Modless Paranormal

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 07:15PM

Wicknight wrote:

Funny because where I am sitting it looks like a completely hollow guesture in an attempt to avoid tackling the issues and problems with the Paranormal forum.

What issues and problems?

You being cranky cos you didn't get your way doesn't amount to an issue or problem with the forum.

That amounts to you being cranky for not getting your way.

Really wicknight, you're not the centre of the universe.

But that could just be me, we will see.

Well it is all about you.

You could start by moving the discussion on Orbs, after you get the OP's permission of course, and re-inserting my original comments on rational reasons for photographic paranormal phenomona.

I'll copy a post if you link the post in the thread via the guidelines outlined.

Of course that will depend on the poster whose post you want copied.

And no, I can't re-insert your comments. I have no control over the recycle bin.

Zombrex · 18-01-2006 07:22PM

psi wrote:

What issues and problems?

Doesn't your hair get messy with you head in the sand all the time....

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 07:24PM

Wicknight wrote:

Doesn't your hair get messy with you head in the sand all the time....

Yeah, I must have missed all the complaints bar yours and zillahs?

So you believe that 2 complaints out of all posters relates to an "issue and problem"...

Well I think paranormal is well down the line for revolutionary changes, I think there are at least a hundred forums that have issues and problems that should be tackled first......

Zombrex · 18-01-2006 07:33PM

psi wrote:

So you believe that 2 complaints out of all posters relates to an "issue and problem"...

Out of the 10 regular posters, yeah its an issue ...

psi wrote:

Well I think paranormal is well down the line for revolutionary changes, I think there are at least a hundred forums that have issues and problems that should be tackled first......

Are you the mod of these forums....?

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 07:36PM

Wicknight wrote:

Out of the 10 regular posters, yeah its an issue ...

Are you the mod of these forums....?

There are more than 10 active users.

Incidently, if you continue to drag this debate into paranormal with snide remarks, there will be one less user.

Zillah · 18-01-2006 07:38PM

Psi, I assume I don't need to explain Ad Hominem to you. Dismissing Wicknight as cranky etc does not qualify as an argument against his points. And it certainly won't help any discussion.

Oh and seriously, no threads won't be moved - it doesn't say anywhere that they'll be moved. - oh maybe *I* said that here, "copied" is the word in the thread and charter I think - hrmm the title said move but post said "copied" thanks for pointing that out.

So essentially you're giving us permission to look at the paranormal forum for inspiration for threads in the ISS? Great...

Funny because where I am sitting it looks like a completely hollow guesture in an attempt to avoid tackling the issues and problems with the Paranormal forum.

Seconded.

And I'll point out that you and you alone are the only person to say anything positive about the "copy to ISS" idea. Even in the thread for discussing the charter it was met with resounding nothing. Hell, my post got three of four "thats a good way to do it" comments.

And as for myself and Wicknight being the only one's to have a problem with this: Its only been a few days. Theres obviously others who, instead of caring enough to come here, will simply abandon the paranormal forum. Just off the top of my head, both Kernel and ISAW will most certainly have problems with this.

Just because someone isn't bothered coming here and deigning to tackle your arrogant attitude does not mean they don't disagree with you. I guarantee you this will lead to problems on the board, and not from me or Wicknight either. And not because anyone broke the rules, but because the rules are inherently inconsistent.

EDIT: Also, please define:

1 - Science.
2 - Scepticism.

Im honestly not being pedantic, I really would like to get your views on these, because you throw those words around a lot and I would like to know what exactly you mean by them.

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 07:41PM

ah right, yes the 4 posters Ireferred to before.

Zillah. You said you weren't going to touch paranormal with a barge pole. What do you care?

Zillah · 18-01-2006 07:49PM

psi wrote:

Zillah. You said you weren't going to touch paranormal with a barge pole.

I said that out of frustration.

What do you care?

I'll refer you to my post where I posted after Gordon.

stevenmu · 18-01-2006 07:53PM

Wow, this thread spun out of control fast, again....

To me the new rules are perfectly clear and simple to understand, being mainly the old rules re-stated and enforced more.

For example, in the thread that I think kicked off this latest kerfuffle, their was some orb pictures posted up taken by the op in his friends house. It seems quite reasonable to me to point out that picture A looks like dust catching the flash, and that there's likely to be dust around because an extension is being built, or that picture B looks typicall of a smudge on the lens. That's reasonable, healthy scepticism, and as I understand it, quite alright going by the charter.

On the other hand sparking off about how orb photos are never paranormal because of mankinds tendency to invent reasons for thing, and we don't blame cars not starting on ghosts, just seems like a debunking crusade against all the paranormal possibilities of orb photos (unless of course you have some kind of reasonable proof that all orb photos are nothing more than tricks of light or camera/image flaws). This is counter-productive in the paranormal forum because it tends to prevent discussion of A: the actual specific events (in this case the photos) being discussed and B: any potential paranormal explanations for them, which is the whole reason for the forum to exist in the first place. Hence this type of 'scepticism' being against the rules in the charter, as I understand them.

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 07:54PM

Zillah wrote:

I said that out of frustration.

I'll refer you to my post where I posted after Gordon.

Well you can keep posting all you like.

I've read the posts, I've considered them and I've dimissed them.

Thats the end of it as far as I'm concerned.

but you keep on fighting the powah

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 07:55PM

stevenmu wrote:

Wow, this thread spun out of control fast, again....

To me the new rules are perfectly clear and simple to understand, being mainly the old rules re-stated and enforced more.

For example, in the thread that I think kicked off this latest kerfuffle, their was some orb pictures posted up taken by the op in his friends house. It seems quite reasonable to me to point out that picture A looks like dust catching the flash, and that there's likely to be dust around because an extension is being built, or that picture B looks typicall of a smudge on the lens. That's reasonable, healthy scepticism, and as I understand it, quite alright going by the charter.

On the other hand sparking off about how orb photos are never paranormal because of mankinds tendency to invent reasons for thing, and we don't blame cars not starting on ghosts, just seems like a debunking crusade against all the paranormal possibilities of orb photos (unless of course you have some kind of reasonable proof that all orb photos are nothing more than tricks of light or camera/image flaws). This is counter-productive in the paranormal forum because it tends to prevent discussion of A: the actual specific events (in this case the photos) being discussed and B: any potential paranormal explanations for them, which is the whole reason for the forum to exist in the first place. Hence this type of 'scepticism' being against the rules in the charter, as I understand them.

Yes, thank you.

What he said

Zillah · 18-01-2006 07:57PM

So are you outright refusing to explain your understanding of "scepticism"?

Chinafoot · 18-01-2006 08:10PM

I think my eyes are bleeding :v:

I'm with Stevenmu and psi on this one.

Zillah · 18-01-2006 08:43PM

For example, in the thread that I think kicked off this latest kerfuffle, their was some orb pictures posted up taken by the op in his friends house. It seems quite reasonable to me to point out that picture A looks like dust catching the flash, and that there's likely to be dust around because an extension is being built, or that picture B looks typicall of a smudge on the lens. That's reasonable, healthy scepticism, and as I understand it, quite alright going by the charter

Psi wrote:

What he said

So, healthy scepticism is allowed?

Then we have no disagreement. Good day

Hobart · 18-01-2006 08:48PM

Zillah wrote:

So, healthy scepticism is allowed?

Then we have no disagreement. Good day

Head/Wall/Bang/Bang/Bang/Bang.............:rolleyes:

Zillah · 18-01-2006 08:59PM

Its easy to be snide when you're completely ignorant of the situation. Really Hobart you're practically trolling. Psi has previously said that scepticism was forbidden. Being allowed "healthy" scepticism is a new revelation.

Hobart · 18-01-2006 09:21PM

Zillah wrote:

Its easy to be snide when you're completely ignorant of the situation. Really Hobart you're practically trolling.

Pot/Kettle/Black

Psi has previously said that scepticism was forbidden. Being allowed "healthy" scepticism is a new revelation.

As I said, you can hardly see the wood for the trees. I suspect that you will now exploit your percieved gap in PSI's logic to it's greatest extent. Your not interested in "healthy debate" or anything like it. Your only interest here is to further your own agenda, part of which you have outlined, and then to argue on the basis of whatever you say could be percevied as "healthy scepticism". I could hold my breath for longer than the time (i suspect) that it will take you or some other "healthy skeptic" to cry foul of what you see as your right to free speech being downtrodden because d'mod has closed/edited/moved another attempt by you or your cohorts to engage in "healthy scepticism". It's not going to work Zillah, and I actually agree with you on some parts of your argument, but it's not going to work.

So stop name calling, stop trying to be smart, there are no winners here.

Zombrex · 18-01-2006 09:42PM

stevenmu wrote:

just seems like a debunking crusade against all the paranormal possibilities of orb photos...
Hence this type of 'scepticism' being against the rules in the charter, as I understand them.

That would be true if I hadn't been asked by the mod of the forum to explain the justification for my opinion.

I mean I'm not even the one who original posted that "orbs" are probably not paranormal in nature, SkepticOne did with this

"I would say that although the dust thing explains most orb phenomena the ones that are not explained by dust are probably not ghosts. imho."

Thast was seemingly fine. I then replied with this

"TBH I agree. There are huge range of photographic errors and mistakes that can explain even the most strange photographic effects without bringing anything paranormal into it."

That, again, was seemingly fine. If it had been stopped at this point I wouldn't have been surprised. But it was at this point Psi asked me

"Of course, I'm curious as to how you can make a statement on how likely/unlikely any paranormal phenomenon acts with any degree of certainty."

I didn't reply directly, and mentioned the charter. But Psi asked again -

"I'm curious as to why you have made such definitive statements on these issues."

(btw Psi is going to say that she actually didn't mean to ask what she asked, she was really talking about how I can say that about IR film or some such, which is ridiculous in my view when you look at the wording of the questions)

So I explained why I believe the initial points I made. Then suddenly I am breaking the charter. The whole think is a ridiculous storm in a tea cup, because I believe Psi initally didn't understand what I was saying in the reply that was removed (of course she doesn't see it that way).

There was no harm in leaving my original post, any "harm" was done in SkepticOnes inital post, and possibly in my reply to that.

I am all for people not butting into threads with irrelevant sceptisim. But the sceptisim was invited by the OP from the very start. And when the mod asks you twice to justify a position it seems a bit rich that he/she would then remove the reply.

But maybe thats just me... to me this whole thing is silly in the extreme. I still have no idea what Psi (or Solas before her) problem is with people posting things like my reply in the Paranormal forum, no ones beliefs are being insulted, no one is being bullied. Questions are being asked, answers are being given.

But obviously there is someone about to throw themselves off a bridge if someone mentions (even when asked) that an "orb" can be explained by errors in photography development. Who knew!

Zillah · 18-01-2006 10:03PM

Hobart wrote:

I suspect that you will now exploit your percieved gap in PSI's logic to it's greatest extent. Your not interested in "healthy debate" or anything like it. Your only interest here is to further your own agenda, part of which you have outlined, and then to argue on the basis of whatever you say could be percevied as "healthy scepticism". I could hold my breath for longer than the time (i suspect) that it will take you or some other "healthy skeptic" to cry foul of what you see as your right to free speech being downtrodden because d'mod has closed/edited/moved another attempt by you or your cohorts to engage in "healthy scepticism".

There's really not much to say except that you have absolutely no God damn idea what you're talking about.

GuanYin · 18-01-2006 11:33PM

Wicknight wrote:

(btw Psi is going to say that she actually didn't mean to ask what she asked, she was really talking about how I can say that about IR film or some such, which is ridiculous in my view when you look at the wording of the questions)

So your argument is based on what you believe I meant. So you have a mind reading ability?

Give it a rest. Even if I did ask your opinion on what you say (and I didn't), thats still not a reason to break the charter rules.

I did say you wouldn't be banned and you weren't.

Whats your issue?

(of course she doesn't see it that way).

And its my opinion that counts.

But maybe thats just me... to me this whole thing is silly in the extreme. I still have no idea what Psi (or Solas before her) problem is with people posting things like my reply in the Paranormal forum, no ones beliefs are being insulted, no one is being bullied. Questions are being asked, answers are being given.

Actually, you bullied solas out of the mod because you didn't get your way and you're trying the same here.

I'm made of slightly sterner stuff and if anything, you're re-enforcing my belief that a serious clampdown is required in paranormal.

Strangely we now have 2 posters who think that the incident was understandable....looks like the problems and issues are gone.

Its pretty simple. What you and zillah want, isn't going to happen. You can post and moan til the cows come home, you can reply for you last word-itis all you like. The paranormal charter will be enforced and if you break the rules you will be banned.

Gordon · 18-01-2006 11:48PM

My superpowers are telling me that this thread isn't going to last much longer.

RuggieBear · 18-01-2006 11:53PM

in before the lock then:p

oscarBravo · 19-01-2006 12:28AM

Spammer.

Oops.

stevenmu · 19-01-2006 01:05AM

Wicknight wrote:

(btw Psi is going to say that she actually didn't mean to ask what she asked, she was really talking about how I can say that about IR film or some such, which is ridiculous in my view when you look at the wording of the questions)

Psi has already admitted that was down to mis-communication, I don't see why it's still a discussion point. If Psi had of left the post then there would have been accusations of the charter only being selectively enforced depending on what the moderator is interested in or not.

There's no reason here why any rules or anything else should be changed, there was a simple slip up, it happens. The rules are still in place and should be followed. They're clear and simple to understand, a little common sense needs to be applied, but the same goes for any forum here. They may not be completely specific, leaving a lot of leeway for moderator discretion, but that's because it's impossible to predict all situations, and if they are specific, someone will work out some kind of loophole that they think justifies posting whatever they like. This again is the same as most forums here.

Wicknight wrote:

But maybe thats just me... to me this whole thing is silly in the extreme. I still have no idea what Psi (or Solas before her) problem is with people posting things like my reply in the Paranormal forum, no ones beliefs are being insulted, no one is being bullied. Questions are being asked, answers are being given.

But obviously there is someone about to throw themselves off a bridge if someone mentions (even when asked) that an "orb" can be explained by errors in photography development. Who knew!

You're being a tad melodramatic here, altough judging by what seems to happen everytime you don't get your way that's about par for the course. Nobody mentioned throwing themselves off bridges, or being bullied, the point is that some of us think that it's easier to discuss paranormal phenomona without their existence being called into question the whole time. We think that the Paranormal forum should be for discussing the Paranormal and that the Skeptics forum will do fine for sceptical discussion, what's so hard to understand about that ? If you want to debunk the existence of God, you don't walk down to your local church and march up on to the altar interrupting the whole mass.

Zillah · 19-01-2006 03:28AM

The next time someone summarises scepticism as "debunking" Im going to go on some sort of rampage. Really, are you just deliberating ignoring me or is it just idiocy?

CuLT · 19-01-2006 03:46AM

Perhaps the Paranormal people who want to cover their ears when met with a non-"out there" opinion should get their own public (or private) forum to reinforce their respective viewpoints. It's really a fallacy to have it listed under boards.ie's main category with discussion forums.

It should be a Mulder & Scully type thing; belief met with application of scientific logic. There's no reason why it can't be amicable as long as there's a reasonable level of maturity minus arrogance.

Edit: I don't even know why I'm getting involved with this; I'm too irritated by all the delusional people who believe in fairies and imps and trollp like that to even approach the forum.

rsynnott · 19-01-2006 03:58AM

CuLT wrote:

Edit: I don't even know why I'm getting involved with this; I'm too irritated by all the delusional people who believe in fairies and imps and trollp like that to even approach the forum.

Really no odder than the people that believe in gods and devils...

CuLT · 19-01-2006 05:47AM

rsynnott wrote:

Really no odder than the people that believe in gods and devils...

Hardly; there is no doctrine involved in believing in fairies and goblins. Unless your religion happens to assign these creatures some sort of spiritual significance, in which case you do not belong on Paranormal, but Spirituality/Religion.

stevenmu · 19-01-2006 10:40AM

CuLT wrote:

Perhaps the Paranormal people who want to cover their ears when met with a non-"out there" opinion should get their own public (or private) forum to reinforce their respective viewpoints. It's really a fallacy to have it listed under boards.ie's main category with discussion forums

We already have a public forum, I don't see why we should need another one. The problem isn't that we want to 'cover our ears' and not hear different viewpoints, the problem is that any time a topic 'x' is being discussed, somebody always has to butt in with 'x is a load of BS', or 'there's no scientific proof of x', or 'x is just taking advantage of vulnerable people/idiots/people with mental illness'. Threads invariably get dragged off topic and end up going around in circles. In any other forum this'd be considered trolling, it'd be the equivelent of posting in the games forum about how gamers are just wasting there lives and should go out and get a real hobby, or posting in the classical music forum about how crap classical music is and that everyone should listen to rock / metal, or ... well you see where this is going. These kind of posters should really stick to the skeptics forum, altough (just to keep Zillah happy) this type of attitude isn't really true scepticism.

Zombrex · 19-01-2006 10:42AM

stevenmu wrote:

Psi has already admitted that was down to mis-communication, I don't see why it's still a discussion point.

psi wrote:

So your argument is based on what you believe I meant. So you have a mind reading ability?

It doesn't real seem like she has admitted much apart from be humble enough to admit that I made a mistake.

stevenmu wrote:

the point is that some of us think that it's easier to discuss paranormal phenomona without their existence being called into question the whole time.

I fully support that .. i even said as much in the charter discussion

stevenmu wrote:

If you want to debunk the existence of God,

I have absolutely no interest in "debunking" the existance of anything on the Paranormal forum, never have

Modless Paranormal

Comments