• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Lance's Message to the Forum

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lance and I have our exchanges too, and I can't say that his style of debate is particularly ingratiating. But at the same time, his presence has prompted me to post useful information and get into the nitty-gritty details that without a persistent voice of skepticism would probably never get shared here on the forum. I think it's a shame that it had to come to a parting of ways. I also think it would show a great amount of civility for Lance to reconsider leaving and to return to the forum with an offer to extend appologies to those whom he may have offended. Personally I don't need any ( I'm pretty think skinned ). But to extend the offer and agree to carry on would show the kind of character I believe Lance has, but unfortunately doesn't show through when he is in "skeptic mode".

J.R.
USI Calgary
 
Ya know I really do think Lance will be back. But, even if he isn't some of you act like he is the only "skeptic" out there. We still a few. :-) I think sometime we don't know how to argue civily because we think we have to "win" the argument. But, if we have faith in our own worldview then we should be able to present what we know or think we know and then be happy that we are able to hold our own in the arena of ideas. Lance and me to for that matter seem to think we have to win. If you will forgive my brashness I think it's a symptom of intelligence. We have that "aha" moment and we see it all so clearly. But, the person we are arguing with just won't "get it." I tend to be holistic and I will "feel" the truth or the spirit of what I want to say. The energy if you will. But, I just can't get across with words. Lance is scientific, logical. He knows the damn forumla dammit and just can't understand why people can't simply open their damn eyes and see it! But, the trick is to understand that a human is an amphbian and not a machine. WE are spirit and blood and sweat and hope and lust and logic and emotion. Maybe it survives the mechanical mechanism of the body and maybe it doesn't. But, we will allways be wondering and searching. I hope for eternity. imo but I won't call ya stupid if you disagree. Not out loud anyway. So, good night Lance...wherever you are. :-)
 
trainedobserver said:
That is such a good question Phil.

Why would anyone want to try to bring some rationality, critical thinking, and a non-Kool-Aid drinking perspective to the subject of the paranormal? Why indeed!? Maybe they have an interest in the subject matter and the truth about it rather than blind acceptance of any interesting story that comes down the pike?

The fact of the matter is that there is an incredible amount of lies and deceit that gets passed off as truth and reality in the circles of those interested in the paranormal and by those interested in profiting from that interest. People like Lance, who actually check facts and attempt to hold people accountable are an unappreciated godsend. Without individuals like him the depths of unmitigated bullshit would be even more unnavigable than they already are.

There is good reason why skeptics who check facts and call people on their less than truthful statements aren't that welcomed by the paranormal faux-reality dog and pony show cottage industry. You might want to ponder what that motivation might be as well.
Click to expand...
Yes and Lance did bring some rationality and perspective to theses forums, agreed. If he could have controlled himself and ceased the personal vendetta against Chris he probably would not have found himself in this position. He devalued his good work with an attack dog, debunker's demeanor and any of this good work went out the window whenever he decided to pursue this tactic.

I understand the fact that some may have been burnt by the charlatans and bullshit artists. Especially the ones profiteering from this so called industry. Even so i think those who have should check their biases in at the door when it comes to it. It's no different to the people who occupy the other end of the spectrum. If you come here as a rabid true believer and attack those who you perceive to be anything less, you would receive the same treatment as Lance, I believe.
But people are surely allowed an opinion on the genre without having to be subjected to a medieval witch hunt style interrogation which was occurring on a regular basis by Lance on Christopher.
If this hadn't occurred then he would still be here.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------
Lauren Jones said:
What forum member has been personally attacked more than Lance? It's disproportionate to anything he dished out or deserved.
Click to expand...
Lance got attacked because he attacked others, pure and simple. And if you ask him i bet you would say he didn't mind because he feels justified in the way he approached the subjects he engaged.
Why continue a personal vendetta against the show's co-host when you know that it is going to get you in trouble. He knew what was coming. And if he didn't then i over estimated his intelligence i'm afraid.
 
The Pair of Cats said:

Yes and Lance did bring some rationality and perspective to theses forums, agreed. If he could have controlled himself and ceased the personal vendetta against Chris he probably would not have found himself in this position. He devalued his good work with an attack dog, debunker's demeanor and any of this good work went out the window whenever he decided to pursue this tactic.

I understand the fact that some may have been burnt by the charlatans and bullshit artists. Especially the ones profiteering from this so called industry. Even so i think those who have should check their biases in at the door when it comes to it. It's no different to the people who occupy the other end of the spectrum. If you come here as a rabid true believer and attack those who you perceive to be anything less, you would receive the same treatment as Lance, I believe.
But people are surely allowed an opinion on the genre without having to be subjected to a medieval witch hunt style interrogation which was occurring on a regular basis by Lance on Christopher.
If this hadn't occurred then he would still be here.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------


Lance got attacked because he attacked others, pure and simple. And if you ask him i bet you would say he didn't mind because he feels justified in the way he approached the subjects he engaged.
Why continue a personal vendetta against the show's co-host when you know that it is going to get you in trouble. He knew what was coming. And if he didn't then i over estimated his intelligence i'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure lance knew what he was doing. Although we have pretty much the exact same views on the subject, I think we have different approaches to how we deal with people. I'm just happy that Gene allows me to voice my opinion as a moderator. As has been said before, there are many forums that don't allow that.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
I didn't know that you knew Lance beyond this forum, because for you to make that type of assessment of him, that must be the case. I also don't think that people have provided compelling evidence that have swayed me, Lance, or any other skeptic. It's all just anecdotal, and anytime someone says they have TRUE evidence, it gets forgotten. Remember Ray Standford and Ted Philips? They have not presented any of their evidence that they claim is so amazing. Only blurry images and ambiguous data. No good pictures or film that they claim that they have.
Click to expand...

Were about's in my post have I claimed to know Lance beyond this forum? Can you show me specifically that content?

As I see it, my posting, was an honest assessment of his time spent on the forum, and nowhere else; So I am at a loss here to understand your point at this time!

What is true evidence to you?

"Ted Philips best evidence is him claiming to have seen many strange balls of colored lights, at a unknown location, called Marley Woods?

Would many images or photographs of colored balls of light Angel, honestly truly change your skeptical opinion about the phenomenon? Similar phenomenon to what Ted is describing has already been photographed and filmed.

Ray Standford, he will not release this wonderful material he alleges he has of UFO's? He ia surely is aware of this he is not getting any younger, so why doesn't take Ray not take some credit for this amazing evidence?

Angel, I don't understand a person like Ray, maybe he doesn't care what people think, well then Ray if you don't care what people think you shouldn't be telling everyone what you are thinking, keep quiet.
 
Kieran said:
Were about's in my post have I claimed to know Lance beyond this forum? Can you show me specifically that content?

As I see it, my posting, was an honest assessment of his time spent on the forum, and nowhere else; So I am at a loss here to understand your point at this time!

What is true evidence to you?

"Ted Philips best evidence is him claiming to have seen many strange balls of colored lights, at a unknown location, called Marley Woods?

Would many images or photographs of colored balls of light Angel, honestly truly change your skeptical opinion about the phenomenon? Similar phenomenon to what Ted is describing has already been photographed and filmed.

Ray Standford, he will not release this wonderful material he alleges he has of UFO's? He ia surely is aware of this he is not getting any younger, so why doesn't take Ray not take some credit for this amazing evidence?

Angel, I don't understand a person like Ray, maybe he doesn't care what people think, well then Ray if you don't care what people think you shouldn't be telling everyone what you are thinking, keep quiet.
Click to expand...

You didn't say you knew him beyond the forum, but you made it sound like you did. That was the point and why I said what I did.
And no, photographs of coloured balls of light would not change my opinion.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
You didn't say you knew him beyond the forum, but you made it sound like you did. That was the point and why I said what I did.
And no, photographs of coloured balls of light would not change my opinion.
Click to expand...

I made it sound? Ok show me were in my posting, i made it sound, please because I am at a loss, Angel

So whats the big expectation with getting Teds evidence? We now know the evidence he has, will not be good enough for you and other skeptics?
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Kieran,

When you say things such as:

and

It makes it sound like you know him beyond his forum personality.
Click to expand...


All forum related, Angel.

Lance is not a polite, his postings to the forum are testimony to that fact. So not sure how that gave you an impression I knew him beyond the forum?


And nobody should give complete respect to, why do you think I said that? Not hard to figure is it,our is it?

Taking stuff out of context did you not read the stuff I said before that?
 
Folks, let's wind this down soon. There are far more important issues to discuss than why an individual member is asked to leave, or leaves of his or her own volition.
 
That's fine Kieran. I just think that anything a "skeptic" does on this forum is taken out of proportion in comparison to when other members do it. Perhaps it's just my perception - if confirmation bias can make people believe in remote viewing and ESP, then it can make me think something like this is going on.
 
Hm..my view always was that if you put yourself 'out there' (publish a book, appear in a tv show, a movie, hold conferences, whatever), one HAS to be ready for eventual criticism, sometimes harsh ones. Being naive sure excuses someone not ready for any inevitable backlash (I'm sure there a people protesting rescuing puppies, f.e.) for the first time, the second time is tough luck.
In that way I welcome legitimate skeptic concern, hell, I am an interested person with a rather skeptical point of view on many subjects of the 'paranormal'.
I respect Lance for his 'Die-hard' stance on some things and him calling out Frauds anyone interested in this subject and half-open minded should have figured out for themselves. Though I disagree on some of them, he mostly makes a compelling case for his point of view on the matter. The harping on Chris was getting tiresome though, he is not responsible for what former guests of the show produce or don't produce, nor is he putting out extremely outrageous claims out there(well, for Lance, maybe....:) ).

His/Gene's choice, I don't know what happened between Kieran and Lance, I actually don't want to. Seems it wasn't all that civilized. of a reply by Lance.

Agree to disagree (unless its utter utter bullshit ;)), everyone makes mistakes, in purported facts, choice of words in debates, or in the estimation of another persons character (really easy on a message board....).

Now off to CSETI
 
Angel of Ioren said:
People blame Lance for attacking people's character, but the same is being done here towards Lance. I don't think it's fair.
Click to expand...
He did, at times.
I suppose forum members base their opinions about Lance based on their interactions with him here or at least their observations of him. Whatever the case it is his behavior that they will remember. You reap what you sow.

---------- Post added at 11:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 PM ----------
Angel of Ioren said:
That's fine Kieran. I just think that anything a "skeptic" does on this forum is taken out of proportion in comparison to when other members do it. Perhaps it's just my perception - if confirmation bias can make people believe in remote viewing and ESP, then it can make me think something like this is going on.
Click to expand...

The sceptics here are fine. It's only when they overstep, usually by being unreasonable, disrespectful or mean spirited.You know, just because any of us here have an opinion on something doesn't mean we are right. If you find cause to be flippant or disrespectful, when dissecting other's opinions or beliefs, then that may upset them causing them to react badly or at least form a negative opinion of that person. As maybe Kieran has done in Lance's case. The sceptics and debunkers dislike having their beliefs ridiculed just as much as the so called true believers do. It's human nature.
Just like this statement:
- if confirmation bias can make people believe in remote viewing and ESP.....
Click to expand...
Some of people who believe that such things are possible may take exception to that statement, especially ones who are not as accepting of the views of others. Sometimes the statements that people make here can be easily misconstrued and no amount of smiley faces etc. can alter that perception.
Maybe Lance was also a victim to this.
 
I know in my case I "beleive" in a higher power (Dont even go there T.O. cause I'm not gonna explain what that power is) :p But, I don't believe in ufo's being people from space. Somtime I am guilty of being offended when people belittle faith and prayer or meditation. But, then I go and make "spaceman Spiff" cracks and think nothing of offending those who honestly beleive we are being visited. On the other hand there are a couple of folks here who truly make (to me) out there claims of "alledged" evidence for visitors from space and yet they belittle anybody with the nerve to even "wonder" about a God or the nature of such a being. Most all of us. Hell, I'd say all of us are guilty of that. With that said I will respect and agree with Gene. I'm moving on from this thread. :cool:
 
I have really been tied up with my "stuff" of late so I have not frequented the forums a lot in the past several weeks. I was surprised (but not much) to hear of Lance's departure.

Now, anyone that knows me over the past few years know that I pretty much do not get involved usually in forum disputes nor do I often inject myself in debates. As a Mod here and on my DMR forum I pretty much give all a pass on what ever they wish to discuss. I do not censor anyone until there is a total lack of civil behavior. Now, as to Lance ...

Over the past couple of years on a couple of occasions we did have a clash or two because of Lance's behavior. The most recent was on DMR when I had announced that Dr. John Brandenberg was going to be a guest on DMR talking about his new book and Mars. Brandenberg told me and I reported it here, that the Obama WH had applied pressure on a science publ., Science of Cosmology, to not report a NASA scientist's article that discussed finding fossilized remnants of life in a meteor. So, without even hearing the show which had not aired, Lance began his attack.

From Wikipedia:

Journal of Cosmology is accused of promoting fringe viewpoints on astrobiology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Skeptical blogger and biologist PZ Myers said of the journal "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth".
The journal's editor, Rudolph Schild, also published several papers on "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects" (MECOs), a fringe alternative to black holes, in the journal.

On 11 March, in an open letter to the editors of Science and Nature, Schild proposed to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the Hoover paper, which would be led by three experts appointed by Journal of Cosmology, Science and Nature.[14] The journal said it would interpret "any refusal to cooperate, no matter what the excuse" from Nature or Science as "vindication for the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper, and an acknowledgment that the editorial policies of the Journal of Cosmology are beyond reproach".

I responded; Thank God we have Lance Moody to save us from publications that have been accused of promoting fringe viewpoints.

And of course Lance came back in a snarky manner and responded. It's nice to know that if I used the same kind of adjectives to describe you, I might find that spirit of free speech is not really much of a two way street.

But you may be right about that, Don and I know how warmly you always greet any opinion that wavers from the paranormal crackpot science one.

No objection to your show-I like your show and I think you do a good job. Having heard Brandenburg's act, I sort of know what to expect.

And the Wikipedia entry for the Journal sounds exactly like the kind of "science" that I would guess Brandenburg might dig.

Going to Fox News was the same tactic used for the recent story of alien life found in meteorites that a NASA engineer published also at the Journal. Have you heard much beyond that about that story? No, because the overwhelming scientific opinion is that there simply isn't much to the claims therein.

Fortunately scientific value isn't decided by the learned minds at the Fox & Friends.

I will definitely listen--I found his last appearance elsewhere hilarious. Hey, be sure to ask him to regale you with his vast knowledge of history by telling you the story of Napoleon and the Sphinx. It's a doozy!

I'm sure you must be busy trying to get the counterpoint of Lars Borg also on the show?

Lance

Okay, I saw that as Lance baiting me, which he was known for. At the time I told him; Okay Lance, you found me on a really bad day. I am giving you this warning ... if you object to something you heard on DMR or read, fine .. give it your best shot. But, the next time you come in here swinging cause you think ... you know something ... then I will prove to you what a prick I am. I will bounce you.

And by the way, I will bet had you been around when Copernicus or Galileo were having their spat with the Church, you would have been leading the way to their house while carrying your torch, right?

You have been warned.

Like I said, I am not surprised. I try to treat everyone with at least some respect until they prove they do not deserve any. Perhaps that is something else he should practice.

Decker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top