• 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!

POLL: Do Not Talk About Proven Charlatans?

Forums New posts

Should The Paracast BAN talk about proven cases of liars, frauds, and charlatans?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • No

    Votes: 26 89.7%
  • Total voters
    29

Free episodes:

cottonzway

cottonzway

I was saying boo-urns
I wanted to make a POLL about things that have been PROVEN to by pure lies by the real UFO community to BAN talking about these topics on the Paracast forums. I think continuing to give Any of these topics that are KNOW to be what is in your toilet does nothing but hurt the cause for understanding on a topic many of us want a legit understanding. To continue to even give proven charlatans the time of day does nothing at this point. They are liars, frauds, or people of disinformation. It's time to call a spade a spade. It's time to NOT talk about these people and give them what they want, attention. Calling a liar what they are over and over again. People who have half a brain cell know they are lying to push some agenda and it's time to STOP giving them attention among the honest UFO community. It's time to take out the trash in my opinion and leave it in the dumpster.

So, do you agree or disagree to COMPLETELY put these people out of the forums here? I want all of them gone for discussion if they have been proven to be liars, frauds, charlatans, agents, or kooks. I want to KNOW what is going on, not believe, and these people do nothing but distract the people who want to have a legit understanding of the UFO topic.

Anyways, this was my own thing and not of the site. I think it would be a good idea to get this topic out there to stop much of what we have already known as poison to the topic of UFOs. Vote on folks.

Agree or disagree?
 
No. Free speech is meaningless the millisecond censorship is imposed. People should be able to talk about whatever they like here. Those who aren't interested or bothered by it are equally free to ignore it and not respond.
 
CapnG said:
No. Free speech is meaningless the millisecond censorship is imposed. People should be able to talk about whatever they like here. Those who aren't interested or bothered by it are equally free to ignore it and not respond.
Click to expand...

So you are saying people here shoudl talk about or cover issues that are PROVEN to be bald faced lies in the UFO community? I'm not talking about issues that are of debate but issues that are DOA in terms of having a silver of credability to them. Why in the world do you feel issues that are 100% not true help a better understanding of the topic? Again, I'm not talking about topics of debate but of non-debate, with an answer as clear as 1 + 1 = 2. Why would you feel those topics are helpful or worth debate to finding a true understanding on the UFO subject?
 
cottonzway said:
Why would you feel those topics are helpful or worth debate to finding a true understanding on the UFO subject?
Click to expand...

I don't but I wouldn't go so far as to ban discussion on any topic at any time, ever. If you personally don't want to contribute to a conversation regarding a topic you consider dead, then don't bother, no one has a gun to your head.

I think you'll find that the current crop of forum members all have a mutual, unspoken agreement that the BM case for example is crap and beneath further examination and that's fine. But what about people new to the boards who may have questions? Shall we greet them with silence? And if it turns out the newbie is a cultist in training and simply won't take "fraud" for an answer, then IGNORE him, skip his posts, do not respond.
 
I'm usually for banning censorship or pseudo forum moderators. But It's nothing I'm a die hard about so you can relax. I trust David and Gene's moderating abilities.

David and Gene do a fine enough job moderating, so far with no help. If anyone would need silenced it would be people who try and silence other members who do not break rules. Members who think they know what can and cannot be discussed and think the forum should revolve around them. Members who act as if they are forum moderators when they are not. Members who actually bump threads they don't like and become hypocrites by telling people to not talk about what they themselves just talked about.

There are those who try and knock down radio towers to shows they do not like, and then there are those who find it more reasonable to simply change the channel and/or perhaps build new ones more to their liking.

Have something better to discuss? Go make a thread and indulge yourself in it I recommend. How would you like it if I started following you around posting in threads you take part in telling you to stop? Then make a poll in order to try and ban you?

Ones proven charlatan is another's saint btw. Who are you to say? Only for yourself, not others. Although you can try. You will probably fail. So far it looks like it. 5 no votes and only 1 yes vote so far.
 
In one sense, it is tempting to say "yes, no more talk wasted key strokes for Billy, the cults . . .etc".

But don't you think that the even the frauds are fundemental to coming to a greater understanding of the UFO phenomenon in general?

There is so much absurdity to sightings and the whole can of worms that embodies the abductions, that it would be a real shame to discover someday that the absurdity (indeed the real unbelievability of some reports) is a fundemental aspect of whatever the "plan" is.

This is not to lend any support to Billy or Adamski or the myriad others, but to emphisize that sometimes those that appear to be frauds might not.
How were Barney and Betty Hill treated when they started speaking about what happened to them?
 
I forgot to mention that there is a filter in place that censors out the name David and Gene don't want mentioned. So some of this topic is moot.

There's a saying from Einstein, "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing." Not speaking about frauds is to not expose them and this leads to other people who aren't in the know to stay there (in not knowing).

The best researchers in this field are the ones who tell you about frauds and legit encounters without bias or emotional knee jerk responses and attachments.

If anyone is so up in a roar over the mention of someone's name or a fraud, I suggest working on your temperment a bit. Perhaps therapy.
 
I don't think you should ban them necessarily, but I don't think any special creedance should be extended in their direction. Ergo don't do any shows about them, don't have them as guests, and certainly don't rehash all their lies and fraudulent claims.

Give ear only to the genuine folks, and when their line of credit runs out, learn from it and move on.
 
Being relatively new here, I've had my suspicions about a huckster or two cemented by information provided by members here in the forums. Its hard to believe anything that you Google on the misinformation superhighway anymore and most books on the subject at hand are slanted towards a particular agenda. The forums are the first real oasis of serious discussion that I have found. They are, in effect, an educational resource and the proposed censorship will only narrow and devalue that resource. If the Paracast and/or the forums can continue to expose the string holding the pie pan, then we are one step closer to neutralizing the damage done to ufology by these low lives, and they have maybe sold one less book.
 
Well, I guess I have to agree to disagree. I don't think proven fakes help anything, I disagree with the saying; "There is no such thing as bad publicity" and I think it hurts getting a legit understanding to talk about them. I a got lopsided sided beating in the votes, but I at least got my point out. :)
 
Behold,

Der Fuhrer handily destroys the works of 'charlatans' in one beautiful bonfire.

28-1124a.gif


That'll teach those charlatans!

Unfortunately, much like 'terrorist', 'charlatan' is defined by those with the power to control the media, and therefore control the message. You don't want David and Gene to save us all from exposure to the 'charlatans' do you? Wouldn't you rather have the freedom of choice to determine who the 'charlatan' is through your own research and reasoning? Do you really need others to make that decision for you?

That's all I'm saying. No implied commentary on genocide intended.

-DBTrek
 
DBTrek:

Are you the child of a Holocaust survivor?

I am. My mother was a Berliner, and much of her family was killed by the Nazis.

Personally, I don't appreciate having seen swastikas on my Mother's birthday, which was yesterday. Freedom of speech is indeed near and dear to me, but as you mentioned, this forum is paid for and maintained by Gene & I, and Nazi propaganda is not something I personally want to look at. Please explain why I have to look at these swastikas, and then remove them, or I will. Feel free to start your own forum if you wish, and post whatever you want there, but swastikas are not welcome here.

dB
 
CapnG said:
Hehe... what's that law about discussion and nazis? Goodwin's law or something? I can never remember.
Click to expand...

Not familiar with it. I'm not surprised there is one though, since if I hold back on saying something (as mentioned in my last reply), it must be pretty bad.

As for freedom of speech. Many people don't realize freedom of speech cost us. We pay taxes and some of us have paid in blood.
 
I think you may have missed the point David and (in an odd way) are reinforcing it. DBTrek is drawing a (rather exaggerated) parallel between cottonzway's original post and Nazi censorship methodology. In other words he's pointing out that it's bad because nazis are bad (not like that really needs pointing out).

Now you come in and demand it be removed because it's propaganda? How is using a swastika to remind people of the evil of the nazis propaganda? And how is it not censorship for you to demand it be removed? Is it bad when they do it but okay when you do it? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know your thoughts.

Ultimately this board belongs to you and Gene, so your final say goes. Obviously none of us can appreciate the hell your mother went through or how it affected you and your family. I'm just saying that for me, personally, all forms of censorship are intollerable. The tv has an off switch. The internet has a back button. And if all else fails, most of us have eyelids we can close and fingers we can insert into our ears. The freedom to say whatever you please comes at the cost of being offended by the speech of others. To my mind, anything less is hypocrisy.
 
CapnG said:
I think you may have missed the point David and (in an odd way) are reinforcing it. DBTrek is drawing a (rather exaggerated) parallel between cottonzway's original post and Nazi censorship methodology. In other words he's pointing out that it's bad because nazis are bad (not like that really needs pointing out).

Now you come in and demand it be removed because it's propaganda? How is using a swastika to remind people of the evil of the nazis propaganda? And how is it not censorship for you to demand it be removed? Is it bad when they do it but okay when you do it? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know your thoughts.

Ultimately this board belongs to you and Gene, so your final say goes. Obviously none of us can appreciate the hell your mother went through or how it affected you and your family. I'm just saying that for me, personally, all forms of censorship are intollerable. The tv has an off switch. The internet has a back button. And if all else fails, most of us have eyelids we can close and fingers we can insert into our ears. The freedom to say whatever you please comes at the cost of being offended by the speech of others. To my mind, anything less is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

In respect to my friend David Biedny and his concerns -- and mine -- I have removed those images. I think any legitimate message the poster might be willing to express about censorship can be done without them.

And I think all of you need to understand that this forum is run as an adjunct to a radio show that is carried on the public airwaves in addition to the Internet, so we also have to abide by FCC regulations in terms of content. We have given you all a lot of freedom to express yourselves in a variety of ways, but there will have to be occasional limits in terms of good taste and language.
 
Back
Top