Late-breaking news

[JoeTheJuggler]

Okay, here is my last post in this thread. And I am seriously considering making it my last post on the forum for some time, as I have apparently lost the ability to be clear in making a point):

That my site broke the Browne/Hornbeck story is something of which I am proud. To receive an email from someone who was interested in the subject, but was unaware of my part in making the story known, gave me a new perspective, and brought me down a peg or two. I think that Woodward & Bernstein would react similarly if they received an email asking them if they had ever heard of Watergate. And no, Brattus, I am not equating my accomplishments with those of W&B.

It's odd that for all of us, any mention of the Shawn Hornbeck story brings immediately to mind Sylvia's reading. I suspect for many people, it isn't so. It would be great if the two were always associated, so that absolutely everyone who hears about Sylvia Browne also is fully aware of this incident. Credit your site for moving things closer to that goal.

Due to UncaYimmy's (and Brattus') posts in this thread, I will definitely think twice, thrice, or more times before even discussing SSB emails in this forum. I don't want to even give the appearance of mocking my correspondents. Now I need to give some serious thought to how I should limit my posting here, period. My sincere thanks to all for their comments, pro or con.

I don't know if you realize, but you are a hero around here. It's not fair, but we hold you to very high standards!

Personally, I've always resisted any kind of hero worship, but you crossed the line from someone doing a very good job to being a hero when I read your handling of a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth believers on a pro-Sylvia forum.

I encourage you not to stop participating in the JREF forums.

 

[RSLancastr]

These threads about RSL's emails actually seem a bit odd. Should they be in "Forum Community" rather than "General Skepticism"? I know lots of people here are friends of RSL, but new visitors aren't.

If anyone in the Southern Cali area was woken up this morning by a strange sound, it was probably my screaming when I read Chimera's post.

 

[ExMinister]

If anyone in the Southern Cali area was woken up this morning by a strange sound, it was probably my screaming when I read Chimera's post.

Stop Sylvia.com and related matters belong on the General Skepticism forum?! Next thing, you'll be telling me Big Foot threads belong here instead of in Forum Community too!

 

[kittynh]

If anyone in the Southern Cali area was woken up this morning by a strange sound, it was probably my screaming when I read Chimera's post.

hahahahahaha!

Yeah, I'll make sure my alien abductee work goes into community.

Wow "new people" here aren't fans of Robert? Why? Are they Sylvia fans, wait wait... JREF has gone "woo"! And I missed it!

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I think the point Chimera was making was that, like me when I first came here, new visitors might not even have heard of Syylvia Browne or Robert, and so to find threads that aren't even consisting of solid skeptical information but personal chit-chat might seem a little strange. This thread could have gone either way when it started, but given the personal nature of the OP, it was more likely to continue on a personal level.

 

[Minarvia]

Robert, please don't stop posting and sharing.

 

[RSL's better half]

I think the point Chimera was making was that, like me when I first came here, new visitors might not even have heard of Syylvia Browne or Robert, and so to find threads that aren't even consisting of solid skeptical information but personal chit-chat might seem a little strange. This thread could have gone either way when it started, but given the personal nature of the OP, it was more likely to continue on a personal level.

Ok. One could surmise from this post from Baby that they think a forum should be only a place to find "solid skeptical information," whatever that is, and should do all investigation for them, (one google search of Sylvia Browne and Robert Lancaster would have answered any question a newbie might have and give them a better understanding of the relationships going on here). There should be no personal interaction. However, if you choose to post something personal, you should accept whatever personal attacks are flung at you.

Hmm. Not the forum I'm used to, but ok. If it ever becomes the cold, uncaring, unfeeling place Baby suggests, I will definitely go elsewhere. The relationships on this forum, the humanity shown, the sense of "community," at least in the recent past, these are the reasons I joined this forum. But, should the newer members choose to change the nature of this forum, that's fine. I wish them luck.

The issue at hand, as I see it, is that RSL has conceded, yet the argument still ensues. To what purpose? To hear your own voice repeat the same tired argument? RSL has considered your arguments and has conceded. Can't this be put to rest?????

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok. One could surmise from this post from Baby that they think a forum should be only a place to find "solid skeptical information," whatever that is, and should do all investigation for them, (one google search of Sylvia Browne and Robert Lancaster would have answered any question a newbie might have and give them a better understanding of the relationships going on here). There should be no personal interaction.

Well said.

The forum has any number of functions, and this sort of thing is entirely appropriate.

I don't even see how it's "personal chit chat". And it's normal for a newcomer not be be "inside" on all the stories. Yet another great function of Robert's site about Sylvia Browne--it's a great place to get a well-organized summary of the skeptical case against her claims given in an extremely diplomatic and even-handed manner.

 

[RSLancastr]

I think the point Chimera was making was that, like me when I first came here, new visitors might not even have heard of Syylvia Browne or Robert, and so to find threads that aren't even consisting of solid skeptical information but personal chit-chat might seem a little strange. This thread could have gone either way when it started, but given the personal nature of the OP, it was more likely to continue on a personal level.

This forum is "General Skepticism and The Paranormal". I think that posts about my endeavors as a skeptic, fall under "general skepticism", and that posts about Sylvia Browne, a self-proclaimed "psychic", fall under the category of "The Paranormal." So, a thread about my skeptical endeavors refarding Browne fall squarely into this forum. But that's my opinion. but the mods have moved several of my threads from here to Community over the past few months, and theirs is the opinion that counts. But I know that many people watch for my threads here, as it is where I have posted my StopSylvia and StopKaz stuff for several years now. It is only in recent months that I recall any of my threads being moved elsewhere. I don't know if this indicates a change in policy, or just a change in the number of peple reporting my threads as "misplaced." Either way, it is yet another reason for me to reconsider what I should and should nt be contributing here.

 

[Minarvia]

Robert, I have a problem, too. Sylvia Browne is one of the few things I know a bit about. If it wasn't for your threads I wouldn't have much chance to interact here at all. Plus I really am informed and entertained at the same time by these threads.

And really, if I were you, I worry this overmuch. At the end of the day it is just a forum. A great one and one I love to come to, but when once in a while it is a little unpleasant, just let it run off your back and move on.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

These threads about RSL's emails actually seem a bit odd. Should they be in "Forum Community" rather than "General Skepticism"? I know lots of people here
are friends of RSL, but new visitors aren't.

Stop Sylvia.com and related matters belong on the General Skepticism forum?! Next thing, you'll be telling me Big Foot threads belong here instead of in
Forum Community too!

hahahahahaha!

Yeah, I'll make sure my alien abductee work goes into community.

Wow "new people" here aren't fans of Robert? Why? Are they Sylvia fans, wait wait... JREF has gone "woo"! And I missed it!

I think the point Chimera was making was that, like me when I first came here, new visitors might not even have heard of Syylvia Browne or Robert, and so
to find threads that aren't even consisting of solid skeptical information but personal chit-chat might seem a little strange. This thread could have gone
either way when it started, but given the personal nature of the OP, it was more likely to continue on a personal level.

Ok. One could surmise from this post from Baby that they think a forum should be only a place to find "solid skeptical information," whatever that is, and
should do all investigation for them, (one google search of Sylvia Browne and Robert Lancaster would have answered any question a newbie might have and
give them a better understanding of the relationships going on here). There should be no personal interaction. However, if you choose to post something
personal, you should accept whatever personal attacks are flung at you.

Hmm. Not the forum I'm used to, but ok. If it ever becomes the cold, uncaring, unfeeling place Baby suggests, I will definitely go elsewhere. The relationships
on this forum, the humanity shown, the sense of "community," at least in the recent past, these are the reasons I joined this forum. But, should the newer
members choose to change the nature of this forum, that's fine. I wish them luck.

The issue at hand, as I see it, is that RSL has conceded, yet the argument still ensues. To what purpose? To hear your own voice repeat the same tired
argument? RSL has considered your arguments and has conceded. Can't this be put to rest?????

Why is it that the loudest voices perpetuating the argument are those trying to defend RSL, all the while irrationally decrying or mocking those who made suggestions they don't happen to like? RSL isn't the one perpetuating the irrationality. It's being perpetuated misguidedly on his behalf. If you look at my post and your response, RSL's better half, can you honestly say your response to what I said is rational? Can you honestly say it's rational for Chimera to have been mocked in what could have turned into a pile-on just for suggesting this thread belonged in Forum Community? Is it rational for someone trying to defend such a person against what seems to be such an occurrence beginning to happen to be responded to in the way you responded to what I said? Do you not think your anger is clouding your judgment?

After all, I didn't even specify a personal opinion either way as to whether the threads should be here or in Forum Community, and if I had, so what? So what if I think a thread about a personal email should be there? Why is it a big deal? Why does it merit an angry belittling response that makes all kinds of unwarranted inferences?

At least RSL's response was more sensible. I don't think anyone has suggested he stop posting though. Suggesting he post in Forum Community about personal stuff, where after all, people are more likely to want to relax and have fun, isn't suggesting he stops posting altogether.

So what's this angry response all about?

 

[RSLancastr]

All:

When I first came to this forum, I made almost ALL of my posts in Community - or Banter, as it was called back then. When I started posting about Kaz, I posted about her in Banter. Eventually, the mods told me that the Kaz threads were better suited to the General Skepticism & Paranormal area, so I started creating my Kaz posts there.

So, when I strted the StopSylvia site, I posted about that in GS&P too. When I got out of the hospital from my stroke, I came back here to GS&P, my "neighborhood" here at JREF. I thought that my "Skeptical Stroke" threads were suitable for "General Skepticism", but many were moved to Community, R&P and elsewhere. Fine. I could see that, as some were more Banterish than anything. I have tried, with varying degrees of success, to create my stroke-related threads in Community since then. But SSB-related ones I continue to ceate HERE. So I created this thread, about SSB, HERE, only to find Chimera saying that it belonged elsewhere. Argh. I think that it belongs here, and I will continue to create any SSB-related threads here until the mods tell me to do otherwise.

 

[kerikiwi]

These threads about RSL's emails actually seem a bit odd. Should they be in "Forum Community" rather than "General Skepticism"? I know lots of people here are friends of RSL, but new visitors aren't.

RSL, meet new visitors. New visitors, this is RSL.
There, all friends now.

 

[RSLancastr]

Pleased ta meetcha, Chimera!

 

[RSL's better half]

i don't agree with chimera's or baby nemisis' opinions, but i can be gracious. welcome to the forum that i know and love.

 

[Chimera]

I think the point Chimera was making was that, like me when I first came here, new visitors might not even have heard of Syylvia Browne or Robert, and so to find threads that aren't even consisting of solid skeptical information but personal chit-chat might seem a little strange.

Yes. As are many of these threads about emails from quacks, threatening emails, etc.

Can you honestly say it's rational for Chimera to have been mocked in what could have turned into a pile-on just for suggesting this thread belonged in Forum Community?

I sort of expected the mockery. I've seen the rabid fan response here before when RSL/RSLBH have been put on the spot in any way. But I figured if I was thinking it, maybe others were thinking it too. I honestly don't care where anyone posts anything; it's not like I go around reporting posts.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Yes. As are many of these threads about emails from quacks, threatening emails, etc.

Here's the thing: The forum you choose for the post indicates in part the context for discussing it. If you want to swap anecdotes with your buddies, you can do it in Community. It's a Members Only forum where the rules are more lax (language, staying on topic). In this case you might expect people to share other stories of seemingly silly things people ask.

GS&P is an open forum, meaning everybody can see the thread. The rules are stricter here, so people will try to stick to addressing the topic of General Skepticism and the Paranormal, just like like it says in the forum description. Swapping stories about silly questions would be off-topic - what does that have to do with GS&P? Discussing the ramifications for a skeptical website and the prominent skeptic who runs it is decidedly on-topic.

Along those same lines, discussing improvements in website design to reduce those types of suggestions might be more appropriate for the Computer forum. Discussing the legal ramifications of sharing the contents of e-mails given the "promise" on the website might be more appropriate in Economics, Business and Finance. What's important is that the choice of the forum plays a big part in how the discussion goes.

I sort of expected the mockery. I've seen the rabid fan response here before when RSL/RSLBH have been put on the spot in any way. But I figured if I was thinking it, maybe others were thinking it too. I honestly don't care where anyone posts anything; it's not like I go around reporting posts.

The rabid response is off-topic as well. There's no need to personalize the discussion either in a positive light (he's a hero and an average Joe) or in the negative (we're cold and uncaring for criticizing). Disagreeing over the interpretation of what he wrote and its possible effects on the skeptical goals of the site is a valuable discussion, and if we want to discuss it for another 50 pages, nobody should be telling us we shouldn't.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

i don't agree with chimera's or baby nemisis' opinions, but i can be gracious. welcome to the forum that i know and love.

I'm a little curious as to what you imagine my opinion is, given that I didn't express an opinion as to whether this thread belonged in Community or here but said,

"This thread could have gone either way when it started"

In other words, I was saying it can't have been clear when RSL started it where it should have gone, so to have put it here wasn't a definite misjudgment, so the fact that it turned personal wasn't his fault, although the fact that it was a personal OP did actually make it more likely to turn personal and thus more appropriate for Community.

I fail to see why that observation merited your initial venomous response.

 

[RSLancastr]

All: I responded to BN's post via PM, but have decided to share it here:

BN: I didn't find Susan's post particularly "venomous", but if it was, perhaps it was because she knew that the topic of moving yet another of my threads out of GS&P would upset me. Since the stroke, when she had to watch me nearly die - twice -She is understandably distressed by anything she feels will raise my blood pressure. Neither you nor Chimera did anything wrong. It was just a bit frustrating for me. I am sorry if Susan overreacted to that. Besides, if posts are going to raise my BP. it is MY responsibility to find a less volatile thread to read.

Best,

RSL

 

[Baby Nemesis]

OK. In that case, I hope you don't mind me sharing my response, which was:

Don't worry about it. Thanks for the explanation you gave in the thread about why you were bothered by the suggestion the thread should have been in another forum.

I thought you did a much better job of defending yourself than she did of defending you -a rush to defend someone by saying things that can be taken as inflammatory because it interprets things in a worse way than were intended will just provoke more argument - just what they dont want, whereas you gave a calm explanation, which came across as rather more classy. If she was just worried about you though, that makes her reaction more understandable. Thanks for clarifying.