Skepticism and The Normal

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, i did say it is a subjective statement, but your question was not to back my claim, your question was "what was the subjective event?" as in what was the experience of the observer who made the statement, and I'm sure you can agree, no one can ever know the exact experience of another, that's rather impossible!

If your asking for an answer in princaple, the subjective event was intuition, or more precisely intuition misplaced as critical thinking, or as I like to call it, thinking with the feelings.

Your constant evading has grown tiresome. Go away troll.

 

[fsol]

After ten pages of this, I think I have it all figured out.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Am I getting close?

 

[pv+]

Here is what I am saying.

1.) All ideas can either be true, false, or mystery, and can be represented by the number set 0, 1, 2 as perfect symbols which carry those distinctions and relationships in the ordering and counting sense mathematically.

2.) All ideas replicate, duplicate, spread, multipily, divide, and add in a manner similar to DNA via human being as messenger.

3.) All ideas conflict or have the potential of conflict


4.) All ideas influence human behavior, and all human behavior influence the perceptible value of idea

5.) Human Beings are not ideas.


6.) All problems of human dilemma relating to conflicting ideologies can be said to be resolved when all sides win in the conflict of idea. In common language, all problems are solved effectivly and for certain when all sides win.

Here is what I am saying.

1. Pretentious twaddle.
2, 3, 4, and 6, all pretentious twaddle and the product of a mind dislocated from the real world and with slightly too much time on its hands. Oh, yes. And slightly too much cocaine (possibly).

What you've presented, with the exception of point 5 (and which Ben Goldacre's dead cat PhD, could figure out) is a load of words pretentiously arranged, the only evidence in support of which as regards veracity and integrity is - Bubblefish says so! What kind of pathetic presentation is that?
You present this nonsense for the umpteenth time as if it is incontrovertible fact - nothing to support it - and you drivel on about truth, reason and critical thinking, and you expect everyone to take your word for it.
I say, critically and in all seriousness, it all as idiotically gibberish as the first time you presented it. The evidence for its stupidity is self evident. You have provided the evidence yourself by stating it.
Point 1 is illiterate.
Point 2 is ambiguous and self evidently false.
Points 3 and 4 are self evidently false
Point 5 is a fatuous statement of fact (Noam Chomsky would be proud of its banality).
Point 6 is self evidently false.

Why? It's self evident to anyone who understands critical thinking, truth and reason. On the other hand it is as clear as mud to someone who has scant regard for truth and reason, and a tenuous relationship with critical thinking and reality in general, and who trolls their own threads - one such as yourself.
What you've presented isn't even worthy of a precocious ten-year old's angst filled ruminations. A domesticated chimp could do better than you, and recognise the vacuousness of your assertions.

 

[pv+]

Your constant evading has grown tiresome. Go away troll.

Surely you mean, "go away illiterate troll"!

 

[Z]

OK, my apologies - this will be my third time trying to reply to this post. I've had some problems with the new Internet Explorer nonsense.

Zaay! Indeed I did miss this, so sorry.

No problem. Posts easily go unnoticed in these fora.

yes....or a 2, right?

Possibly. Of course, for many skeptics, unknown = false, until proven otherwise. So while they treat it on one hand as false, on the other, they're treating it as unknown, period.

okay, here is where I disagree. First off, your skeptics argument, his steps taken to arrive at the 3, which I call the 0, are useless, and it is natural that such steps would led one to say the third value is useless.

These are hardly useless steps, but I doubt you understand that.

So, the dialectician approaches it like this:

1.) What is the biblical God? What is is that the biblical God could possibly be as opposed to what believers interpret it to be? Which believer has a more accurate interpretation? How can we determine which is more accurate? How can we determine if they can be accurate? How can we determine that if the biblical God signifies a higher intelligence in universe than humanity at the time of the books creation, the interpretation is relative to the time period?

A verbose expansion of the process taken by the skeptic in dealing with the Christian believer's statement. This is all part of the process, you know.

2.) How can we be certain that higher intelligence can or cannot exist? What would define higher intelligence? What role would higher intelligence play in the universe? What role does humanity play in the universe? How can we determine those answers to be either true or false, or meaningful?

Irrelevant to the statement offered. This is largely hand-waving and misdirection, having little to do with the issue of a Biblical God.

That's a completly different approach,

And a very poor one.

and none of those answers would be meaningless, absolutly none of them.

Only once those answers reach the stage of being assigned a true or false value.

I dont neccesarily agree that's a true idea, but i follow. Your argument is structured so far on this idea about qi is true, and that's highly questionable.

this is a claim your making, your making an epistimological claim, and a philosphical claim. Your argument here is becoming entirely dependent upon this being 100 certain for your argument to exist.

No, this is the accumulation of about 20 years of research into Chinese mythology, anthropology, archaeology, and history, as well as research into what is contemporarily referred to as 'qi practices'.

Chinese myths are one of my hobbies. Probably has a lot to do with Quan Yin being my patron deity.

I simply just can't accept that as a true statement. I can accept it as a 0, you're not providing much argument as to how you arrived at this conclusion, your simply making historical and philosophical assertions and then assuming it's common knowledge and easily verifiable. If it's easily verifiable, let me know, I could be mistaken.

Your inability to accept what is apparently true is irrelevant. Yes, it is verifiable, though I would hardly call twenty years of research easy. Still, I expect you'll be looking into the historical, archaological, and anthropological origins of qi shortly?

it exists as a concept and placeholder for some function at least philosophicaly or subjectivly. It may exist as a perinormal phenomena. It does not exist as normal phenomena.

That last bit was meaningless. If it exists as an unknown phenomena (I reject your use of the buzzword 'perinormal'), then saying it does not exist is contradictory.

Either a thing exists, in which case it is a normal phenomena (no matter how unusual), or it does not exist, in which case it is a supernatural phenomena. Our awareness and knowledge of its existence is irrelevant, as regards such existence.

On the other hand, many things exist as concepts and placeholders - though that is a different discussion altogether.

Not according to Dr. Shui Yin Lo. He believes he has isolated the mechanism of what could be considered qi. He is in a second round of experimentation at this time to prove it.

RED LIGHT!

Not THE Dr. Shui Yin Lo? Of the ATG (American Technologies Group)? A group which is now largely defunct, due to being busted on numerous scams and multilevel marketing schemes? Not THE Dr. Shui Yin Lo, who falsely claimed to find an electrified crystal of ice that was stable at room temperatures, and whose claims were revealed to be wholly false?

I'm sorry, Dr. Shui Yin Lo was discredited over half a decade ago. He's a farce in the scientific community, and a whisper in all but the most empty-headed woo communities. You'll have to find another, qualified authority to appeal to.

May I suggest J-Lo, perhaps? She'd be at least as qualified to discuss qi as the 'Doctor' was...

This is closer to what I lean towards, that, mixed with a highly refined awareness.

Yes, I agree... a highly refined awareness is a strong part of any program of bodily atunement.

Unimportant in physics, you mean, certainly not in philosophy or qi kung or meditation. let's not get acadio-centric! (yes, I made up that word)

It's a piss-poor word that covers its true meaning: let's not get logical, rational, and reasonable! Let's indulge in fantasy and intuitive thinking!

What I mean was, simply, unimportant in any pragmatic sense.

most likely true, but it depends upon how 'luminous ether' was being used and by who.

OK, there was that guy on the beach in Singapore who used 'luminous ether' when he was referring to Gin and Tonic, but aside from him, every person who referred to it in the near past has referred to a concept which simply did not exist.

The closest to luminous ether we've come in terms of valid concepts is the Quantum Foam, and so far, that's unproven as well.

hmm, in the healing sense, as in preventative health, I would say yes, not matter what the mechanism is, and I only speak from my personal experience.

Note the bolded portion: you think it exists whether it exists or not. Not very critical of a response, I'm afraid.

in the martial sense, I would say 'no' in and of itself, but as inclusive inside of an entire system? I would say yes, no matter what the mechanism is.

Again, a very non-critical reply.

hmmm, ever hear of Iron Shirt Qi Kung? it's very powerful to what you presribe here, and using qi is important at least as a placeholder to do qi kung properly.

No, it's not. Iron Shirt can and has been taught successfully without ever referring to any concept similar to qi.

ahh, so I gather you have not done much qi kung practice? Or have experience with Iron Shirt Qi Kung? I would say this last comment of yours is false.

And you would be incorrect.

wow, it took that long to get to that? Much simpler in dialectic, and more accurate too, if you dont mind me saying.

Please demonstrate.

We dont know if qi is perhaps a peri-normal phenomena, it's really no simpler than that. most of your arguments were based on assumptions of things which must be true for you to conclude how you did.

We don't know if qi is perhaps an unknown phenomena? That's senseless. And most of my arguments were based on the available evidence.

What did you base your arguments on?

You arguments are founded on either qi existing as true in relationship to physics as we understand it.

...or? An either usually requires an or...

As qi being soley a mechanism that is either a mechanism in known existence or supernatural phantasm (magic).

There really is no other possibility. Either qi exists, or it doesn't. Whether we know which is true or not, is irrelevant.

Qi could very well be the synthesis of our awareness and minds with physical matter, i.e. it is both in the mind and in matter.

A blatantly dualist statement. If the mind/awareness is also matter, then it comes pre-synthesized. And I'm pretty sure it comes pre-synthesized, as a matter of fact.

see how short mine was?;-)

I can make it even shorter, and retain the meaning:

quaddlebaum fingledorp wingnoggle.

There - and it's equally as meaningful.

but then humanities relationship to daisies epistemologically becomes very relevant!

Not at all. Not unless you're making further statements about God that we've not made here.

that was sort of a circular and contradictory argument, at least that's how it reads to me. You just said that an indeterminate value is irrelevant because in some cases it's relevant even though it's not assigned, yet becomes relevant only when it's assigned as either true or false.

No, I've said an indeterminate value remains irrelevant until it is assigned a true/false value.

It's simple. Consciousness. It's pretty mysterious right now. If we cloud our perceptions with assumptions of what it must be without evidence, we are wasting time and holding back science and philosophy.

It's not that mysterious. Answers are coming in every year about the individual bits of consciousness. It's clearly an emergent property of the matter which comprises our brains, when in the pattern of our brains. The mystery is fading fast.

we NEED the indeterminate value, which I prefer to call mystery since mystery, as defined, is both true and false at once, and mystery seems to be in harmony as a word that has both fictional appeal and deterministic prescription, to FIND TRUTH.

That sentence is nothing short of breathtakingly meaningless.

True and FALSE comes from mystery. Mystery is all we know the second we are born, there is no true and false, and throughout our lives we simply slowly untangle mystery into true and false. Since all of us come from this same process, we can say that all truth and falsity are simple distinctions we make inside of mystery since birth. Recapitulation in the individual, recaptiulation in the society, reflected in our institutions, art and science.

Ahhhhh... so mystery is IGNORANCE. Yes, I agree. Ignorance is itself a horrible thing, a thing to be removed as soon as possible. Once ignorance is removed, we can embrace available evidence and construct a useful operational theory of what is, and what is not.

It's only irrelevant if either A.)One has never had an experience that could be described as precognitive, and B.) if one is soley aware only of specific experiments were claims of precognition in individuals proved to be false.

Could be described? Many things could be described as precognitive. But that doesn't make them so.

Other than that, i dont see how you could prescribe a value of irrelevant to the claim. It's a subjective value, it being relevant, not an objective value, and your argument is again appearing to me to be based on an assumption that must be true.

We're speaking from pragmatism, here. A thing which has no demonstrable affect is irrelevant.

I claim i have consciousness. According to your argument, that's an irrelevant claim!

Hardly. We know consciousness exists. We have objective evidence of the physical nature of what is required for consciousness. We have a set of behaviors which appear only in a conscious being. If you demonstrate those behaviors, you are conscious.

Hardly an irrelevant claim.

Or do you buy into P-Zombies?

I think mystery works just fine.

Of course. Mystery sells books. Mystery sells lectures. People are willing to be conned by mystery.

Change that to ignorance and see what it gets you.

Look, Bubble, you're making some very common mistakes - including assuming your conclusions beforehand. You speak of how qi is relevant to qi kung, which assumes qi kung itself is relevant. You speak of consciousness as mysterious, when in fact it is only difficult to comprehend, not mysterious. You make many claims with an underlying assumption that all monisms are false.

You're not, in fact, applying much critical thought here. I would hope that, if you are honestly here to discuss, you could attempt to do so. I think you should start by learning the history and evolution of modern qi mythologies. Don't just consult the woo books and chat with your instructors; actually do the historical digging; look at the anthropology and archaeology papers; dig into the really academic research. You'd be amazed at how things actually came to be.

And, please, stop referring to the scam artist and fraud Shui Yin Lo.

 

[pv+]

Yes, i did say it is a subjective statement, but your question was not to back my claim, your question was "what was the subjective event?" as in what was the experience of the observer who made the statement, and I'm sure you can agree, no one can ever know the exact experience of another, that's rather impossible!

If your asking for an answer in princaple, the subjective event was intuition, or more precisely intuition misplaced as critical thinking, or as I like to call it, thinking with the feelings.

Still here!!!!

Really, Blobbybrain, it's a bit sad but you just aren't equipped to comment on critical thinking. In fact you don't even seem to have the basic equipment required for any type of thinking (apart from reporting me to teacher for the crime of honesty)! Do ya think that's a fair assessment of your abilities?

"in princaple"? Cretin!

 

[Z]

I'll ignore your opinion and address the critical aspect of your question, if you dont mind. I still want to respect you since I read and responded to your wonderful previous post.

Uh-huh.

Here is what I am saying.

1.) All ideas can either be true, false, or mystery,

Mystery is not a value. Undetermined is much more useful.

and can be represented by the number set 0, 1, 2

Or by +1, -1, 0. Or by 00, 01, and 10. Or by any other arbitrary number system on earth.

as perfect symbols

Define 'perfect'.

which carry those distinctions and relationships in the ordering and counting sense mathematically.

So you say 0 carries the sense of true, 1 of false, and 2 of unknown?

How so? I'm sorry, I've done mathematics for years and never seen such values applied, except in some of the more lame versions of 'new math' - which usually ended up by telling you that 1 plus 1 equals whatever you need it to be today.

2.) All ideas replicate, duplicate, spread, multipily, divide, and add in a manner similar to cell division/DNA/RNA via human being as messenger.

Memetics. Hardly a new concept.

3.) All ideas conflict or have the potential of conflict

Uh-huh. Waiting for something that is NOT common sense...

4.) All ideas influence human behavior, and all human behavior influence the perceptible value of idea

Yes... this is an interesting topic.

5.) Human Beings are not ideas.

And rocks are not fish. So far, so good.

6.) All problems of human dilemma relating to conflicting ideologies can be said to be resolved when all sides win in the conflict of idea. In common language, all problems are solved effectivly and for certain when all sides win.

And how is it possible for all sides to win, when some ideas are naturally in conflict? This last statement is your most troubling, because it doesn't emerge from any of your prior ideas, has the sound of pop-philosophy or religion/cult thought, gives no means of providing 'win-win' solutions, and is blatantly obvious. It also, in essence, says nothing.

So, again, what are you saying? OK, let me rephrase: what are you saying that's actually worth discussion? IMHO, only points 1, 2 and 4 bear any discussion. Point 1, to understand what it is you're really getting at it, and why you choose to use buzzwords for unknown that carry additional emotional baggage, and why use the numbers you selected. Point 2 has been discussed extensively, and continues to be discussed extensively; so we should lean more towards joining existing discussions of memetics, than starting new ones and retreading the same old paths.

Point 4, IMO, is worth a thread to itself.

 

[Z]

Still here!!!!

Really, Blobbybrain, it's a bit sad but you just aren't equipped to comment on critical thinking. In fact you don't even seem to have the basic equipment required for any type of thinking (apart from reporting me to teacher for the crime of honesty)! Do ya think that's a fair assessment of your abilities?

"in princaple"? Cretin!

pv+, I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm sure Rome here is somewhat of a troll and an internet wanna-be cult leader. But his behavior here, while annoyingly thick at times, has at least been vaguely pleasant. You, on the other hand, are here for the sole, singular reason of attacking Mr. V on all fronts - ideological, personal, and otherwise.

If you intend to demonstrate to The Gentle Reader what he's all about, you should do just that. Address the Reader directly, and lay out all appropriate disparaging facts concerning R.V. here. Point out the errors and misstatements he makes. Demonstrate his contradictions and falsehoods to the reader, directly. But by no means persist in the constant and annoying personal attacks against Mr. Vatican here.

If you continue on your current path, you'll be the one banned, and then Will's Bro will just continue to bubble, untroubled by experienced commentary that demonstrates his true intents.

So, please, up the grade or move along.

 

[pv+]

...
You're not, in fact, applying much critical thought here. I would hope that, if you are honestly here to discuss, you could attempt to do so. I think you should start by learning the history and evolution of modern qi mythologies. Don't just consult the woo books and chat with your instructors; actually do the historical digging; look at the anthropology and archaeology papers; dig into the really academic research. You'd be amazed at how things actually came to be.

And, please, stop referring to the scam artist and fraud Shui Yin Lo.

Brilliant response, all of it. Direct and to the point. Sad to say I fear it will no good whatsoever. Most of the content of your response was given to Bubblebrain in one form or another over at Badscience. But he's not here to discuss, because he can't, nor learn anything, because he can't. He has the intellect of a house fly. Shui Yin Lo is one of his buddies which should tell you all you need to know about our friend who's real name he doesn't want you to know, in spite of it's absolute relevance to his presence here. But you can find it a few posts up the thread, more than once, if you'd like to do some rooting around for background information.

edit: too late I see.

For your information, he did his level best to derail the Badscience forum. Very many of the regular members wanted him banned because of his intolerable behaviour. He promised the moderator never to return - a promise he immediately broke by posting another link to one of his YouTube videos, and which the moderator has now deleted.
Now he's here again, repeating everything he posted at Badscience, and here at Jref even before that, and treating every respondent with the same abusive disdain and evasiveness.
It seems to me that the "grade" for this thread was intentionally set by its originator and I don't believe my own grade has been any lower than that with which the thread was started. And contrary to the originator's motives, my intentions towards his antics have been transparent from the start. Other's who have tried to "up the grade", as you fairly put it, and given a "discussion" every chance have been met with what can only be described as repeated and systematic abuse, by constant and consistent evasiveness and thinly disguised insults (accusations of lack of ability to think critically etc.). The same old stuff every time, and exactly the same as happened at Badscience. A few contributors here have made the mistake of thinking there is a topic to discuss when what you actually have is a "moveable feast" for the entertainment of its originator. So the grade is where it is and not of my making. I admit to treating the originator with disrespect and making fun of him, because it simply isn't fair that Bubblefish can deceive and abuse unsuspecting forum members with impunity in the way he habitually does.
According to the Badscience moderator TM/Bubblefish (or whatever he likes to be called) admitted that the whole thing was an "experiment" to test people's responses. Who knows whether he was telling the truth. Either way, personally I feel it has been a dishonest and disreputable abuse of an Internet forum, which relies for the most part on the trust and goodwill of its members. Next, I read, Rome is off to Richard Dawkins' forum to play the same games again - no doubt with the same predictable result as all his previous deliberate efforts.

 

[WWHP]

Your constant evading has grown tiresome. Go away troll.

Sorry to see you return to reactive and disrespectful remarks when critical discussion is requested.

I have evaded nothing. I have answered your question directly and as I honestly understand it. I have responded respectfully. I shall continue to discuss on my topic at my liesure when I please.

I dont think you are the gatekeeper of james randi's forum...

 

[WWHP]

After ten pages of this, I think I have it all figured out.

Am I getting close?

hehe, I don't know if that was in jest to ol rumsy and myself or not, but if you really meant that, then yes, you are getting close.

It is true that there is mystery. i.e. refrence dawkin's 'queerness'
It is true that the end of this sentence ends with the word this.
It is true that René Magritte's Pipe is not a pipe.


And that is all there is too it really.

If this was presented to you live, I would be able to give you three examples visually that would immediatly clarify this.

I would hold up a tobacco pipe, refrencing true.

I would hold up Magritte's "this is not a pipe" for false. http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/magritte.gif

And then i would hold up a strange looking object that maybe is a plumber's pipe, or maybe an object I could construct into a smoking pipe, but i really can't tell what this object is, and neither can anyone else i have presented it to.

Those three distinctions dominate our perception

 

[WWHP]

pv+, I appreciate where you're coming from. I'm sure Rome here is somewhat of a troll and an internet wanna-be cult leader.

Zaaydragon, I appreciate your attempt to defend myself against PV, while at the same time I'm not so sure how to take this other remark, so please, will you consider my clarification here?

I am not nor ever have been a troll as I understand the term to mean. I do not disrupt topics or try to distract users from posting as they please. I dont socialize on discussion forums, I discuss on forums for very specific purposes, which is developing this online dialectic which I am revealing here.

True, my personality can certainly be over the top at times, I take full responsibility for that, and there is also a strategy in that. That strategy is to guide intuitivly people in the discussion through a particular framework, to keep the discussion going. I have to use my personality to do that because this forum, or any forum, does not guide us through a framework for discussion. Developing this online framework to guide people through a discussion to produce a win win in ideological conflicts, negotiation, or troubleshooting is what I am currently in the process of developing. I am not some lonely nut on the net, this has value, and this project has recieved both academic and commerical media interest.

I try to make it easy to distinguish when I am playing my personality and when I am being objective, and will honestly answer all questions when presented objectivly to me.

I am up to no 'tricks' other than that. My sole interest is truth, like i said. I consider myself a critical thinker and a skeptic, but most importantly a rational and intuitive human being of average intelligence. I dont have an organization, I dont have followers, nor do I seek followers, nor do I want to be the sole center of this project. I do have a production company, but I pay people to work with me, and they still dont do what I say!

I will get to your more critical, and deeply appreciated posts tommorow.

Thank you for participating in this discussion


Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

Have you also explained to the moderator how you revealed the identity of a Badscience forum member merely out of spite?

For the record and for the sake of clarification, I did not out someone at badscience.com, they outed themselves.

A member from badscience.com contacted one of the researchers, a friend whom I just recently spent the previous sat with, and began telling this researcher that i was telling people to believe in the paranormal, and that he should worry about his reputation by assosciating with me or by me discussing some research he was engaged in.

I dont know which forum member did that, my friend just forwarded me the email with the request not to encourage the 'busy bodies' from contacting him. The name on the email was from a K___K______.

So I posted a thread in the 'bickering' section kindly asking K__K_____, who ever that was, to no longer contact the researchers over such trivial matters, and if she had a request to make about the research, pass it on to me and I would see that it got addressed.


A forum member then admitted publically to being K___K______.


I hardly would expect an uproar there, since 4 or 5 people there were 'outing' me all over the place before this, and I didnt even make a stink about it.

Please let the record honestly reflect what happened from my point of view, and also let the record show that PV's behavior is what I seemed to get consistantly over at badscience. Indeed, i dont think i have even had a discussion with PV at any point other than flame throwing.

I do respond to flammers with teasing in return, in the hope that this will make light of the exchange and the tit for tat of this process will eventually guide them back to critical discussion.


Honestly,
Bubblefish

 

[pv+]

Sorry to see you return to reactive and disrespectful remarks when critical discussion is requested.

I have evaded nothing. I have answered your question directly and as I honestly understand it. I have responded respectfully. I shall continue to discuss on my topic at my liesure when I please.

I dont think you are the gatekeeper of james randi's forum...

I really must object to this response from Bubblefish. It is exactly the kind of thinly disguised insult to which I referred in my previous post. A forum member who has in every way critically dealt with Bubblefish's assertions has been provoked by incessant evasion to conclude that Bubblefish is a troll. A critical assessment in itself.
Bubblefish has basically accused Arkan, as he has accused everyone else, in a barely disguised manner, of not discussing the topic critically. This is a completely untrue and unfair characterisation of events. The truth is that practically every forum contributor has made an attempt to engage Bubblefish on the substance of his assertions and it is Bubblefish himself who is derailing any attempt at critical discussion - principally because he has precious little to discuss. And I disagree entirely that Bubblefish has been "somewhat pleasant", because this dismissal of Arkan is typical of all his dismissals. The art of trolling is in the provocation and there is absolutely nothing pleasant about it. Just because Bubblefish doesn't use profane language in this forum doesn't mean he isn't indulging in a campaign of abuse and insults. He is doing exactly that. First the pretence of a "discussion", evasion and provocation, with the predictable response from a forum member, then the abuse within the misrepresentation and characterisation. It has been well practised and happens, sooner or later, every time.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sorry to see you return to reactive and disrespectful remarks when critical discussion is requested.

I have evaded nothing. I have answered your question directly and as I honestly understand it. I have responded respectfully. I shall continue to discuss on my topic at my liesure when I please.

I dont think you are the gatekeeper of james randi's forum...

 

[pv+]

For the record and for the sake of clarification, I did not out someone at badscience.com, they outed themselves.

A member from badscience.com contacted one of the researchers, a friend whom I just recently spent the previous sat with, and began telling this researcher that i was telling people to believe in the paranormal, and that he should worry about his reputation by assosciating with me or by me discussing some research he was engaged in.

I dont know which forum member did that, my friend just forwarded me the email with the request not to encourage the 'busy bodies' from contacting him. The name on the email was from a K___K______.

So I posted a thread in the 'bickering' section kindly asking K__K_____, who ever that was, to no longer contact the researchers over such trivial matters, and if she had a request to make about the research, pass it on to me and I would see that it got addressed.


A forum member then admitted publically to being K___K______.


I hardly would expect an uproar there, since 4 or 5 people there were 'outing' me all over the place before this, and I didnt even make a stink about it.

Please let the record honestly reflect what happened from my point of view, and also let the record show that PV's behavior is what I seemed to get consistantly over at badscience. Indeed, i dont think i have even had a discussion with PV at any point other than flame throwing.

I do respond to flammers with teasing in return, in the hope that this will make light of the exchange and the tit for tat of this process will eventually guide them back to critical discussion.


Honestly,
Bubblefish

I object again. Another characterisation of events. Bubblefish was reprimanded by the moderator for naming a forum member.
To my knowledge Bubblefish has never had a "critical" discussion with anyone on on the substance of his assertions either in this forum or in the Badscience forum. He has consistently ignored any criticism, to which forum members will attest, and proceeded to derail with the usual evasions and acrimonious results. Anyone care to doubt it, it's all there in public for examination. His misogynistic remarks to the Badscience forum's female members were anything but teasing, nor were they provoked, and he was reprimanded by the moderator for that too.

 

[Mojo]

For the record and for the sake of clarification, I did not out someone at badscience.com, they outed themselves.

A member from badscience.com contacted one of the researchers, a friend whom I just recently spent the previous sat with, and began telling this researcher that i was telling people to believe in the paranormal, and that he should worry about his reputation by assosciating with me or by me discussing some research he was engaged in.

I dont know which forum member did that, my friend just forwarded me the email with the request not to encourage the 'busy bodies' from contacting him. The name on the email was from a K___K______.

So I posted a thread in the 'bickering' section kindly asking K__K_____, who ever that was, to no longer contact the researchers over such trivial matters, and if she had a request to make about the research, pass it on to me and I would see that it got addressed.


A forum member then admitted publically to being K___K______.


I hardly would expect an uproar there, since 4 or 5 people there were 'outing' me all over the place before this, and I didnt even make a stink about it.

There is a slight difference, though; the name you revealed was not in the public domain, but in a private email - there would have been no way to find it without reference to that private communication.

On the other hand, it is well known to anyone who has followed your posts that you have a website at www.highintelligence.com. A Google search for this url comes up (at present) with your name in the third hit, on a website the contents of which are apparently the responsibility of your brother Will.

 

[Mojo]

A member from badscience.com contacted one of the researchers, a friend whom I just recently spent the previous sat with, and began telling this researcher that i was telling people to believe in the paranormal, and that he should worry about his reputation by assosciating with me or by me discussing some research he was engaged in.

I dont know which forum member did that, my friend just forwarded me the email with the request not to encourage the 'busy bodies' from contacting him.

But also, according to a response in the thread you posted about it, replied to "K__K____'s" email with something like "thanks for the heads-up". It appears that your friend may be somewhat two-faced.

So I posted a thread in the 'bickering' section kindly asking K__K_____, who ever that was, to no longer contact the researchers over such trivial matters, and if she had a request to make about the research, pass it on to me and I would see that it got addressed.

Actually, you demanded that no forum member should contact the researchers with any sort of query, but that they should all be channeled through you.

 

[Jeff Corey]

There is a slight difference, though; the name you revealed was not in the public domain, but in a private email - there would have been no way to find it without reference to that private communication.

On the other hand, it is well known to anyone who has followed your posts that you have a website at www.highintelligence.com. A Google search for this url comes up (at present) with your name in the third hit, on a website the contents of which are apparently the responsibility of your brother Will.

Woof. They're both loonies.

 

[Mojo]

It is true that René Magritte's Pipe is not a pipe.

And that is all there is too it really.

If this was presented to you live, I would be able to give you three examples visually that would immediatly clarify this.

I would hold up a tobacco pipe, refrencing true.

I would hold up Magritte's "this is not a pipe" for false. http://www.vrc.iastate.edu/magritte.gif

And then i would hold up a strange looking object that maybe is a plumber's pipe, or maybe an object I could construct into a smoking pipe, but i really can't tell what this object is, and neither can anyone else i have presented it to.

Of course, if you're only considering the English version you miss out on a pun.