Randall
J. Randall Murphy
Can anyone provide links to the specific recent posts for which Lance was banned? I've yet to see the evidence against him.
-
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!
The Lance Moody Skeptical Files: We'll Keep the Light on for You!
Free episodes:
Can anyone provide links to the specific recent posts for which Lance was banned? I've yet to see the evidence against him.
Jimi H - I think you are interpreting these posts wrong - no-one is having a go at lance for exposing B.S etc- quite the contrary. It's that he needlessly mocks people directly, attacking the person as opposed to their views. As Stanton Friedman says about debunkers, if you can't attack the evidence, attack the person...
Plenty people post here who are pretty hard line skeptics but Lance has crossed a line in that he can get quite nasty/personal about people themselves, not their beliefs and there is no need for that. If Lance or anyone else is convinced that they are correct and someone has faulty beliefs, then correcting or pointing out those faults should be enough, there is no need to get personal and slag people off. I have arguments against religious members all the time and I attack the religion, never the person. I never call people idiots etc or anything else, as it adds nothing to the debate and is just taking cheap shots.
Plenty people post here who are pretty hard line skeptics but Lance has crossed a line in that he can get quite nasty/personal about people themselves, not their beliefs and there is no need for that. If Lance or anyone else is convinced that they are correct and someone has faulty beliefs, then correcting or pointing out those faults should be enough, there is no need to get personal and slag people off. I have arguments against religious members all the time and I attack the religion, never the person. I never call people idiots etc or anything else, as it adds nothing to the debate and is just taking cheap shots.
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
WE WILL HAVE NONE OF YOUR STINKY POO FLINGING PRIMATE BEHAVIOR!Seriously, I've noticed that Lance may tend to get thin-skinned later in the evening after maybe he had a drink or three (?) I'm just guessing here, but I have noticed a bit of a pattern.
Ugh..I've drunk posted before.....burned a LOT of bridges that way, but other times it's appropriate. LOL. I've literally waited to respond to someone 'until' I was good and lit, once. Aside from the multiple mis-spellings it was a really scathing response to a stupid position.
But, I digress. I'll post more tonight, after a few shots!
!
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
So, this is where I call you a jerk, put a few eye-roll smilies out there, and criticize your penis size? Or sexual preference? And just like that you see my point of view.
Ta-da!
I think it just comes down to Stanton Friedman's second (or third) rule of skeptics.... "If you can't attack the data, attack the person. It's easier."
I want to be crystal clear that I am not accusing Lance of being a drunk or even using alcohol at all, cos obviously I don't know. I hope I didn't give that impression in my post - it's only that something Chris said that put the memory of drunken texting/posting of other people in my mind and I used this as an example. Lance - I apologise if my post does look like I am saying anything about drinking and you etc. And hey, I am Scottish and like a drink as much (prob more) the next man.
We could have a whole other thread about drunken dialling/texting. I've had a woman drunken text me asking why I dumped her and that she could take the real answer cos she was a big girl etc - well she was obviously very drunk as she was the one who dumped me!
We could have a whole other thread about drunken dialling/texting. I've had a woman drunken text me asking why I dumped her and that she could take the real answer cos she was a big girl etc - well she was obviously very drunk as she was the one who dumped me!
Polterwurst
Paranormal Adept
That's what you thought she had, goggs. Even without the influence of alcohol, female behaviour is... complicated. As in 'trying to understand an extradimensional alien's reasoning'.
Which reminds me of ultra skeptics and believers, for some reason. Like two different alien races.
Which reminds me of ultra skeptics and believers, for some reason. Like two different alien races.
Actually she was the cousin of a famous UK white female soul singer - Lisa Stansfield.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
You can find the offending posts in this thread if they haven't been deleted:
Mr. Paulides and J.C. Johnson | Page 3 | The Paracast Community Forums
IMO Lance was 100% right on the money in this case, I don't think he should be banned for pointing out that these are some sleazy individuals, out to bilk gullible rubes out of their money by having them pay $30 for a research paper, even if he may have used some creative language to make that point. When it comes to stuff like this,I think he has every right to ridicule the people responsible for their transparent, pseudo-scientific tactics. That's just my opinion though. I would agree that he does sometimes go over the edge but to make a thread like this when the guy is banned and can't answer for himself is the height of lameness, which is again just my opinion.
nameless
Paranormal Adept
no shit.Actually she was the cousin of a famous UK white female soul singer - Lisa Stansfield.
i once went out with a girl who was the daughter of a friend of a cousin that once sat next to Antonio "Huggy Bear" Fargas.
Jimi H.
Paranormal Adept
I believe you Goggs, from what I've seen you are genuine gentleman
And you've got a good point, of course. On that behalf I accept that there's a reason Lance has been banned several times. Otoh, I think that some people in this field and their apologists should feel the heat. As the song goes 'If you tolerate this, then ..'. Where to draw the line is difficult to determine of course - and I guess eventually this thread is about where to draw the line.
Speaking of music, I had a huge crush on Lisa Stansfield when I was gobbling MTV as a teen, let's hear it for Lisa and Northern Soul!
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
Normally I would stay away from this type of thread as it's non-productive and only brings out more base nature. It went from light pokes and insult directed at Lance, to suggestions of alcoholism and then some sexism thrown in to top it off (not a wonder there's so few women hanging around what passes for the lame locker room at times).
Now, there's been a lot of different language and insult thrown around the forum by all sorts and sometimes it's farly difficult to see where the line is on banning someone when it travels in both directions. I know the forum masters make the calls and maybe I didn't read the fine print but what exactly is the threshold on banning someone? Is it the swearing? the insult? What about racism, sexism, homophobia and slander and all their subtle incarnations? How about when someone leverages the Paracast as a guest to take money from unsuspecting folk and where's that line? During those moments you can see the value of a Moseley.
Obviously everyone takes different issues seriously to varying degrees. Posting about members is not cool and takes us back to the schoolyard - cheap laughs that does not allow for defense - I don't get it. Muadib has got the all the right points. It's robbery, just like selling Venusian dog hair. While I look for the Paracast to do some of the lifting, but not all, there is service rendered, when the Venusian dog hair is pointed out as such. Sometimes I think Debunkers need each other as much as Researchers.
I agree, it does not require insult of person to point out silliness, but I'm seeing a lot of blurring of lines all over the place here. I'm not sure how this builds community or what kind it is trying to build.
Now, there's been a lot of different language and insult thrown around the forum by all sorts and sometimes it's farly difficult to see where the line is on banning someone when it travels in both directions. I know the forum masters make the calls and maybe I didn't read the fine print but what exactly is the threshold on banning someone? Is it the swearing? the insult? What about racism, sexism, homophobia and slander and all their subtle incarnations? How about when someone leverages the Paracast as a guest to take money from unsuspecting folk and where's that line? During those moments you can see the value of a Moseley.
Obviously everyone takes different issues seriously to varying degrees. Posting about members is not cool and takes us back to the schoolyard - cheap laughs that does not allow for defense - I don't get it. Muadib has got the all the right points. It's robbery, just like selling Venusian dog hair. While I look for the Paracast to do some of the lifting, but not all, there is service rendered, when the Venusian dog hair is pointed out as such. Sometimes I think Debunkers need each other as much as Researchers.
I agree, it does not require insult of person to point out silliness, but I'm seeing a lot of blurring of lines all over the place here. I'm not sure how this builds community or what kind it is trying to build.
It is actually fairly simple concerning Lance. I myself had had a couple of dust-ups with Lance. And Lance ... if you are reading this you will recall ...
I had scheduled ( and by the way all this is in the DMR forum .. ) Dr. John Brandenburg for another appearance on DMR. If I recall, John and I were going to discuss his recent book on Mars where he had discovered a site that appeared, because of radiation and other things, to have suffered a nuclear hit at some time in the past. Also, we were going to discuss the finding of organic material in a meteor, the resulting article in a scientific magazine ... and the proven fact that the Obama WH had tried to suppress this information. Remember ... the interview had not yet happened. Lance came into the DMR forum ... slammed the interview, slammed Brandenburg and then slammed the magazine. I had my own nuclear explosion all over Lance. I told him that if he had a problem with anything to first hear the fu**ing interview FIRST, then point out what he had problems with OR I WOULD BOUNCE HIS ASS OUTTA THE FORUM and give him a cooling off time-out from the Paracast.
I myself have no problems with skeptics because I am one. However I do have a BIG-ASS problem with debunkers who debunk without any damned facts. As we all know there is a major difference between a skeptic and a debunker. However, having seen Lance and his posts all over the damned net' I have seen him in action before. Don't ever try to bullshit a bullshitter gang. I was born in the afternoon but NOT THIS AFTERNOON.
Decker
I had scheduled ( and by the way all this is in the DMR forum .. ) Dr. John Brandenburg for another appearance on DMR. If I recall, John and I were going to discuss his recent book on Mars where he had discovered a site that appeared, because of radiation and other things, to have suffered a nuclear hit at some time in the past. Also, we were going to discuss the finding of organic material in a meteor, the resulting article in a scientific magazine ... and the proven fact that the Obama WH had tried to suppress this information. Remember ... the interview had not yet happened. Lance came into the DMR forum ... slammed the interview, slammed Brandenburg and then slammed the magazine. I had my own nuclear explosion all over Lance. I told him that if he had a problem with anything to first hear the fu**ing interview FIRST, then point out what he had problems with OR I WOULD BOUNCE HIS ASS OUTTA THE FORUM and give him a cooling off time-out from the Paracast.
I myself have no problems with skeptics because I am one. However I do have a BIG-ASS problem with debunkers who debunk without any damned facts. As we all know there is a major difference between a skeptic and a debunker. However, having seen Lance and his posts all over the damned net' I have seen him in action before. Don't ever try to bullshit a bullshitter gang. I was born in the afternoon but NOT THIS AFTERNOON.
Decker
Oh yea, this reminds me. Were you around for the Phil Imbrogno business? It was Lance that uncovered the Imbrogno mess to begin with. Lance originally brought it to me ... and then to Gene and Chris, and of course I am referring to Imbrogno lying about his academic background. If you read my investigation into Imbrogno's lying about his military background .. this was after Lance uncovering his academic fraud. The reason I mention this ...
Having known Lance and his tendency to now and again "jump" with the ad hominem attack, I was suspicious at first. I detailed it in my paper I posted on the DMR site. As it turned out Lance was "dead on" with Imbrogno but his previous antics had "colored the water" for me, and that is why I was so hesitant to accept what Lance presented at "first blush".
Decker
Having known Lance and his tendency to now and again "jump" with the ad hominem attack, I was suspicious at first. I detailed it in my paper I posted on the DMR site. As it turned out Lance was "dead on" with Imbrogno but his previous antics had "colored the water" for me, and that is why I was so hesitant to accept what Lance presented at "first blush".
Decker
Jeff Crowell
Paranormal Annoyance
Yeah, when you earn a reputation of attacking people outright, then discover something actually 'wrong' about someone, no one believes you. I can see why you really questioned him, Don.
As far as drinking, and women, I think those topics were slanted at tongue-in-cheek, especially consider when Lance was on the program he sounded rather sober and such. Again, just classic example of someone taking something too seriously, here.
But that's just me.
As far as drinking, and women, I think those topics were slanted at tongue-in-cheek, especially consider when Lance was on the program he sounded rather sober and such. Again, just classic example of someone taking something too seriously, here.
But that's just me.
Muadib
Paranormal Adept
Excellent point, I've seen some of the moderators of this very forum use some rather descriptive terminology and salty language towards different people at different times, including personal attacks, and nothing happens. Its like Mike said, your house your rules, and I get that, but what applies to one should apply to all. If not, it just makes you look petty and it seems to me that you're going after someone because they don't agree with you. If Lance had made that exact same post but directed it towards someone like Phil Klass or another hated debunker, would he have been banned? I highly doubt it. It's especially hypocritical coming from someone who once claimed to value the contributions of said skeptic, it seems to me that he only values skepticism when it isn't pointed in his direction or the direction of someone he admires.
Burnt State
Paranormal Adept
I understand that those who build the house get to manage the house, but then it also has to be administered evenly if you're going to promote a space equitably so that all are welcome.
At the same time jokes are jokes and sure, it's just a little fun. But one person's jest is another's estimation of hatred. For me, it's all about what kind of a house you want to have and the tone broadcasts loudly and clearly who is invited. How serious that is, like all things, is simply a matter of opinion.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
P
pixelsmith
Guest
People talked about me when I got banned too... it is not a big deal. I continued to read the forums everyday each time I was banned. I saved up notes on topics I was going to comment on or to defend myself but I never did respond to any of it...then I got banned again, returned and learned how to walk that fine line. I am sure I have been close to getting my warning from Gene a few times recently... I am learning how to play nice most of the time. I would gladly sit face to face and chat with anyone here... even lance... well maybe not lance...I kinda want to get into a MMA cage with him. 
