• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hello from a non-skeptic

Ohshallah = "Inshallah?" aka "ojala" (en español)???

ETA - all of the above loosely translate as "God willing."
 
Originally Posted by The English-born, English-educated Duke of Cumberland
My brayff boyse, ve haff but von more march und all our verk vill be over. Achtung! Raus, raus!"
Click to expand...


I presume that we have Mr Boden to thank for this historical fact, apart from the comedic modification?

Harking back to my post 1049 and the confusion regarding Janet Gordon, the daughter of the 3rd Earl of Huntly whom Charles wants to move forward a generation to support his dreams of royal descent, I've just discovered a possible solution to the problem. According to The Scottish Peerage, Janet's marriage to Duncan Stewart of Appin was her second - she had previously been married to Colin Campbell, 3rd Earl of Argyll. This would make her the "Jean" Campbell mentioned in The Complete Peerage (Jean and Janet were often used interchangably).

That leaves us with:

Evidence for Janet Gordon being the daughter of the 3rd Earl of Huntly - Stewart family records, Burke's Peerage, The Complete Peerage, The Scottish Peerage, Burke's Landed Gentry

Evidence for Janet Gordon being the daughter of the 3rd Earl's son John: an unverified and unverifiable register entry from the IGI, Charles' craving to be descended from King James IV
 
Last edited:
Big Les, you should ask Charles to apologise for FORCING you to look at porn. It's a sad reflection on our sick society that not even Jacobite history is exempt from Rule 34.

hatinreincarnatin.jpg
 
OK guys, you've had your fun. At the risk of being piled on, can I ask that we drop this now, please, and let this thread die?

Charles Boden wrote and published this book under his real name, posted here under his real name, and quoted chunks of the book in this thread. That's certainly all true, but I'm not sure it completely justifies the direction this thread has taken over the last week or so.

He has complained about the way he has been treated here, but until recently anyone who looked at this thread would have been able to see for themselves that those complaints were not justified. Anyone who reads the last few pages, however, and sees how he has been taunted and mocked for writing a book about his sincerely held beliefs, would probably think he has a point.

I know no forum rules have been broken, and I agree he had it coming, but I just think we are - or should be - better than this.

Sorry guys. :(
 
In this case we were challenged by a guy who deliberately came to "rock our pedestals". It turned out that his own pedestal tumbled instead, and he claims to be in shock that we managed to dig out a book he has quoted from and published himself. Why on Earth did he do this if he wanted no one to find it?

In short, he has "had it coming" more than anybody I have seen here for a long time.
 
I agree with Pixel. This thread was fun while it lasted, and I won't deny it was interesting to see what Charles' book contained. But this is going too far. What's happening in this thread now has very little to do with the topic, and at this point can't really be called anything but a personal attack against Charles.

And it isn't an insignificant attack, either; while Charles has a penchant for drama, it does not mean he truly did not perceive this thread as cyber-bullying - and now, it actually is. I don't want to see the community drive the man as far as he can go; woo or not, nobody deserves that.

Not to mention this thread and it's spinoffs are climbing higher and higher on google; if this continues for much longer, we may start really damaging Charles' reputation. What if he applies for a job, and the employer finds this thread? Obviously, this is largely Charles' own fault for posting with his own name in the first place - but that doesn't give us the right to keep on attacking him. We aren't 4chan, and I'd like to keep it that way.

So in short - yes, Charles had it coming, big time. But that doesn't make what's going on in this thread now right. We aren't a bunch of vigilantes - we're skeptics. And now that we've gotten to the bottom of Charles' claims, it's time to lay off.

At least until he starts a new thread.
 
Pixel42 said:
OK guys, you've had your fun. At the risk of being piled on, can I ask that we drop this now, please, and let this thread die?

Charles Boden wrote and published this book under his real name, posted here under his real name, and quoted chunks of the book in this thread. That's certainly all true, but I'm not sure it completely justifies the direction this thread has taken over the last week or so.

He has complained about the way he has been treated here, but until recently anyone who looked at this thread would have been able to see for themselves that those complaints were not justified. Anyone who reads the last few pages, however, and sees how he has been taunted and mocked for writing a book about his sincerely held beliefs, would probably think he has a point.

I know no forum rules have been broken, and I agree he had it coming, but I just think we are - or should be - better than this.

Sorry guys. :(
Click to expand...

Mirrorglass said:
I agree with Pixel. This thread was fun while it lasted, and I won't deny it was interesting to see what Charles' book contained. But this is going too far. What's happening in this thread now has very little to do with the topic, and at this point can't really be called anything but a personal attack against Charles.

And it isn't an insignificant attack, either; while Charles has a penchant for drama, it does not mean he truly did not perceive this thread as cyber-bullying - and now, it actually is. I don't want to see the community drive the man as far as he can go; woo or not, nobody deserves that.

Not to mention this thread and it's spinoffs are climbing higher and higher on google; if this continues for much longer, we may start really damaging Charles' reputation. What if he applies for a job, and the employer finds this thread? Obviously, this is largely Charles' own fault for posting with his own name in the first place - but that doesn't give us the right to keep on attacking him. We aren't 4chan, and I'd like to keep it that way.

So in short - yes, Charles had it coming, big time. But that doesn't make what's going on in this thread now right. We aren't a bunch of vigilantes - we're skeptics. And now that we've gotten to the bottom of Charles' claims, it's time to lay off.

At least until he starts a new thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand. This person posted here under his own name. He also wrote and self-published a book under his own name, and had it for sale on the open market. A member of this forum bought the book, read it, and reviewed it.

To what exactly are you objecting?

Is every critic who writes for the New York Times book section a cyber-bully?
 
Elizabeth I said:
I'm not sure I understand. This person posted here under his own name. He also wrote and self-published a book under his own name, and had it for sale on the open market. A member of this forum bought the book, read it, and reviewed it.

To what exactly are you objecting?

Is every critic who writes for the New York Times book section a cyber-bully?
Click to expand...

It's not the review, really, that I'm opposed to; it's the tone this thread has taken. Originally, Charles' accusations of persecution and claims of "this being the most unpleasant experience of his life" were ridiculous, but if he were to make them now, I would be more sympathetic.

This thread isn't really very different from, say, one of DOC's, in that the conversation is mostly about mocking the starter. But there is a difference; Charles really did appear to be hurt, and left the forum. I think it's in very bad taste to keep the mocking up long after that - not to mention escalating it, as has happened here.

Again, I'm not opposed to Big Les's review or Alice's research; those are interesting, and relevant. But the edited images, the slogans, the large font spellings of "Boden Codex"? I know a meme turned into bullying when I see one, and I don't like it any more when I'm on the majority side.
 
Pixel42 said:
He has complained about the way he has been treated here, but until recently anyone who looked at this thread would have been able to see for themselves that those complaints were not justified. Anyone who reads the last few pages, however, and sees how he has been taunted and mocked for writing a book about his sincerely held beliefs, would probably think he has a point.
Click to expand...

Why is the bolded part the least bit relevant?
 
Well, I do think this tread has served its purpose. We (well, those intrepid members who did the actual research) have examined Charles' claims and found them baseless. The issue has been pretty well covered.

I don't think though that this thread would hurt Charles' chance for a job. The factual deconstruction of his beliefs might, but that portion isn't in dispute.

Regardless, I agree that it's time to put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner and move on.

It sure was fun while it lasted though.
 
Last edited:
Tanstaafl said:
Regardless, I agree that it's time to put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner and move on.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. It was absolutely fascinating to watch Charles' pedestal crash, but now there is nothing more to see, and we can move on.

And a big thanks to all who made it possible. You guys rock!
 
I know, it was a good place to end this thread, but I felt like I had just one more thought to add:

I personally trumpeted Charles' book in big bold letters because he came here wanting to teach us how we were really screwed up and wrong. He quoted sections of his book. Then, in an Americanesque move, wanted us not to know or talk about a book that he sells and that is available on amazon.

I believe that none of what any of us did on this thread was intended to bully Charles and I truly believe that no one here wants Charles to feel anything other than a mild dismay that some of the things he took for granted about reincarnation cannot possibly be true, and perhaps a small measure of regret for coming to this forum with the intention of straightening the mean skeptics out... It might be too much to wish for, but I'd love it if he took a moment to enjoy the irony of being allowed to stay here on the JREF and post whatever he wants while being kicked off the past life forum. I'd like it if Charles stayed and continued posting no matter if he still believes in reincarnation or not.

As far as his future jobs are concerned: he has published a book on reincarnation, suggesting that he is Bonnie Prince Charlie. That was true before he ever came here. No matter how many times we write the BODEN CODEX nothing will change that. (PLEASE note, my fingers are ITCHING to bold it and make it size 7, but I showed a little restraint... a little...) Nothing we said was untrue. At worst, we mocked. Again, past lives are funny. Alice didn't photoshop Charle's's' picture, she photoshopped old paintings of Charles' alleged ancestors- we very clearly mocked Charles's's reincarnation allegations and not Charles the person.

As to his person, I think all of us made it clear he was welcome here and that we enjoyed his posts. I think he is a talented writer (of gory, melodramatic fiction) but I think he is smart and talented and have said so before this. Just think what Charles could do if he threw off the shackles of all of this reincarnation business and used his talent and imagination to do something even cooler than grasp at geneology straws and play with a ouija board.

I'm happy to let the thread RIP after this, but one last thing: I want to say that I am very proud of all the work that Alice and Les did and I'm happy and tickled to have been a very small supporter of it. $6.00 never tasted so good. Thanks again to you both.

And Charles, if you are reading, please know that I look forward to seeing you around the forum and I really do hope for the best for you and your family in the future.
 
I lost any sympathy I may have had for Mr Boden when he made that ludicrous edit to a Wikipedia article and then cited it as independent evidence for his bogus genealogical claims, blithely unaware of the fact that he left his fingerprints on the article's history page in the form of two Rio de Janeiro-based IP addresses. A person who behaves like this is a liar, however "sincerely held" his beliefs may be.

Let's face it, since at least 2001 Charles has been using his real name on the internet in connection with his reincarnation fantasies - any potential employer could have found them via Google. He came to this forum fully expecting to be "torn to shreds" by the nasty sceptics, and quotes from his book suggest that he's actively looking forward to what passes for martyrdom in the World of Woo - having his claims revealed to be the nonsense they are. Ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

I'm quite happy to let this thread die a natural death, but I hope it serves as a warning to any potential Charlies out there who think they can just waltz in and rock our pedestals/share something beautiful without having the slightest idea of what they're letting themselves in for. Here's a few tips:

Lurk for a while before throwing yourself into the fray. If Charles had bothered to search for threads about quantum physics, the Jacqueline Poole murder case, reincarnation etc he wouldn't have made such a fool of himself.

Don't lie about being an "ex-sceptic" if you're completely ignorant of cold reading, probability, the Forer Effect and so on. It's about as convincing as the Xians who claim to be ex-atheists and then say they can't understand how anyone can't believe in God.

Do remember that the book you published at your own expense UNDER YOUR REAL NAME and sell through Amazon is no more exempt from criticism than any other volume. Don't, whatever you do, post chunks of copypasta with a strangely literary flavour and then come over all shocked when your magnum opus is revealed to a wider audience than you really wanted!

Anyway, I've found this thread vastly entertaining and educational. I look forward to unleashing the Debunkly Skerricks Pack on the next contender for Mr Boden's throne!
 
godless dave said:
Why is the bolded part the least bit relevant?
Click to expand...
I just think that a con artist who is deliberately taking advantage of the credulous and vulnerable deserves our contempt more than someone who is just honestly mistaken.

I hesitated a long time before posting my comment this morning, I'm glad that it has for the most part been taken in the spirit in which it was intended, even by those who don't agree with it.
 
Pixel42 said:
I just think that a con artist who is deliberately taking advantage of the credulous and vulnerable deserves our contempt more than someone who is just honestly mistaken.
Click to expand...
I mostly agreed with your original post, and I mostly agree with this one. My addendum is that I would include a third category (or sub-category of your second) comprising the willfully mistaken. I put them between the other two, deserving more contempt than the honestly mistaken but less than the con artists. I put Charles (and DOC and edge) in the willfully mistaken category.
 
Pixel42 said:
I just think that a con artist who is deliberately taking advantage of the credulous and vulnerable deserves our contempt more than someone who is just honestly mistaken.
Click to expand...

I generally don't, although it depends why they are honestly mistaken.

If they have access to the information that would correct their mistake but don't engage in the intellectual rigor to seek it out, and if they then publicize their mistaken belief and attempt to get others to subscribe to it, then I hold them in just as much contempt as I would a con artist.

ETA: this is what Garrette calls the willfully mistaken, and I don't put them in the middle, I put them right up there with the con artists.
 
Last edited:
Pixel42 said:
I just think that a con artist who is deliberately taking advantage of the credulous and vulnerable deserves our contempt more than someone who is just honestly mistaken.

I hesitated a long time before posting my comment this morning, I'm glad that it has for the most part been taken in the spirit in which it was intended, even by those who don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

I used to make a distinction between willfully ignorant/honestly mistaken/crazy and deliberate shills. However, consider this: If I go around saying that I'm the Queen of England, that is not the truth. The fact that I'm clinically insane and truly believe that I'm the Queen of England does not make it any less of a lie. Whether I'm trying to convince people that I'm the Queen because I'm trying to scam people or because I'm crazy, it doesn't make my claim any more truthful. It's still a lie, no matter what my reason is for saying it.

The fact that Charles Boden genuinely believes that he's both descended from royalty and reincarnated from royalty doesn't make it true. It bears noting that in writing his epic tome, he's attempted to capitalize on his false claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom