12-9-07 show

[Mothra]

Is Verum The amazing Randi? Dude really, your harshing my buzz. I don't have a problem with being skeptical and asking questions but come on your really going overboard here. If you don't believe it then fine, but do you believe any anything? The belief in the Paranormal requires someone to accept the reality that there are things we don't understand. Why are you even on this forum? Why listen to the Paracast at all.

 

[valiens]

So you are going to dismiss David's experiences out of hand because he may, just may, have had a faulty memory about the positions occupied by Koehler and Buchanan? Really now!

No. He's dismissing them because Dave mentioned him in a harsh tone on the the show and so now it's a pissing contest.

 

[DBTrek]

No. He's dismissing them because Dave mentioned him in a harsh tone on the the show and so now it's a pissing contest.

Mark your Calendar folks. This may be the first time I've ever agreed with anything said by Valiens.

 

[Verum]

Mothra wrote...

Why are you even on this forum?

Because I enjoy the wonderful independent thinking and open-mindedness of some of the posters and hosts. (With apologies to those of you who have offered support for my position, both publicly and privately.) You see, Mothra, forums are SUPPOSED to be an open and free exchange of ideas, not a sycophantic head nodding for a particular point of view or individual. And, as any honest, thoughtful person will attest I have done nothing more than raise relevant, legitimate and important issues...none of which have been seriously addressed or resolved. If you believe examination of paranormal ideas requires blind and trusting acceptance of any claim, so be it. That is NOT what David and Gene have claimed....until now. They have always taken the position that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs"--sound familiar? Why aren't you and all other posters raising the red flag around this situation?

David, I believe I did call you sad and lonely. That's an honest opinion, hardly hateful or abusive. As you know, though, I NEVER called you psychotic. I said your episodes were possibly psychotic in nature...i.e., likely breaks from reality. What I find interesting, though, is that you've convinced some of the posters here that I have engaged in abusive language, when that's absolutely untrue. The abusive behavior has ALL been from your corner. Nevertheless you have influenced these posters into the firm belief--against all evidence--that I have been abusive. And in that context why is it not possible, as I have suggested earlier, that you subjected your brother and friend to the same form of influence with respect to your "sightings"?

Trumping up a rationale for "banning me" is par for the course, and your prerogative. Nevertheless, my point has been made I am confident that you will never again be able to lambast and cajole guests by demanding a level of evidence or "proof" that you yourself refuse to provide or even attempt with any degree of diligence. David's "experiences" are remarkable, extraordinary and completely without a shred of documentation, notwithstanding their public natures. They are truly INcredible, and I think will be seen as such unless and until some level of credibility is introduced into their telling.

I have nothing more to say on this issue, so Gene can save himself the trouble of censoring opposition viewpoints yet again. By the way I was done posting here, until David chose to launch into another of his little one-sided debate/assaults on me during the last Paracast episode. So please feel free to let the falsehoods, mistruths and personal attacks once again commence.

 

[David Biedny]

Verum,

God told me to tell you to have a nice day. And buzz off.

Who am I to argue with God, right?

dB

 

[valiens]

Verum, this is completely silly kiddie crap. Just calmly making challenges when the root of your inquiry is that you're upset Dave referred to your handle as "Venom" on the show is...how you say...immature. I mean it's fine if that's what you wanna do, but stop pretending.

"What? What did I say?"

Come on, dude, everyone sees through that.

I think you and Miah are taking the episode and Dave's claims out of context. Essentially he is one of the hosts of a paranormal show PERIOD. I mean that's the hat he's wearing here. From that, it is totally appropriate to ask people with extraordinary claims if they have any evidence. Hell, I think they asked me when I was on originally and I didn't have anything substantial, but they didn't slam me for it. They'd be bad hosts if they didn't ask.

What is the problem with asking for evidence or proof and then scrutinizing it if you get it? Calling it a hoax if it's a hoax and a mystery if it remains a mystery?

It sounds like what you're saying is that because Dave & Gene do that to guests, they have to be held to the same standard. That would only be true if they were going on another show to promote their stories. That's the standard for the guest, not the host. In the context of the Paracast, Dave is explaining to us what drives him to be a host in the first place. He's confiding in us on a personal note that he doesn't even have to divulge. You see? Dave's sharing personal stories as the co-host of his show, under that hat, not under the hat of a guest promoting something.

How many news reporters report on and trap shady politicians, business leaders, celebrities, etc.? That's part of their job as investigative reporter, right? So where's the clarion call to look into each reporter's background to make sure they aren't hypocrites? We don't do that because it's not relevant to the job.

The only difference between Dave and a host who has had these experiences but hasn't spoken about them is that Dave spoke about them (as way of saying "This is why I give a shit about this field in the first place.") I can see why you'd think that means he suddenly has to back up everything he says, but unless he's enticing you like a Greer with revelations that will happen in the future, I don't see it. I just see some personal info he never had to divulge in the first place being divulged as a point of interest for the listeners, take it or leave it.

 

[Miah]

I bet Dave and Gene actually expect to be held to the same scrutiny as their guests, they can correct me if I am wrong. They should be.

But being confrontational about it, attacking even, is another story. That's where Verum and I part ways.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I bet Dave and Gene actually expect to be held to the same scrutiny as their guests, they can correct me if I am wrong. They should be.

But being confrontational about it, attacking even, is another story. That's where Verum and I part ways.

Certainly it depends. David is just recounting some personal experiences, not presenting them as evidence of anything other than he's had a weird life. That's the beginning and end of it, and it helps us know, in part, what makes him tick.

On the other hand, if anyone wants to pick up the sword and help to nail down some hard facts about these episodes, he'll cooperate in any way he can. Once that research is made public, yes, the information should be held to the same standard as other paranormal reports.

 

[Miah]

Telling listeners a ton of events that can't be substantiated doesn't get us anywhere though. I can't imagine the show becoming the next C2C where that's going on.

But 2 major events with witnesses should surely be pursued.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Telling listeners a ton of events that can't be substantiated doesn't get us anywhere though. I can't imagine the show becoming the next C2C where that's going on.

But 2 major events with witnesses should surely be pursued.

What it tells you is something about the person and their experiences. We don't mind if you want to independently investigate something you hear about and reporting your conclusions. But David is not making extraordinary claims for what happened to him. He is not reaching any conclusions. To him, it's a mystery.

In the case of C2C, they pander to the lowest common denominator and they present guests who have been thoroughly debunked as hoaxers or crooks and offer them as real paranormal experts or experiencers.

 

[Miah]

I'm surprised that Verum's last tame comment was deleted.

 

[BrandonD]

Telling listeners a ton of events that can't be substantiated doesn't get us anywhere though. I can't imagine the show becoming the next C2C where that's going on.

I disagree. In my opinion, there's just something about the nature of these subjects which keeps them from providing enough proof to convince another person.

Because of that, anecdotal evidence is kind of a big deal. And when it comes to anecdotal evidence, the ideal person is an intelligent, rational person without alot of belief baggage and preconceived ideas. The paracast hosts are leaps and bounds above C2C in that respect.

A mathematician tells you he saw a being that looked like an angel. A religious zealot tells you he saw a being that looked like an angel. Both unsubstantiated, but both VERY different. Even if they both come across as completely honest, one of them is much more likely to have an unbiased view of his experience.

It would be my guess that most of the people who listen to the paracast are already convinced that something weird's going on. If you already recognize this, then anecdotal stories are part of the attempt to try and illuminate the mystery. If you don't recognize this, then these stories probably aren't intended for you.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I can't imagine the show becoming the next C2C where that's going on.

This is an obviously false statement because you're holding C2C at a standard it doesn't deserve. You must know, Miah, how silly that show is 95% of the time. This leads me to infer that you only said it to make the hosts feel bad.

Examine your conscience.

 

[David Biedny]

Miah,

I deleted that last post from Verum, due to the fact that it revealed his identity to me, and was meant to harm. I won't tolerate this from anyone, much less that particular person. He stated that he had a mission, and the mission had essentially been completed. That mission was to try and make us look bad, and to attack my personal integrity and reputation. He never intended on engaging in a rational discussion. He was on here with the express purpose of disruption and character assassination, and I had enough of it. There were some rather nasty personal emails from him, and he had been warned. He won't be coming back.

As to your comments about us potentially stooping to the level of C2C, you're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree. I feel that the overall quality and tone of our discussions is light years beyond anything heard on C2C, and the quantity of private emails that Gene & I receive commenting on the level of discourse on The Paracast seems to confirm this perception.

dB

 

[Miah]

Miah,

I deleted that last post from Verum, due to the fact that it revealed his identity to me, and was meant to harm. I won't tolerate this from anyone, much less that particular person. He stated that he had a mission, and the mission had essentially been completed. That mission was to try and make us look bad, and to attack my personal integrity and reputation. He never intended on engaging in a rational discussion. He was on here with the express purpose of disruption and character assassination, and I had enough of it. There were some rather nasty personal emails from him, and he had been warned. He won't be coming back.

As to your comments about us potentially stooping to the level of C2C, you're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree. I feel that the overall quality and tone of our discussions is light years beyond anything heard on C2C, and the quantity of private emails that Gene & I receive commenting on the level of discourse on The Paracast seems to confirm this perception.

dB

"Telling listeners a ton of events that can't be substantiated doesn't get us anywhere though. I can't imagine the show becoming the next C2C where that's going on." - This was not well communicated. The "that's" here is referring to the first sentence, meaning I don't see this show starting to let people come on and give unsubstantiated stories all the time (ala C2C), as it gets us nowhere. I was referring to valiens post above it, not about you giving your stories.

As I look at it closer now, the "Telling listeners" does sound more like the host talking, but I wanted to say having guests on giving unsubstantiated stories all the time, like C2C does. The host of C2C does not give his own wacky experiences obviously, he just hosts them. I apologize for not wording that better.

Does this mean that you knew who this guy was after he left that name? Are you saying he came to this forum just to start all that crap? Do fill us in a bit if possible, PM if you prefer it not publicized.

 

[Mothra]

I can't believe this went on for 10 pages. David please don't hold his actions against us. We all listen to you and Gene and sometimes Jeff, and value your experiences. Please don't let a couple assclowns keep you from opening up. He'll be back with a new IP and handle I'm sure, but he shouldn't be hard to spot.

 

[Siani]

What Mothra said. The world needs more, not less, people discussing their paranormal encounters. Not just for the catharsis of unburdening our experiences, but to encourage greater collective insights into these things, and to hopefully de-stigmatize those of us who encounter strange phenomena. Unfortunately, paranormal-themed forums, websites, blogs, etc, seem to attract abusive and malevolent trolls. Or is that just the Internet in general? Ignore such pathetic individuals. People who thrive on trouble-making generally have very empty lives.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Miah,

I deleted that last post from Verum, due to the fact that it revealed his identity to me, and was meant to harm. I won't tolerate this from anyone, much less that particular person. He stated that he had a mission, and the mission had essentially been completed. That mission was to try and make us look bad, and to attack my personal integrity and reputation. He never intended on engaging in a rational discussion. He was on here with the express purpose of disruption and character assassination, and I had enough of it. There were some rather nasty personal emails from him, and he had been warned. He won't be coming back.

As to your comments about us potentially stooping to the level of C2C, you're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree. I feel that the overall quality and tone of our discussions is light years beyond anything heard on C2C, and the quantity of private emails that Gene & I receive commenting on the level of discourse on The Paracast seems to confirm this perception.

dB

"Mission," "mission completed," character assassination and more?

Oh, my. This has Colonel Kal Korff written all over it. Is the super secert service agent at work again?

 

[grannysmith]

hmm.... is it just me or is an ad hominem attack just the last refuge of the scoundrel? (just ignore Verum, he's 'x' and 'he would say that wouldn't he?)'. Sad, mate, really sad:frown:.

 

[CinderMoltenHowl]

I enjoyed the episode but it did go a tad off towards the end.

Had a chuckle at the reference to Art Bell's wife....err..yes.. well anyway.