Isn't it interesting....

[Christopher O'Brien]

...that lurking debunkers masquerading as "skeptics" never post new threads to ellicit excitement, prompt civil debate and potentially provide us lowly "true-believers" (idiots in their way of thinking) with educational information designed to enlighten us all? No, instead they lurk about like trolls in the shadows waiting for their next gleeful opportunity to pounce, attack, ridicule, judge and demean... They lust for an opportunity to twist our words, ignore our logic and attempt to pry open what they perceive as chinks in the armor of open-minded inquiry...Just an observation...
nevermind

 

[Muadib]

I think it's more interesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is labelled as a "debunker troll" and dismissed accordingly. Or how potentially constructive criticism is dismissed because it's damaging to your fragile ego. You claim to value open minded inquiry, but only if it agrees with your preconceived notions, anything else is reduced to "mewling" or responded to with "I don't give a fucks"

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I think it's more interesting that anyone who doesn't agree with you is labelled as a "debunker troll" and dismissed accordingly. Or how potentially constructive criticism is dismissed because it's damaging to your fragile ego. You claim to value open minded inquiry, but only if it agrees with your preconceived notions, anything else is reduced to "mewling" or responded to with "I don't give a fucks"

No, "Muadib" or whatever you want to call yourself, I don't "give a fuck" what you think of me, UFOs, 911, "conspiracy theories" cryptocreatures, government disinfo, the "paranormal" or ______ (fill in the blank) or whether you agree w/ me, or not. I was pointing out the reactive nature of some here (not necessarily you) who claim to be skeptical but never seem to bring new, thought-provoking information to the table. Only "critical-thinking" couched in passive/aggressive baiting. If the foo shits, wear it, dude.

 

[Muadib]

No, "Muadib" or whatever you want to call yourself, I don't "give a fuck" what you think of me, UFOs, 911, "conspiracy theory, the "paranormal or ______ (fill in the blank) or whether you agree w/ me, or not. I was pointing out the reactive nature of some here (not necessarily you) who claim to be skeptical but never seem to bring new, thought-provoking information to the table.

Really? Because you seem to have made this thread and commented on another one with similar thoughts right after we had our exchange in the Lance Moody thread. If you want to play games, feel free, but I'd much rather you were honest. Of course, you don't give a fuck, so whatever. I've posted a few threads in my time here, but, I must admit that I rather enjoy discussing and providing my opinion in other threads more than I enjoy posting new material.

Ahhhh, the Paracast Forums, where you can speak your mind, so long as you don't disagree with the hosts. Then, you're a d*ck.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Ahhhh, the Paracast Forums, where you can speak your mind, so long as you don't disagree with the hosts. Then, you're a d*ck.

No, you have a right to state whatever you want! Like I said: I don't "give a fuck" what you think about me, my work, my opinions or my shoe size, or the price of tea in Timbuktu. Disagree away to your heart's content. You can post anything within the parameters of civil discourse and our forum's guidelines. YOU have the right, just as everyone else does. But, if you dish it out, don't whine when there is pushback and disagreement to your particular POV. Fair enough?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Not that's not correct. But this is one of the few forums for a syndicated radio show where the hosts tell you what they really think. Others just set up surrogates to run their forums.

If you disagree with us, don't be surprised if you get an answer, and that it's not the answer you want.

 

[Muadib]

No, you have a right to state whatever you want! Like I said: I don't "give a fuck" what you think about me, my work, my opinions or my shoe size, or the price of tea in Timbuktu. Disagree away to your heart's content. You can post anything within the parameters of civil discourse and our forum's guidelines. YOU have the right, just as everyone else does. But, if you dish it out, don't whine when there is pushback and disagreement to your particular POV. Fair enough?

When did you ever see me whining? I think the guy who made this thread is doing quite a bit of "whining" himself. Just more us vs. them rhetoric that drags down the entire field.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

When did you ever see me whining? ... Just more us vs. them rhetoric that drags down the entire field.

Whining? "How many of these people have you ripped to shreds on the Paracast?" Well Mr Muadib/anonymous, careful what you whine about and/or wish for.

 

[Muadib]

"How many of these people have you ripped to shreds on the Paracast?" Don't get me started...

That's whining? More like pointing out the facts, and I like that about the show, it's one of the main reasons I listen, but it doesn't seem to hold true with every guest. That was my point. If that's whining then color me guilty. Ray Stanford is obviously your sacred cow and you feel the need to lash out whenever someone raises a valid point about him.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Let me put in my four cents: I do not know Stanford that well. Aside from his presence on the show, I've talked to him on the phone a few times. I wish he was more eager to release his evidence, but Chris has seen some of what he has. And I trust Chris.

So Chris will defend his friend, as he should. But Stanford is not our sacred cow.

 

[Muadib]

Let me out in my four cents: I do not know Stanford that well. Aside from his presence on the show, I've talked to him on the phone a few times. I wish he was more eager to release his evidence, but Chris has seen some of what he has. And I trust Chris.

So Chris will defend his friend, as he should. But Stanford is not our sacred cow.

I didn't say he was your sacred cow, Gene. This isn't about you or the show as a whole even, just a little disagreement in another thread that got Chris's panties in a bunch, so he made this thread. Of course he'll defend his friend and there's nothing wrong with that, I was just trying to make him see that he comes across as a bit of a kool-aid drinker when it comes to Ray, and that's unfortunate given his stand on kool-aid drinkers in general. That and my point that the skeptical position isn't unreasonable, were my only two points. Does that sound "trollish" to you?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Chris is impressed with Stanford's research and evidence. And Chris is nobody's fool. If you want to evaluate opinions and evidence, fine. But get off the personalities please.

 

[Muadib]

Chris is impressed with Stanford's research and evidence. And Chris is nobody's fool. If you want to evaluate opinions and evidence, fine. But get off the personalities please.

That's the thing, I never said he was a fool, in fact I went out of my way to make it clear that I don't think he is one, however, there is no evidence to evaluate in this case. I just wanted to try and make him see that all the "I don't give a fucks", anger and rhetoric isn't helping the situation but I guess I hurt his feelings, so I'll leave it alone.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...he comes across as a bit of a kool-aid drinker when it comes to Ray, and that's unfortunate given his stand on kool-aid drinkers in general. ...

Kool-aid drinker (as you describe) is an insult to me and I am reacting to this w/ indignation. Sorry, but this is my right. You suggest by using this term w/ my name attached that I have abandoned my objectivity and succumbed to what you think is blind belief, or a suspension of disbelief. I stand behind what I have investigated, researched or become aware of through my work and stand behind my opinion about my work. Sorry if that is a problem for you or whomever.

 

[Muadib]

Kool-aid drinker (as you describe) is an insult to me and I am reacting to this w/ indignation. Sorry, but this is my right. You suggest by using this term w/ my name attached that I have abandoned my objectivity and succumbed to what you think is blind belief, or a suspension of disbelief. I stand behind what I have investigated, researched or become aware of through my work and stand behind my opinion about my work.

See but this is where you're confusing things, let me be clear, I'm not attacking your work, only the way you come across when you piss on everyone who doesn't honor the name of Ray Stanford and is perhaps a little skeptical when it comes to some of his claims. Try to leave the ego out of it and see where I was coming from. If I offended you, I sincerely apologize, you probably don't give a fuck, but there it is. Overall, I have a very high opinion of your work and I've gone out of my way to state that in many a thread on this forum.

 

[Randall]

If I may ... I have heard Chris say that he would personally love to get Stanford's evidence out in the open, and that is something we can all applaud. In the meantime, what are we to expect? We can't blame Chris for Stanford's behavior, and given the circumstances, it is reasonable that Chris would want to stay on good terms with Stanford. Personally, I'm glad we have someone on the inside track who is prepared to be more responsible with the evidence should it ever become available.

Also, let's not kid ourselves about how much these discussions can affect us. At some level we all care about what other people think, otherwise we wouldn't see anyone expressing their opinions with such passion. Indeed it's because these topics matter to us on both an intellectual and personal level that we are offended when someone is insensitive or inflammatory. But at the same time, let's all remember that out here in the public eye, we're not alone. To some extent, when we participate in a forum we all become role models, and therefore IMO, assuming we want to foster genuine, constructive and rational values, we have a responsibility to emulate the kind of feedback and behavior that we ourselves would like to see directed at us.

 

[FastEddie]

Chris I think you do a hell of a good job, Gene you too. I have listened to a number of podcasts and radio shows, watched youtube videos and read books. I can't say I believe everything I hear or read but I definitely have opened my mind more ever since I found the Paracast. There is a lot of garbage out there and I appreciate the work that goes in to what you do, keep fighting the good fight

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I am both a skeptic and, in another decade, fancied myself a debunker. These days, I have a different perception of this stuff.

That's not to say that I think a lot of what is classified as paranormal is true -- I don't. I've seen enough to feel that I know it isn't. I'm using the word "feel" to avoid offending people. I point that out to illustrate why I think it's a waste of time to do things like what Chris is describing.

I wouldn't come to these forums, where enthusiasts come to congregate, and start threads attacking the beliefs inherent to/in the field of the paranormal any more than I'd go to a religious forum and start attacking that stuff. Other than hurting people's feelings or just thinking it's funny to piss people off, what's the point? Why does anyone need to be "enlightened?" Why give a shit?

I treat it and view it in the same way I treat and view religious belief.

I may comment on certain threads with a skeptical bent, if certain aspects of science are being discussed, as with the Bigfoot DNA thread, but that's generally just to join the ongoing discussion. I also don't like when people get their hopes up over something that, to me, clearly looks bogus. I think excitement over those types of things also hurt the credibility of paranormal research; in that case, consider me devil's advocate.

To the contrary of Chris's idea of the unsolicited dickery that should be mainstream skepticism, I have actually started several threads to rekindle interest in certain aspects of the paranormal; whether that be just to get everyone's take or to learn about some corner of the field that I had never previously experienced, it's all generally positive when properly managed.

People aren't doing that, Chris, because people know how to act and aren't generally inherently mean. When a discussion already exists, there isn't anything wrong with introducing a new take, be it counterpoint or otherwise, to that discussion and seeing where it goes. Starting a thread, for the express purpose of attacking the ideas and likely beliefs of a recognized community, would be unhelpful, tactless, mean and, in the least, socially awkward.

 

[Randall]

I am both a skeptic and, in another decade, fancied myself a debunker. These days, I have a different perception of this stuff ... That's not to say that I think a lot of what is classified as paranormal is true -- I don't. I've seen enough to feel that I know it isn't. I'm using the word "feel" to avoid offending people ...

In our past discussions your interpretation of skepticism and your understanding of the concept of truth have both been ... incomplete. I'm using the word "incomplete" to avoid offending you. I also feel obligated to point out that your logic above is faulty ( I use the word "obligated" in the context of the consideration that one displays when informing someone of an unpleasant truth for there own good e.g. telling someone their zipper or shoelace is undone ). Not seeing something truly paranormal yourself is not sufficient evidence to conclude that paranormal events don't happen. You should also be commended for not wanting to intentionally offend people. Unfortunately there are times when offending people is an unfortunate side effect of a frank discussion, and if someone is too blimpish to remain graceful under pressure ( I use the word "blimpish" because I think blimps are cool ), then it's reasonable under the circumstances to consider the offense to be a no-fault incident ( I use the phrase "no-fault" in a manner similar to matrimonial law where no blame is placed on either party ).

 

[stonehart]

Interesting thread.

When it comes to skepticism, I think we can all agree that it is prudent to have a healthy amount of it in the study of the paranormal but not so much as to throw the baby out with the bath water.
However walking that fine line between out right skeptic and true believer can be hard I guess.
The hard core skeptic will aim to debunk as fast as possible anything that will not conform to their world view and in so doing crush any thoughts of inquiry into interesting events lumping them all into the "nothing to see here move along" bin.
The hard core true believer on the other hand will take things on faith even when it is obvious that the event/s or evidence is faulty or out right bollocks.

The skeptic is necessary in this field as we need them (or that mindset) to help us really dig for the truth of a matter and provide compelling evidence for further enquirer, not to prove anything to the skeptic (no point in trying to open an already closed mind) but to gain understanding for yourself.

The true believer is however not needed at all as their mind has already been made up if you get what I mean.

Where Chris is concerned I can understand his frustration with out right skeptics as they can be bloody irritating, not because they can be right but because the hard core skeptic tends to tar all with the same brush. We all know there is a hell of a lot of bat shit in this arena, the trick is sifting through it to find the nuggets of gold.

In the end I think it is a matter of degree of mindset, "I want to know, not believe" as I have said to many times on this forum to count is a completely different mindset to either the skeptic camp or the true believer camp.

Healthy skepticism with an open mind is the trick and a vast number of forum members that I follow have this mindset as do Chris and Gene from what I can tell.