• 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!

Mars and the Bomb

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

lancemoody said:
I actually hadn't thought of you as being that mismatched with me. But now that you mention it I suppose you are right. You keep carrying your gun little rabbit. I know now it's the only thing you've got.
Click to expand...
Ah yes my gun! Well it's back in its holster now, old fella!:) Actually i'm a fan of free speech and i think that there should be no ban on you Lance. In fact maybe the mods should un-shackle you from your bindings and let you loose amongst the threads on this forum.
You were away for a while and when you returned we saw a new and somewhat "sedate" Lance from what we used to. And this has been good. Reasoned debates, civility, agreements etc.
Then............
the old Lance reappeared.
But hey, if you feel that strongly about Dr Brandenbug and his apparent less than stellar performances on the Paracast and Dark Matters, then go for it, have your way with him. You're entitled to express your opinion of him in any form you wish.:) There were definitely others here who tended to agree with you.
 
Anyone who has been on The Paracast for any length of time will know that I, as a rule, have never interfered in anyone's right to express something they feel on this forum. Usually I restrain my remarks or comments in threads that run here on the Paracast. I am a firm believer in the right of freedom of speech, ideas, or beliefs. In time past, I even recall remarks by certain long time members that I as a mod here, and several others do not suppress anyones comments. I may not agree with somebody but I usually do not remark.

However, when someone comes into my house (this forum-DMR) and after I post information about an upcoming program, and then deliberately provokes me by suggestion that my guest is a fool, a scientific publication my guest names is "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", I can see this no other way than an attack on me, my guest and my radio show, just to show everybody how cleaver and smart the poster is. Kicking sand in my face, in my house, and the show in question has not even run ... as of yet. A deliberate provocation. Well ladies and gentlemen I will not tolerate that. Now, Lance and I have had several run ins before this and I have tried to be non-confrontational because of that. I do not wish to be seen as trying to suppress anyones right to express their beliefs or feelings but what happened here this weekend, I saw as a direct attack on me, my show and my guest. Once again, this I will not tolerate. I suggest the show be heard before anyone remarks anymore on this episode. I do hope this concludes this sorry incident.

Decker
 
Decker said:
Anyone who has been on The Paracast for any length of time will know that I, as a rule, have never interfered in anyone's right to express something they feel on this forum. Usually I restrain my remarks or comments in threads that run here on the Paracast. I am a firm believer in the right of freedom of speech, ideas, or beliefs. In time past, I even recall remarks by certain long time members that I as a mod here, and several others do not suppress anyones comments. I may not agree with somebody but I usually do not remark.

However, when someone comes into my house (this forum-DMR) and after I post information about an upcoming program, and then deliberately provokes me by suggestion that my guest is a fool, a scientific publication my guest names is "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", I can see this no other way than an attack on me, my guest and my radio show, just to show everybody how cleaver and smart the poster is. Kicking sand in my face, in my house, and the show in question has not even run ... as of yet. A deliberate provocation. Well ladies and gentlemen I will not tolerate that. Now, Lance and I have had several run ins before this and I have tried to be non-confrontational because of that. I do not wish to be seen as trying to suppress anyones right to express their beliefs or feelings but what happened here this weekend, I saw as a direct attack on me, my show and my guest. Once again, this I will not tolerate. I suggest the show be heard before anyone remarks anymore on this episode. I do hope this concludes this sorry incident.

Decker
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Don. I can appreciate that.
 
Decker said:
I suggest the show be heard before anyone remarks anymore on this episode. I do hope this concludes this sorry incident.
Decker
Click to expand...
Can't wait to hear the show, Don. It's been a while since i heard a live one. I hope everything goes well and back to normal.

---------- Post added at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 AM ----------
lancemoody said:
Phil,
When I came back, I'm afraid that I did use way too much Ad Hominem. It is always a struggle but I do strive to avoid it.

That has nothing to do with this thread, of course because I honestly don't think I did anything that called for the response I got. But that's fine. I know what I am working with.

By the way, the last exchange that I remember that I had with Don was to compliment him on the show he did on Kal Korff.

Lance
Click to expand...

I like what you did with the WTC thread. I don't agree with all of your conclusions but i found it to be an informative exercise for me and quite civil. I thought you handled yourself with restraint and patience. Credit where it's due. I understand that it is difficult sometimes especially if you are frustrated with a guest or a topic.
By the way. Hows the Kelly Johnson research coming along?
Keep on being mindful, mate!!!:)
 
I'm going to butt in here and babble as a new guy.

I've got to say that I actually consider myself a skeptic, but in the same vein as Don. I liked his show right away when I discovered it 6 months ago because of his entertaining, no BS manner and emphasis on truly weird cases while keeping a keen eye out for liars and wackjobs and calling them out when he saw them.

I realize that Don may disagree and take offense at my characterization of him as a skeptic, since"skeptic" has recently somehow become a job title, rather than a description of rational thought process. I don't "believe" things, I know (based on what evidence I have and beyond reasonable doubt, anyhow) or I don't know. If there is an odd phenomenon with strange but credible evidence backing it I shut up, pay attention and reserve judgment. (And I admit I enjoy entertaining the possibilities and pointing out the flaws.) I've always been interested in the paranormal, and I've always been disappointed with how the general subject has been handled by most of the people who share an interest.

Unfortunately it seems to me that 90% of what is considered paranormal is pure bullshit, and 7% is misidentification or wishful thinking. The remaining 3% of the truly strange, interesting and evidentiarily supported stuff is buried in the previous garbage and summarily dismissed by dour "skeptics", or the whole 100% of it is celebrated by blissed out, cross-eyed paint huffers. I prefer a discriminating approach. There is nothing rational or "skeptical" about throwing the baby out with the bathwater because Occam's razor suggests that most probably there isn't a baby in there because after several days of periodic observation at random times, the tub was empty. You still ought to look.

If you're too exhausted by the idiots that abound in this arena, I can understand that; but if that's the case it's time to divorce yourself from the subject.

I didn't agree with many of Dr. Brandenberg's conclusions, and he did a lot of speculating on the show, but what's wrong with that? Everybody's got opinions. He doesn't speculate in his scientific papers, and arguing about where his paper was published is ridiculous. Unorthodox papers sometimes have a hard time getting through in orthodox journals.
 The content of his paper is the only thing that matters. If the Weekly World News publishes an article that champions the idea that water is wet, is water not wet anymore?

Attack the research if it's got holes in it. It's easy to do if it's got something wrong with it. Otherwise you sound just like a fundamentalist with a different religion.
 
i find it hilarious that lance uses wiki as his authoritative source. LMFAO!

hey lance, WHY are you here anyway? you seem to have a perpetual chip on your shoulder. are you by stature a short man by any chance?
 
It's amazing the extent to which folks will piss in each other's corn flakes and then wonder why they aren't well received by the other. I say this because I am certainly guilty of that myself while trying to be better about it and failing on a regular basis.
 
it really makes no sense to me why lance is here other than to piss in everyones corn flakes.

don't get me wrong, i think lance has the right to say whatever he wants here within the forum guidelines. why would someone who dislikes the paranormal/ufo field hang out on a paranormal/ufo forum?
 
pixelsmith said:
it really makes no sense to me why lance is here other than to piss in everyones corn flakes.

don't get me wrong, i think lance has the right to say whatever he wants here within the forum guidelines. why would someone who dislikes the paranormal/ufo field hang out on a paranormal/ufo forum?
Click to expand...

Lance seems to bring up some pretty good points sometimes, and he's been behaving himself in several threads that have spurred debates, such as the WTC 7 and the Kennedy thread. you may not agree with his conclusions, but he has debated well.

And pixel, let's face it, you'll happily pissin the cornflakes of anyone that brings up a global warming or 9/11 theory that doesn't jive with yours.
 
Angel of Ioren said:
Lance seems to bring up some pretty good points sometimes, and he's been behaving himself in several threads that have spurred debates, such as the WTC 7 and the Kennedy thread. you may not agree with his conclusions, but he has debated well.

And pixel, let's face it, you'll happily pissin the cornflakes of anyone that brings up a global warming or 9/11 theory that doesn't jive with yours.
Click to expand...

i agree, lance does occasionally bring up valid points. i have no problem with him being here at all. i just wonder WHY he is here.

and yes, i will happily piss in anyones corn flakes who is a proponent of CAGW or believes the official 9/11 fairy tale.
 
I appreciate all the viewpoints and differing perspectives here or try to at any rate. I think Lance supplies a valuable perspective even though the expression of it is a bit caustic at times. If we can manage to talk about ideas while avoiding personalizing things and making generalizations we'll all be better off I think.

However, the sooner you people admit that a time traveling Elvis shot JFK from his pyramid shaped UFO while he was shagging an alien hybrid clone of Ann Margarett the better. I have a photograph and a certified letter to prove it.
 
trainedobserver said:
I appreciate all the viewpoints and differing perspectives here or try to at any rate. I think Lance supplies a valuable perspective even though the expression of it is a bit caustic at times. If we can manage to talk about ideas while avoiding personalizing things and making generalizations we'll all be better off I think.

However, the sooner you people admit that a time traveling Elvis shot JFK from his pyramid shaped UFO while he was shagging an alien hybrid clone of Ann Margarett the better. I have a photograph and a certified letter to prove it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit Observer! Not until I can time travel and "shag" a very young Ursula Andress. Maybe then.

Decker (who is still looking for a ride back to the future!)

Ursula.jpg
 
And since we have been talking about beautiful women of the past, here is a thought to go with it......


One night at Cheers, Cliff Clavin explained the" Buffalo Theory" to his buddy Norm:

"Well, ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members! ; In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine! That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers.


BEER: HELPING UGLY PEOPLE HAVE SEX SINCE 3000 B.C.!

W. C. Fields
 
Back
Top