JREF (the board) is not a cult

[hammegk]

hammegk.

You have a point but allow me to ask you to consider the reasons that lead to the creation of "Hal's Pals".

All cults have some purpose and rationale. Some of us require more than others before we mob up with strangers on bbses.

 

[Sundog]

All cults have some purpose and rationale. Some of us require more than others before we mob up with strangers on bbses.

Whoof.

Hammy, sometimes you hit the nail right on the head.

 

[Ignatius]

Clancie,

I do think one of us is obligated now to show some examples. I understand that it might not make a difference to Claus, but it probably would to other observers.

I've noticed it in threads lately, I don't have a photographic memory so I don't remember all of them or where they were. If you do not go through the trouble (and I hope you will) I will do so when I get time tommorow.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm glad you agree Valarie, because these are like some of Claus' questions.

T'ai Chi, "like" does not mean "equal to".

What you are forgetting - or, more likely, omitting - is context. Simply asking questions, like you have been doing for the past day or so, does not mean that you are proving anything else than you being childish. Getting "even".

I do think one of us is obligated now to show some examples. I understand that it might not make a difference to Claus, but it probably would to other observers.

Do you not understand English? I have made it perfectly, utterly and blindingly clear that I would like for you to show evidence - not just "some examples" - of your claims.

I've noticed it in threads lately, I don't have a photographic memory so I don't remember all of them or where they were. If you do not go through the trouble (and I hope you will) I will do so when I get time tommorow.

I find it extremely interesting that you can claim what you did, without having the slightest idea where to find evidence for it.

I am (still) waiting.

 

[voidx]

...walks in...sticks fork in thread...leaves...

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Ignatius

Clancie,

I do think one of us is obligated now to show some examples. I understand that it might not make a difference to Claus, but it probably would to other observers.

Sorry, I disagree on both counts. The posts are all publicly viewable, in the threads where we post. I think its either noticeable to others or it isn't. T'ai Chi must have noticed it, because he started a count of how many times Claus posts to or about me (its on the last few pages in the "Cold Reading Demo" thread)--since Claus has the unique perspective that my posts show an obsession with him.

No, I've been down this kind of road with Claus before (its one reason I don't respond to his "lists of questions", because they lack context) and, as I say, it will only take a lot of time to do what you're suggesting...waste a lot of energy...elicit a lot of criticism of you for getting into it at all (trust me on this one)....and after all that, not accomplish the goal because, as I say, people either see it or not.

The other problem, of course, is that I have him on "Ignore" and to do as you're suggesting, I'd have to, ironically, read his posts. Then, he'd just gloat about me not having him on "Ignore"...use the thread to support his idea that I'm "obsessed" with him .....

Trust me, Ignatius, dealing with him like this isn't worth the effort and won't accomplish the desired goal.

I'm convinced that the best thing for me to do is just stick with the other forums for a while and see what he does regarding my posts there, then point out his pattern if the one I expect to see still emerges. (If not...hallelujah! )

Don't let him goad you. He's very good at it. Pointing it out to him from now on, as it occurs in the context of discussion at other forums, would be a much more effective (and less tiring) way.

 

[Luciana]

The first thing that comes to mind is tendancy not to question authority (Hal), and even to defend the authority when they go back on their word (like when we were promised that mods would only be here to protect against kiddie port and virus).

I'm afraid I disagree with you here. Hal was questioned in each and every decision he made, and very few people "automatically" sided with him. I suspect those people didn't really care one way or the other and just wanted to move on. People did challenge him - then they were offered explanations, which most accepted. Some didn't. That's not wrong, of course. I still fail to see cult mentality here. If an action/explanation seems right to the majority, is it fair to label it "herd mentality"?

One of the Brazilian skeptic mailing list I participated in had very strong moderation. I didn't find it adequate for me, so I left a few months later (I questioned them, sure, but I lost, even then I tried to stay, but lost the gusto for it quickly). What amazed me is that the vast majority of people didn't care if their posts were edited even for spelling mistakes! I found that outrageous. But when moderation grew tighter, out of 104 members, very few complained, a couple left.

In that context, the decision made sense for the majority of people - no one wanted to have their email inbox cluttered by idle chitchat - and the shortcomings of it (the possibility of having it edited upon a single person's whim) was perceived as a necessary evil. What remains is that while it caused some trouble in the beginning, those skeptics accepted it. Well, they did. No, there wasn't any charismatic leader, on the contrary, our admin was a mixture of Diamond and BillHoyt, if you catch my drift.

Now you can certainly argue that these people simply agreed with Hal, but my understanding of skepticism and critical thinking all have the constant questioning of authority as a basic tenant. When you consider the glee with which so many skeptics chimed in during Pirate_Lad's "sick of the whiners" thread, it makes me think that what should be basic tenants of skepticism are being lost to a type of mob mentality.

I don't feel like reopening that can of worms, but if I recall correctly, other issues were being discussed, which had nothing to do with unwillingness to question authority: the involvement of personal matters and what some felt to be a disproportionate emphasis on the matter of pruning. It wasn't a matter of "you're evil because you're questioning Hal" but rather "why do you even care", "chill", "don't you have anything better to do than always question Hal about everything", "get a life".

Someone posted an article to an old experiment here recently that showed how most people will wrongly identify whether lines on a screen are the same length if everyone else around them wrongly identifies them. This is just part of human nature. An understanding that this group is just as prone to the failings of human nature like the herd mentality is a good thing. It is a starting point of seeing how best to deal with it. I rarely if ever see that happening around here.

I see your point. What I see here, sometimes, is the escalating of a certain feeling. So, if one bashes user A, someone else will bash some more, and all of a sudden it's ok to offend user A more and more. I don't like that. Ok, maybe user A is 100% moron, but I dislike that crescendo of ad hominens which spring forth once the first move is made. Even then, voices defending said users will be raised, although it might take long. At some point, the radicalism is gone and some sort of balance is achieved.

Another possibly more concrete example would be the way Claus stalks Clancie. Do a search for her last, say, 20 posts and see how many of them have had Claus jump in to harass her. It doesn't matter if it is a question of politics, religion, something in the community forum, etc. To me it is creepy that this happens, but it is even worse that hardly anyone ever calls him on it. Why is that? Can you imagine that in a group this large hardly anybody would say anything about that kind of behavior? Or is it that Clancie is a believer and Claus is a skeptic? That, to me, seems to be the most obvious answer.

I recall quite a few people calling them on it, urging them to just ignore each other. However, both deny being obsessed and throw all the blame on the other. Which of them is right... that's another subject. But they have been called to it. I haven't seen any results from that, but still...

Why, and what makes THIS group so immune to the same thing? You have a charismatic leader, you meet once a year, you develop strong emotional ties to others in the group and naturally want to protect those people and the ideas to the group. I'm not saying that it WILL happen, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility though. Especially without any formal commitment to the types of principles that may avoid it.

Commitment, what do you mean? I don't know if I understand you but, as free thinkers, some skeptics might find it hard to commit to anything of real importance.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Luciana Nery

I recall quite a few people calling them on it, urging them to just ignore each other. However, both deny being obsessed and throw all the blame on the other. Which of them is right... that's another subject.

There's my point, Ignatius. Please, don't bother documenting the past with the idea of convincing people. It just will waste your time. Much better to point out future events.

But they have been called to it. I haven't seen any results from that, but still...

The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

He, on the other hand, continues to post to or about me on a near-daily basis, often several times each day, and even at non-Paranormal forums. If the situation were reversed, and I was the one following him around, criticizing what he said even though he made it clear he had me on "Ignore", I think people would say that I stalked him. I actually have little doubt that they would.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi, "like" does not mean "equal to".

[/b[

I never said it did mean equal to, now did I? You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth, now would you?

Getting "even".

Glad to see your not faking a quote anymore now that I corrected you.

Do you not understand English?

Considering we've been talking in English this whole time, uh, yeah.

I have made it perfectly, utterly and blindingly clear that I would like for you to show evidence - not just "some examples" - of your claims.

You show evidence, not just some examples, of your own claims, sparky. Specifically that videotapes make the hit rate increase, and that psi effects decrease with study quality. Ready...set....go!!!

Any time you're ready. Try not to get distracted and talk about Clancie.

I am (still) waiting.

See above.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think its either noticeable to others or it isn't.

It's not about about something being "noticeable". It's about evidence.

T'ai Chi must have noticed it, because he started a count of how many times Claus posts to or about me (its on the last few pages in the "Cold Reading Demo" thread)--since Claus has the unique perspective that my posts show an obsession with him.

First, it's not just my "unique perspective". Second, T'ai Chi's analysis was wrong.

The other problem, of course, is that I have him on "Ignore" and to do as you're suggesting, I'd have to, ironically, read his posts. Then, he'd just gloat about me not having him on "Ignore"...use the thread to support his idea that I'm "obsessed" with him .....

But you do not have me on ignore, Clancie. That's the whole point.

Trust me, Ignatius, dealing with him like this isn't worth the effort and won't accomplish the desired goal.

No, I guess throwing out accusations without backing them up with evidence is far easier...

I'm convinced that the best thing for me to do is just stick with the other forums for a while and see what he does regarding my posts there, then point out his pattern if the one I expect to see still emerges. (If not...hallelujah! )

I have made my point clear about the fora: I do not distinguish between them, because I often find the same issues discussed over several fora. I also like to keep in touch.

There's my point, Ignatius. Please, don't bother documenting the past with the idea of convincing people. It just will waste your time. Much better to point out future events.

If you don't want to take the past into consideration, why do you pretend to have me on ignore?

The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

Now, that is a bald-faced lie. Please! You cannot seem to stop posting about me. At least I have the courtesy of talking to you, not about you.

He, on the other hand, continues to post to or about me on a near-daily basis, often several times each day, and even at non-Paranormal forums.

Now, how do you know that, if you have me on ignore? Hmm?

If the situation were reversed, and I was the one following him around, criticizing what he said even though he made it clear he had me on "Ignore", I think people would say that I stalked him. I actually have little doubt that they would.

Crap. The way you incessantly refer to me has not raised a hellstorm of complaints.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

Of course not. First of all, you don't have me on ignore, so I know that you read what I post. Second, you - remarkably often - refer to me (usually not very correctly), so why shouldn't I respond?

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

I see where you are going. So nice of you to play your little "associated guilt"-cards....

 

[Ceinwyn]

There's my point, Ignatius. Please, don't bother documenting the past with the idea of convincing people. It just will waste your time. Much better to point out future events.

The difference, Luciana, is that I rarely post to or about Claus unless someone shows me something he's written about me that just shouldn't be ignored.

Ok. I've been reading the forums (fora?) for quite some time and...this is such utter nonsense, that I just have to respond.

In this thread, Clancie is shown clearly asking Claus questions, nay, badgering him about his own website. Even though she has him on ignore.

He, on the other hand, continues to post to or about me on a near-daily basis, often several times each day, and even at non-Paranormal forums. If the situation were reversed, and I was the one following him around, criticizing what he said even though he made it clear he had me on "Ignore", I think people would say that I stalked him. I actually have little doubt that they would.

But it's not reversed, Clancie. You have him on ignore. And yet you have no problem responding to posts he makes, in any forum.

But let me ask you something....Claus has made it clear that he will not ignore me, quite the contrary.

No, and I hope he doesn't. After reading many, many posts you have made over the past years, Clancie, I can safely say you are a hypocrite, a liar, and a weasel. Yes, weasel.

Maybe you can't answer this, since you're a moderator, but I'm curious what -you'd- do, hypothetically speaking. If someone continued to argue with you and attack you/your posts several times a day, even though you made it clear you had them on "Ignore"....what would -you- do differently at that point?

I'm not a moderator, but my guess would be...keep them on ignore, and stop responding to their posts?

If someone would't stop criticizing you, wouldn't leave you alone ....no matter how much you ignored him...and he posted so frequently- and always so negatively- to and about you....what would you do? Would you just give up, and stop posting here altogether?

Oh Clancie...all the world's a soap opera to you, isn't it?

Clancie, you yourself are responsible for maintaining credibility in what you post. You don't do that. So don't get so pissed off when others call you on it.

Sorry if I was harsh in this post. But I just want to give you a wake-up call.

 

[CFLarsen]

I never said it did mean equal to, now did I? You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth, now would you?

Glad to see your not faking a quote anymore now that I corrected you.

Considering we've been talking in English this whole time, uh, yeah.

T'ai Chi? Hello? You are mixing my posts to you together with my posts to Ignatius.

Don't you think you should calm down and try not to be so eager to get "even" with me? You seem to think that each time I post, it is to you, even if I clearly post to others. You also "save" one of my posts "for posterity", even though there is no way I can edit or delete it. You even break into threads and make jabs at me, trying to derail threads.

You seem a tad obsessive right now. Perhaps a crusade, in your own mind, hm?

Take a break, OK?

You show evidence, not just some examples, of your own claims, sparky. Specifically that videotapes make the hit rate increase, and that psi effects decrease with study quality. Ready...set....go!!!

Where, specifically, have I made the claim that videotapes make the hit rate increase? Are you talking about JE and Crossing Over? If so, you are kidding, right?

Any time you're ready. Try not to get distracted and talk about Clancie.

I think you are more distracted than is good for you. And I will talk to, and about anybody I please. You do not control that, either.

 

[mstricky]

Buki and Claus

You are both confirming just what this thread is all about. Read the title again


Strange that the other bullies haven't looked in

 

[CFLarsen]

Strange that the other bullies haven't looked in

Perhaps because this board is not a cult after all....?

 

[Ceinwyn]

Buki and Claus

You are both confirming just what this thread is all about. Read the title again


Strange that the other bullies haven't looked in

Bullies, Max?

The thread title reads "JREF (the board) is not a cult". I agree, it's not.

The only bullies I see here are the ones who totally disregard logic, truth, and clarity. The ones who are happy to say one thing in a thread, then turn around and totally disregard, no sorry, LIE about what they just said, and think that they are being put-upon.

Did you not read what I posted Max? Do you not see the disparity?

Look, I'm sorry that you can't find people to agree with you that ghosts don't have feet or teeth. That's not my problem, it's yours. You seem to think you have an insight into something that not only hasn't been proven, it's not even close to evidential. I believe you had an interesting experience. I don't believe that it was ghosts, or god, or satan, or any other mythical being you care to espouse.

I enjoy reading JREF because it is full of insight and logic. Your foolishness does not help at all, sorry.

 

[mstricky]

buki
I do not have a problem with posters disagreeing with me or criticising. I do have a problem when they goad and take my text out of context. When I'm called an old fool or my head must have exploded or I'm deluded or no wonder I am a sad old codger. And when all the sceptic terms are hurled instead of posters using their own words. Posters are up in arms about racism but what about ageism? Two years ago this forum had decorum. Somewhere along the line it's become lost.

 

[Ceinwyn]

buki
I do not have a problem with posters disagreeing with me or criticising. I do have a problem when they goad and take my text out of context. When I'm called an old fool or my head must have exploded or I'm deluded or no wonder I am a sad old codger. And when all the sceptic terms are hurled instead of posters using their own words. Posters are up in arms about racism but what about ageism? Two years ago this forum had decorum. Somewhere along the line it's become lost.

Yes, time does march on, doesn't it? Doesn't obscure the fact that I did none of those things.

So did you read my earlier post? Any comments on that at all, such as how Clancie is a humongous liar?

Probably not.

 

[mstricky]

Buki
I can't really comment on your comments on Clancie, I have always found her to be neutral and quite reasoned when she replies to other posters. I gather she was a believer at one time but is a sceptic now. Either, either I find her to be pleasant.
Why do you wish to be personal about her such as weasel, liar etc. What is that sort of a post all about? This is why I think this forum has turned, sadly, into an 'us' and 'them' place. It becomes rather tiresome to defend ones corner but on a discussion forum, one shouldn't have to do that. When I have posted in the past about paranormal incidents, I was never met with rudeness, sarcasm nor ad hominen. It is only of recent months this has happened. It seems one bully starts it off and so down the slippery slide goes everyone. We should really all agree to disagree on some points. That would be much more gentlemanly. And I still say about the ghost you referred to with no feet and teeth, that it can never be explained, not by me, you nor anyone else. All I can say the incident unfolded as I told it and people who know me well, don't mock nor are they rude.

 

[oldmac22]

The diversity of opinions expressed on this forum would be an impossibility in a cult. If it were, all we would have to type is, "I agree." to every moderator's post.

The only "cult like" behavior I could see being a possibility would be an obsession with the forum.

 

[mstricky]

oldmac
that is exactly what is happening on here. except the 'I agree' is only being posted from one sceptic to another, mainly