Mediumship

Clancie said:

Well, if you really think that Thomas, I have a suggestion. Why not try posting a viewpoint that is outside the "accepted wisdom" of the vast majority on this forum? Believe me, you'll see how quickly a barrage of people will respond to you.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that.. My first debate here was on determinism/indeterminism, and in this matter my perspective is in minority because modern physics, more or less, oppose it.

/thomas
 
Imo, Cleopatra, there's a double standard here regarding giving more leeway and respect to religious "believers'" views--while more freely going after (intellectually and personally) those who are open to other paranormal topics.

Christians and theists and deists are accepted as "fellow skeptics" by many. Spiritualists? No way. I consider it a clear double standard (well exemplified, imo, by Martin Gardner himself).

That's all. I know we don't agree.
 
Maybe. But you still confuse the reaction to behaviors with the reaction to the expressed opinions.
 
Clancie said:
Imo, Cleopatra, there's a double standard here regarding giving more leeway and respect to religious "believers'" views--while more freely going after (intellectually and personally) those who are open to other paranormal topics.

Christians and theists and deists are accepted as "fellow skeptics" by many. Spiritualists? No way. I consider it a clear double standard (well exemplified, imo, by Martin Gardner himself).

That's all. I know we don't agree.
Click to expand...

No, you are right about that. We don't agree. Because you are deliberately misrepresenting the points made.

You know that it comes down to evidence. If Martin Gardner claims that he has evidence of the deity he believes in, he will get his ass chewed by skeptics. But he doesn't. So, he is still a skeptic.

You, however, claim that there is evidence for mediumship - that mediums can, in fact, talk to dead people. You constantly - singularly - argue this point, yet come up short every time.

This has nothing to do with beliefs. It only has to do with evidence.
 
Marion,


I'm positive there's some lengthy history behind it all.
Click to expand...
My personal history with Ian dates back to his first few days. I posted a comment to another poster in a thread about "consciousness" saying something to the effect that I'd asked a few friends what their opinon was, and they had all replied that they though it "likely" that conciousness was a physical thing. Ian jumped it, and declared that all my friends must be "utter f*kwits". Somewhat surprised, I asked him why, and he replied that I must be "as thick as f*k" if I didn't understand why. That's pretty much exactly how Ian began his time here...

A little example of the sorts of exchanges I've had with Ian over the years :
Paranormal "NDE (Life Flashing before your eyes)" thread, March 4 2003

(Ian wrote) : You really need to exercise a great deal of caution when reading anything written by so called "skeptics". They will discredit anything, preferably by fair means, but if that is insufficient by foul means. Hell, just read what people like BillHoyt and Loki say in this forum! I find it quite breathtaking!
*****
(Ian wrote) : They are either liars or present information in a seriously misleading way like seemingly most people who label themselves "skeptics".
****
(Loki wrote) : I'm not aware that I have a track record of lying, or making "seriously misleading" statements. Could you supply an example or two of where I have done this, because if I'm guilty of this then it's largely unknown to me.

You can PM me with the info if you don't want to be seen as starting a public "slanging match"
****
(Loki wrote) : ...could you please respond to my request for a few examples of posts in which you feel I have lied or made "seriously misleading" statements. I'd like to think that my posts are a genuine reflection of my opinions and knowledge. You seem to quite strongly feel that I'm happy to include a liberal sprinkling of lies and distortions into my posts - I'd like to understand why you think this.

Again, you can reply via PM if you want to resolve this away from the public eye.
****
Banter, "Who thinks I'm NEO" thread : April 2nd 2003

(Loki wrote) : It's been a month or more since this exchange ... any chance you might eventually get around to replying?
****
(Ian wrote) : Loki, I have noticed your question. I'll need to do a search for the relevant thread. Hopefully will get round to answering today or tomorrow.
Click to expand...
He ignored my request for public or private clarification for over a month (while continuing to post replies to me in many threads). Even after this last reply, he never pursued this, and I eventually dropped it, since he seemed unwilling (or, IMO, unable) to follow up on his allegations.

But what *is* a loss is the alternative viewpoint. I don't
learn as much from people I agree with, as I do someone who presents an intelligent counterargument
Click to expand...
I agree with what you're saying - I've learnt a lot from several posters (no longer here) who were well and truly representing a minority opinon, but were able to present their case well. But Ian isn't one of them - he presents his case about as poorly as possible. IMO could argue his position better than he does.

I don't see these comments as being the work of someone able to "present an intelligent counterargument".

I've always known there is an ultimate purpose to life and the Universe, and a life after death. I'm also pretty convinced that reincarnation occurs. Yeah. Seems like I'm different from everyone else. Other believers always seem to claim they started to believe due to something or other. Not me. I've always known
Click to expand...
Discussing logical fallacies, which he says he knows nothing about, but never commits :
Yes, skeptics employ these terms all the time. But what they don't seem to realise is that they themselves commit these logical fallacies all the time. They accuse me of doing so. But I don't think I ever do.
Click to expand...

Ian's commments to explain the difference between an "unlimited search" and an "infinite search" in the long maths thread(s) from a few months back :
[Defining an 'infinte search] : I expect only an infinite search can "reach"/encompass an infinite number of finite substrings.
...
[Defining an 'unlimited' search] : Just like the positive integers there are none of the infinite set of finite strings that cannot be reached by an unlimited search.
Click to expand...
After weeks of discussion, he finally adds :
In fact I don't know what "string" means in this context either. Only using it because LW used it.
Click to expand...
 
And having reached the debating level where JREF holds a double standard, I'd say this thread is about wrapped up. In Inspector Gadget, this is about the time when Inspector Gadget finally catches Brain (who he thinks is the MAD spy).
 
CFLarsen said:
Loki,

That is what we have come to expect from believers: Deceit.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, Claus, pleae check your PMs. Now. I'll provide details.
 
Marian said:
Just to note, Ian PMed me offering to continue our discussion elsewhere, and offering an apology for his comments if I misunderstood him. *snip*

And something good seems to be getting lost in the mix.
Click to expand...
I understand, Marian. I said much the same thing last night in a post. Like you, I don't want to be holier than thou, but in my argument(s) with Ian in particular, I found my limit and simply walked away, putting him on ignore. I'm no saint, and I make the odd comment, which may or may not be perfectly fair, but I don't think that's the point.

A forum is human interaction. There's no way it's going to be all goody-two shoes, and it can't survive with complete cannibalism. It's more like a dog eat dog food world. A balance, in other words. It's up to the people who run the forum (who set the rules) to decide where the line is. As well as up to the people who frequent the forum. If they don't like what's happening, they speak up. Or leave.

I said in a thread to Ian that I don't have a problem with him personally, and I don't, because I don't know him. I have a problem with his behavior. That gets tiring. And I'm not always a nice guy. I've been known to make smart aleck remarks. It happens.
But what *is* a loss is the alternative viewpoint. I don't learn as much from people I agree with, as I do someone who presents an intelligent counterargument.
Click to expand...
I'm new too, but I understand that if Ian stays gone (I'm not saying if that's good or bad), then I'd bet a dollar to a bucket of navy beans someone else would come in with an alternative viewpoint almost immediately.
If Ian feels bad about the way he's been treated, then too bad. He brought it on himself. That sounds harsh, I know, but it's true. For whatever reason, he has no one to blame but himself. I can't save him, or anyone else on here. I tried being nice to him, and he spat in my face. I don't like that, and do what I can to not let it happen again.

I'm here to learn and enjoy the discussions, passionate as they are. But I do not tolerate abuse.
 
Loki and Nigel thanks for your responses. Especially Loki for providing the history. I assumed there was probably a 'backstory', and I appreciate you taking the time to give me a glimpse of it.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not posting to be an Ian apologist...at all. I don't like his personal attacks one bit, especially as some of it has been aimed my way. And I'm not a saint either, that crap pisses me off.

But I think that making snide comments about Ian having a drinking problem (the most recent remarks, such as when he gets home from the bar, etc) is over the line. Obviously not as far as the rules go (and I didn't report it, I've reported one thing and SAID I was reporting it (Lorri's trolling). I'm huge on accountability and I'll never anon. report anything. :P) but as far as ...well it's just kinda f*cked. :(

And I know I'm coming off like a self-appointed voice of reason, and that bugs me too. I like these forums, a lot. And I like the people in them, a lot. And I'm not taking my ball and going home or anything like that. I just felt like I needed to say something about it. I don't expect people to sit around and constantly have purely intellectual discourse, and saying 'my esteemed opponent' when they mean 'this walking bag of hair'. While it may be interesting, it can also get boring and phony. ;) And I don't doubt that Ian has probably earned some (maybe most, maybe even all) of the crap he's gotten.

But just the level of personal attack (the 'concern' about his drinking turning into a thing to jab him with) just sucked.

And I know it's not because Ian is a self-appointed 'woo-woo' or anything like that, it's because he can be a total jerk in how he chooses to act and what he says to people. That's a given. I've been here less than a month and that seems obvious. I don't know, again I don't like how I feel *I'm* coming off in saying this, but I'm expressing it poorly. I guess what I'm basically trying to say is sure, I agree that Ian will get knocked around for the ◊◊◊◊ he pulls, no question. Just the level of that knocking around though seemed f*cked.

That's just my opinion, and sorry for sounding like the self-appointed voice of reason wailing 'won't someone PLEASE think of the children'. I hate that ◊◊◊◊ too, and I feel like I'm doing it. :\ Bleh.
 
Marian said:
But I think that making snide comments about Ian having a drinking problem (the most recent remarks, such as when he gets home from the bar, etc) is over the line. Obviously not as far as the rules go (and I didn't report it, I've reported one thing and SAID I was reporting it (Lorri's trolling). I'm huge on accountability and I'll never anon. report anything. :P) but as far as ...well it's just kinda f*cked. :(
Click to expand...
On the drinking remarks you need to know some history. Several times Ian has spewed his foulest posts during or after a night of drinking. Several next mornings he apologized flippantly and excused himself for being drunk It only takes a few such to establish a pattern and for that pattern to become fair game.

Oh, did I punch you last night? Well, I was drunk you know.

Oh, did I punch you last night? Well, I was drunk you know.

Oh, did I punch you last night. Well, I was drunk you know.
 
So, Bill, Ian can have a temper (especially when people are piling on) and has especially posted things he later regretted (and apologized for) after drinking.

You, on the other hand, are rude and insulting (and never apologize), just as part of your normal routine. I'm amazed that you, of all people, feel so comfortable to pontificate for us on the rudeness of others.
 
BillHoyt said:

On the drinking remarks you need to know some history. Several times Ian has spewed his foulest posts during or after a night of drinking. Several next mornings he apologized flippantly and excused himself for being drunk It only takes a few such to establish a pattern and for that pattern to become fair game.

Oh, did I punch you last night? Well, I was drunk you know.

Oh, did I punch you last night? Well, I was drunk you know.

Oh, did I punch you last night. Well, I was drunk you know.
Click to expand...

THAT makes a lot more sense. Unfortunately all I had seen was a thread where someone (can't remember who offhand) had expressed concern, then it because something to snipe with.

I probably shouldn't have made assumptions and instead should have asked. (I'm a bad skeptic, I twigged based on limited info. ;() And again, sorry for the hijack to boot.

Oh and PS: Ian keeps PMing me asking me to post for him. I told him no, and he asked if I would post stating I was refusing to post for him. So here you go Ian. :p I told you I don't like being manipulated. If you want to post you're free to use this forum, post for yourself. Sheesh. I also said you're free to post my PMs to you on mu.nu (I don't have access yet and told you Renata (sp?) PM'd me saying access was being delayed due to technical deifficulties) if you want to continue the discussion there as you said. /end drama
 
Marian said:


/end drama
Click to expand...
No way, Marian. You should realize by now, as I have, that there is NO WAY this drama is going to end this easily. This might be the end of Act I, but wait! There's more!
 
Clancie said:
So, Bill, Ian can have a temper (especially when people are piling on) and has especially posted things he later regretted (and apologized for) after drinking.

You, on the other hand, are rude and insulting (and never apologize), just as part of your normal routine. I'm amazed that you, of all people, feel so comfortable to pontificate for us on the rudeness of others.
Click to expand...

You, on the other hand, don't complain about Ian being extremely rude? You really think that it is an excuse to be drunk?
 
Clancie said:

Hi Oleron,

Just a friendly word of advice (as someone who's had many readings), usually its better to not give anything out ahead of time and just see what they can get, if anything.

(Well, that's unless one is doing it for a different reason, of course. :) ).
Click to expand...

Hi Clancie,

I was really just trying to gain the trust of Lorri. I gave her some honest info to get her started because I don't want her to have the excuse that she couldn't possibly know which spirit to 'put me in touch with'. Besides, I had a particular subject I used to speak to my dad about often and if she can tell me what that is then I would consider that as pretty good evidence. I don't want to hear the usual 'He loved you, blah blah blah' nonsense.

Normally, as you say, it is much better to say nothing.

Of course Lorri could probably have picked up this info by just trawling through my posts.

It looks like being a moot point anyway as Lorri hasn't responded.
 
Just a quick note on the Ian point.

I am not sorry he's gone. He doesn't debate or offer anything to the forum. The first time I responded to one of his posts I was called a moron, utterly unprovoked. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and responded to a different post at a later date. This time he was terse in his response, discounted my opinion in an offhand way and eventually took refuge in his customary philosophical hidey-hole. As indeed he has just done again in this debate with Marian.

I don't put anyone on ignore as a rule so I have continued to read Ian's posts. It is hard to avoid them on this forum.

But I don't come here for abuse and I simply refuse to get drawn into juvenile insults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom