The whole '....shall not be named' thing need not be taken too literally. It's actually almost like a title, an award (albeit a negative one) or a shorthand to a few people or cases that have particularly bad reputations here.
Gene doesn't
actually mean that nobody can write the words 'Michael Horn' or 'Roswell Slides,' rather it's just a way of red-flagging a topic that is considered so poisonous that collectively, the forum & show have put said cases etc to bed permanantly as far as the they are concerned and we would rather not give them the air of publicity that posting about them provides. So no-one is going to be banned or warned for publicly using these names etc, we'd just prefer they are brought up as seldom as possible because they don't even deserve to be found in a google search!
The forum doesn't want to be seen as a censor or putting itself up as the final arbiter of what is acceptable to mention or not regarding the topics we cover but at the same time we would prefer to gently steer discussion away from toxic waste subjects that have had more than enough words wasted on them.
Hi Goggs,
I am aware of how and why the term is used on the show. I've listened to every single episode of The Paracast over the last 6 years. I realize no one will get "banned" in the forums for mentioning any of the topics or individuals. That wasn't my point. However, as I stated in my post, I think using that silly (IMO) phrase does a disservice to newer listeners who have NO idea what the hosts are talking about. That was me, at one time, until I caught up with everything. I doubt most listeners are crazy enough to listen to every back episode of The Paracast, so they will often miss out on the context of those people or topics "that shall not be named." The "publicity" excuse is also silly. If we (the collective "we" of the Paracast show and forum) want a better-informed listenership, one that gives little to no credence to the numerous hoaxes and fraudsters out there, then the occasional times where one of these past guests or overt frauds is mentioned, they should be identified by name so listeners can be made aware of who they are and investigate their dubious claims, if they so choose, to determine the veracity of those claims. So what if that causes someone to go investigate Billy Meiers' claims via Michael Horn's website (as I did), or read up more on Sean David Morton (as I did), or make an effort to get more information regarding the "Emma Woods" debacle (as I did)? To me, that's the whole point of the show, to be a launching point for expanded thinking and research about a wide range of topics relating to the paranormal. One cannot do that if controversial individuals and topics are not discussed openly on the show. Doing so allows the listener to make the choice about what to follow up on to get more familiar with what that particular person, or discussion, was about. They can't do that if they aren't "named."
If the topic, person or event is something the hosts are tired of talking about, say Ray Stanford or the BeWitness event in Mexico City for examples, then the solution is quite simple - don't bring it up. PERIOD. Ahhhh, but they do, constantly, so stop the silly games and just say it.
Finally, it has been lamented on the show that many of these fraudsters and hoaxes seem to always find new life, I would assume by new people being drawn into the paranormal arena because of a budding curiosity. Yet without a scorecard of who the "bad actors" are in this field and who the people with credibility are, it can be a long, hard, zig-zag of an education. At least that's been the kind of road I've traveled. To me, part of what makes The Paracast great is that Gene Steinberg, and his myriad hosts over the years, have made a commitment that the show be a platform for inquisitiveness with integrity. As I'm sure you'll agree, they usually won't put on just anybody with a good story (Derrel Sims, notwithstanding) and they fairly consistently apply logic and critical-thinking when questioning their guests about claims that are made. That's why the show is as good as it is. That's why you, me, Burnt, RPJ, CGL, Ufology, Constance and many others support the show and participate on the forums. It would be helpful, even in a small way, to many listeners of the show, especially ones not immersed in the forum or other paranormal podcasts, to be educated along the way about not only the good guys, like Christopher O'Brien, Micah Hanks, Curt Collins, etc. but the shady characters and dubious events as well. Both are equally important for listeners to know about, so that perhaps this complex journey of enlightenment can be made just that much simpler, especially at the outset, when trying to make sense of all the noise that's out there surrounding paranormal, high strange and UFO-related topics. But that requires naming names.
Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful response to my original post and just wanted to address your post and hopefully clarify my thoughts. Have a nice weekend.
Cheers,
CJ
