they already believe they know it all.

:rolleyes:

Too old to understand that pixies are just one example of many paranormal claims, eh? That's ok, intelligence doesn't come with age, and in your case, neither does wisdom.

:cool:

Darat

18th July 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]I will add that I know people who do believe in mediums and psychics who are very skeptical people. They are very mature people also.

Nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't believe in mediums and psychis. You could call them skeptical towards other subjects, but they are still believers.

...snip...

Thaiboxerken - I really disagree with you here, being a sceptic is just an "attitude" a way of looking at the world. It in no way is tied to a particular belief or dogma. A sceptic can form wrong conclusions just like anyone else. If the evidence that a "sceptic" knows about would indicate that "mediums" and "psychics" could exist then a sceptic could be a “believer” and still claim to be a sceptic.

The difference would be that if further evidence was presented that shows that there are other explanations just or even more reasonable then the sceptic wouldn’t ignore the evidence or attempt to explain it away so that they can keep their “belief”.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:29 PM

Thaiboxerken - I really disagree with you here, being a sceptic is just an "attitude" a way of looking at the world.

That's your definition and word. I'm talking about sKeptics, people that don't believe in the paranormal because there is not valid, reliable evidence.

Darat

18th July 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
Who here believes in pixies? Does Neofight, Clancie?

*sigh* young ones today, you can't teach them a thing if they already believe they know it all.

And I have found many "old" people to be just as set in their ways.

Why not just say you don't like Thaiboxerken and his style of posting and leave it at that?

Also why the hang up with posters’ ages? Maturity in adults, in my opinion, is only very loosely related to age.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:30 PM

Too old to understand that pixies are just one example of many paranormal claims, eh? That's ok, intelligence doesn't come with age, and in your case, neither does wisdom.

Bud, you may think you are amusing, but you stand alone in your thoughts.

I did NOT ask what pixies were, I asked:

[who here believes in pixies, does Neofight, does Clancie]

Well? Do they?

c0rbin

18th July 2003, 12:32 PM

*sigh* young ones today, you can't teach them a thing if they already believe they know it all.

Where do you get off assuming people's age like this?

You fly your credulous flag proudly, troll.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:35 PM

Bud, you may think you are amusing, but you stand alone in your thoughts.

I dunno, others might find my posts amusing.

I did NOT ask what pixies were, I asked:

[who here believes in pixies, does Neofight, does Clancie]

Well? Do they?

Complex question, it is irrelevant because I did not make the assertion that they do believe in pixies or than anyone here does. So, because the question is invalid, I won't answer it.

I bet you hate those darn logical fallacies, eh?

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:36 PM

Also why the hang up with posters’ ages

It isn't a hang up with ages. In my experience, I have found those who share the same attitude and ignorance as Thai to be very young adults, or very uneducated older adults. The difference is that with the older uneducated adults, I usually hear a lot of four letter words with their responses.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:38 PM

Where do you get off assuming people's age like this?

:roll: Did I offend you?

I believe that Thai is very young, why would that offend you?

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:39 PM

Your assertion that I'm ignorant is nothing but an insult. I can live with that.

:D

Insult me all you like, it only shows that you have no valid arguements.

Darat

18th July 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Thaiboxerken - I really disagree with you here, being a sceptic is just an "attitude" a way of looking at the world.

That's your definition and word. I'm talking about sKeptics, people that don't believe in the paranormal because there is not valid, reliable evidence.

Thaiboxerken - sceptic/skeptic is just a transatlantic spelling difference. Perhaps this will illustrate how I view the situation.

Stage 1
Consider this - a young person who doesn't know about the mass of evidence of fakery and techniques "psychics" and necromancers have been using for decades.

This person visits many necromancers etc, asks questions, asks people "was the reading accurate" and so on and finds out people consider the "validations" very real, that there was no way they could have got the information any other way but by speaking to dead Granddad.

They form a "belief" that evidence exists that indicates that people can hear the dead, because this is what the evidence suggests.

Is this person not a sceptic at this point?

Stage 2
Later on, still questioning, they start to unearth further evidence that contradicts previous "evidence", they continue to ask questions, they continue to research...

Is this person not a sceptic yet?

Stage 3
Eventually with the accumulation of evidence the balance of probability shifts and they decide that the reasonable explanation for all the evidence is that the claims of the psychics are not true.

They form a new belief that the necromancers are not able to do what they claim.

This person now has a "belief" that necromancers and psychics are fake.

Are you saying that someone is only a sceptic once they've reached stage 3?

To me someone is a sceptic throughout this process, not just when they’ve reached a conclusion that I agree with!

Lucianarchy

18th July 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Insult me all you like, it only shows that you have no valid arguements.

Your projection, as we skeptics say, has been noted.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:45 PM

Being wilfully stupid is not the best strategy here. Perhaps you forgot I already answered?

CF, thinking someone is stupid enough to buy into that crap isn't the best strategy. YOu did not answer the questions, you said VOID.

1. Has Clancie said that 'nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings' one or more times or not at all?

You said VOID[/COLOR}

[COLOR=red]2. And if you don't know because you have not tallied them is it fair to assume a non-zero number?

You said VOID[/COLOR}

[COLOR=red]3. If the answer to #1 is 1 or more, can you provide the reference?

[COLOR=blue]You said VOID[/COLOR}

YES or NO to the first question CF. It that too difficult for you?

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:49 PM

Thaiboxerken - sceptic/skeptic is just a transatlantic spelling difference. Perhaps this will illustrate how I view the situation.

Yes, but a word needs to be used that describes a person that doesn't believe in the paranormal. Skeptic has been equivocated as the word, even though there are several definitions of the word. Your definition of skeptic is, in essence, a totally different word than the one I'm using. It's all in context.

Are you saying that someone is only a sceptic once they've reached stage 3?

Yes.

To me someone is a sceptic throughout this process, not just when they’ve reached a conclusion that I agree with!

I agree that the person is a sceptic in your definition of the word, but not a skeptic in my definition of the word. My definition of "skeptic" is equivalent to "atheistic" toward the paranormal.

Darat

18th July 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

Bud, you may think you are amusing, but you stand alone in your thoughts.

I did NOT ask what pixies were, I asked:

[who here believes in pixies, does Neofight, does Clancie]

Well? Do they?

Actually although I find myself debating with you and thaiboxerken at the same time I have found both of you have said amusing and interesting things.

On the whole thaiboxerken has made some very valid points (IMNSHO) especially his point about people believing in superpowers. So it is incorrect that "he stands alone in his thoughts".

Under the current understanding we have of the world the ability that JE claims he has, (that, as examples Clancie and Neofight belive he has) "superpowers" is a good word to use.

It helps enforce that the explanation JE gives of what his ability is would require such a major overhauling of science that it is like someone claiming the powers of Superman or the Flash and expecting to be believed purely on their word.

Darat

18th July 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

It isn't a hang up with ages. In my experience, I have found those who share the same attitude and ignorance as Thai to be very young adults, or very uneducated older adults. The difference is that with the older uneducated adults, I usually hear a lot of four letter words with their responses.

What attitude and ignorance do you think he shows?

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:51 PM

Leroy said - I will add that I know people who do believe in mediums and psychics who are very skeptical people. They are very mature people also.

Thai said - Nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't believe in mediums and psychis. You could call them skeptical towards other subjects, but they are still believers.

Leroy said - That is a very ignorance response Thai. I hope your ignorance is because of your age, if it is than there is hope that you will eventually learn.

Thai said - LOL. I think you have it backwards. If you think that a person who believes in pixies is a skeptic, then you are truly the fool.

Leory said - Who here believes in pixies? Does Neofight, Clancie?

Thai said - Too old to understand that pixies are just one example of many paranormal claims, eh?

Leroy said - I did NOT ask what pixies were, I asked: who here believes in pixies, does Neofight, does Clancie

Thai said - Complex question, it is irrelevant because I did not make the assertion that they do believe in pixies or than anyone here does. So, because the question is invalid, I won't answer it.

Mr, bright one, I was talking about mediums and psychics, you brought up pixies.

Darat

18th July 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

...snip...

I agree that the person is a sceptic in your definition of the word, but not a skeptic in my definition of the word. My definition of "skeptic" is equivalent to "atheistic" toward the paranormal.

OK - but yours is a slighly non-standard definition so expect other people to be confused when you use it.

What about saying "urSkeptic" instead - no idea why just like the look of it.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 12:54 PM

Perhaps you might not know this, but Claus has been after Lucky (and others) to answer for so long, the origins, were it not for the internet, would be lost to time. 15 days does not compare

So is CF trying to be just like Lucky? Avoid answering questions for as long as he can. What is your point. CF will not answer these questions because to do so, to answer a simple YES or NO would put him on the spot.

If he says YES than he would have to back up his claim that clancie said this, if he says NO than he would have to admit he made a mistake, that is why he answers VOID and avoids giving real answers.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Darat

OK - but yours is a slighly non-standard definition so expect other people to be confused when you use it.

What about saying "urSkeptic" instead - no idea why just like the look of it.

Maybe "nonbeleiver" ? Or, I know, a Bright!

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

Mr, bright one, I was talking about mediums and psychics, you brought up pixies.

I guess I lost you when I brought up pixies, that's ok. I think the intelligent posters here understood my point just well.

One cannot be a Bright and believe that people have superpowers.

I'm using the word Bright from now on.

CFLarsen

18th July 2003, 12:58 PM

Leroy,

I have answered the questions. You may claim that I did not, but that doesn't make it true.

Accept reality.

Leroy

18th July 2003, 01:03 PM

So it is incorrect that "he stands alone in his thoughts".

Why do you ask? Did I say that? Thai and I agree on many things concerning the paranormal, what we don't agree on is how to debate these things with believers. I find his attitude that believers are "woo woo" and therefore do not deserve a simple apology to be childish.

What attitude and ignorance do you think he shows?

For one, he refuses to apologize to believers (when he is wrong) because he disagree's with their woo woo beliefs. Have you read his posts on the previous pages?

Darat

18th July 2003, 01:13 PM

Leroy

18th July 2003, 01:13 PM

I have answered the questions. You may claim that I did not, but that doesn't make it true.

No CF, here is what you did. You knew that to answer YES to Lurkers question would put you on the spot. To answer YES would mean you would have to back up the claim you made. To answer NO would mean that you would have to take back that claim. So, you avoided the question for over a week. The questions were:

1. Has Clancie said that 'nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings' one or more times or not at all?
2. And if you don't know because you have not tallied them is it fair to assume a non-zero number?

3. If the answer to #1 is 1 or more, can you provide the reference?

After a week of avoiding these you posted these quotes from Clancie:

Originally posted by Clancie 07-14-2003 09:15 PM That's a very different claim for believers to be making (and one much easier for believers to back up than the one he keeps talking
about--which, imo, no one has ever said

by clancie - I expect that even "believers" (both in mediums in general and JE in particular) would have complaints about JE seminars, readings, CO. etc. from time to time. That's just, imo, part of dealing with clients and their expectations

And you stated, CF, that therefore, because of these quotes from clancie, that the questions were all VOID. That is NOT answering the questions. YOu did NOT answer these questions.

Darat

18th July 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

...snip...

And you stated, CF, that therefore, because of these quotes from clancie, that the questions were all VOID. That is NOT answering the questions. YOu did NOT answer these questions.

Leroy that is answering the questions, it's just not answers you wanted him to give or what you would consider are good answers. (I gather that from your responses.)

I don't know what you are hoping to achieve with this "hounding". (As JREF has official labelled this repeated asking for answers when AN answer has been given, no matter how unsatisfactory to the questioning party :( )

(Edited because I didn't proof read it first.)

Lucianarchy

18th July 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Now, go answer the questions put to you in the various threads.

Claus,

I have answered the questions. You may claim that I did not, but that doesn't make it true.

Accept reality.

thaiboxerken

18th July 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

For one, he refuses to apologize to believers (when he is wrong) because he disagree's with their woo woo beliefs. Have you read his posts on the previous pages?

This is false, I refuse to apologise to people that I don't respect. Clancie and Neo do not have my respect, not because they are beleivers, but because of their vagueness, evasiveness and ability to not make a claim while defending the claim.

CFLarsen

18th July 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus,

I have answered the questions. You may claim that I did not, but that doesn't make it true.

A bald-faced lie. You have not answered the questions.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Accept reality.

This, from someone who believes Uri Geller is a real psychic??!?!? :D

Lucianarchy

18th July 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Leroy,

I have answered the questions. You may claim that I did not, but that doesn't make it true.

A bald-faced lie. You have not answered the questions.

Accept reality.

This, from someone who believes James Randi is a real skeptic??!?!? :D

CFLarsen

18th July 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A bald-faced lie. You have not answered the questions.

Of course, I can point to where I answer the questions. Can you say the same?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
This, from someone who believes James Randi is a real skeptic??!?!? :D

You are free to point out where Randi is not a real skeptic.

Clancie

18th July 2003, 02:56 PM

Posted by Darat

I don't know what you are hoping to achieve with this "hounding". (As JREF has official labelled this repeated asking for answers when AN answer has been given, no matter how unsatisfactory to the questioning party
That would be fine, Darat, if people were consistent. Leroy is a new skeptic here, but other than him--still waiting for an answer to only 3 questions asked of Claus, not the 55 questions Claus has posted to me (in addition to the countless ones I answer from him all the time in the threads)....hardly anyone else ever mentions how Claus hounds believers on a regular, repeated basis.

That seems okay here, apparently because he's not a "believer".

I make a good effort to answer everyone's questions, btw, even his. But his list includes misstatements, inaccuracies, and things I've never claimed or said--as well as things I've already answered (often more than once).

I'm not correcting his "list" because it's utterly predictable that he'll just get into a big follow up argument with me about any questions that I dispute.

And I think its rude and intellectually unproductive to use such a tactic in order to create an impression, especially for those that don't follow it, that he asks the tough questions and I am chronically evasive.

I'm not evasive, but I won't be badgered and bullied by a tactic that obviously isn't intended to lead to productive discussion in any way whatsoever. ("55 Questions" I'd like to see anyone else around here put up with that kind of nonsense from someone who disagreed with them--and posted and participated about it daily in a variety of threads).

Its a tactic, pure and simple, and imo an unproductive and intellectually dishonest one. If only Leroy can see it for what it is...well, that's just sad.

neofight

18th July 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
And I think its rude to use such a tactic in ordery to create an impression, especially for those that don't follow it, that he asks the tough questions and I am chronically evasive.

I very much agree, Clancie. And it is obvious that there are those who do not read the entire threads, and so are left with that erroneous impression, which is exactly what Claus is counting on.

Its a tactic, pure and simple, and imo an unproductive and intellectually dishonest one. If only Leroy can see it for what it is...well, that's just sad.

Kudos to Leroy, Thanz, and Lurker for not letting Claus get away with his deceitful claim that he has answered their very simple and forthright questions, because he certainly has not done so. If I missed anyone, I'm sorry......neo

Darat

18th July 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

That would be fine, Darat, if people were consistent. Leroy is a new skeptic here, but other than him--still waiting for an answer to only 3 questions asked of Claus, not the 55 questions Claus has posted to me (in addition to the countless ones I answer from him all the time in the threads)....hardly anyone else ever mentions how Claus hounds believers on a regular, repeated basis.

That seems okay here, apparently because he's not a "believer".

…snip…

There are a lot of people who have challenged Claus here – I think you are over generalising in your characterisation of the situation here. (But I do grant a “sceptic” does sometimes receive a more forgiving reception.)

Originally posted by Clancie

…snip…

And I think its rude and intellectually unproductive to use such a tactic in order to create an impression, especially for those that don't follow it, that he asks the tough questions and I am chronically evasive.

I'm not evasive, but I won't be badgered and bullied by a tactic that obviously isn't intended to lead to productive discussion in any way whatsoever. ("55 Questions" I'd like to see anyone else around here put up with that kind of nonsense from someone who disagreed with them--and posted and participated about it daily in a variety of threads).

…snip…

I said this in a previous thread but it seems that you are also someone who believes "two wrongs make a right".

If Claus's tactics are wrong (my summary of yours and Leroy's views) then why do you support the use of this tactic on Claus?

The "hounding" (not my word) is either wrong or it isn't. If you think it is wrong then you shouldn't support it even when it is being used against someone you dislike. And if it is a fair tactic it is wrong that you complain about it being used against yourself whilst supporting its use against someone else.

I normally try very hard not to get into discussions about individuals here but I sincerely wish Claus, Neo, Thanz. Leroy yourself et all could come to some form of "truce" because there are interesting points made by all sides that are lost in the constant "you said" "no you said" posts.

(However I suspect you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.)

Clancie

18th July 2003, 04:29 PM

Darat,

Claus starts threads devoted to "(55) Questions for Clancie" (and similar ones for neo and Lucianarchy. I try to respond to him in the threads but I'm not going to play the "60 Questions" game. (Actually, he started a second "Questions for Clancie" thread today as well in "Community"). He bumps them up, periodically links to them, etc.--all the while still debating with me in these threads every day (though I should put him back on ignore so he stops his little games).

No one has done similar things to him. What you call "hounding" in asking him to give evidence for three statements in this thread isn't even close.

Claus made 3 accusations about me in one thread. Someone (Lurker originally, then Leroy) asked him to support them or withdraw them.

That seems a fair enough expectation when someone makes an accusation: back it up. But he continues to avoid the questions altogether, and does not withdraw the accusations either..

Maybe Leroy just has a low threshold for hypocrisy and dishonesty, because that's what this is, especially from someone with Claus's own history of badgering others with whatever (60) questions happen to pop into his head that he'd like to demand them to answer for him. Yet, when it comes to his own statements...he won't answer Leroy, Lurker or Thanz about any of them.

When he makes accusations about other people, he should be prepared to back them up or apologize and withdraw the statements, admitting they are inaccurate.

What's wrong with that expectation? It's just basic honesty.
:confused: