Ted Roe of NARCAP — June 8, 2014

[SRL+]

Goodnight Randall.

 

[manxman]

And Ted Roe is no longer around to give his opinion, thanks to you.

**** Ted Roe.

SRL your posts here today only had ONE purpose, and for a little while he bit, but for the record i think Randal has been very patient with you, if you dont like Randal put him on ignore, it's not rocket science.

 

[Tyger]

**** Ted Roe.

SRL your posts here today only had ONE purpose, and for a little while he bit, but for the record i think Randal has been very patient with you, if you dont like Randal put him on ignore, it's not rocket science.

Randall Murphy has only one purpose - which should be clear. Those of us who have had to deal with his trolling - and there are many - and the number grows - have been 'patient'. The ease with which Randall destroys threads should not be tolerated imo.

SRL should be commended for calling Randall out. Few posters do and so his nonsense goes on-and-on.

"***** Ted Roe"? Really? This thread is about Ted Roe - and Randall Murphy did every baiting trick he had to get SRL to make this thread about Randall Murphy. You think that's okay?

 

[manxman]

Tyger Gene is the 'eye' in the sky, he WILL sort randal, if he feels randal needs sorted.
Use the ignore feature, then your constant whining could cease, Randal's ''nit-picking'' is actually true skepticism in practise.

 

[Tyger]

Tyger Gene is the 'eye' in the sky, he WILL sort randal, if he feels randal needs sorted.
Use the ignore feature, then your constant whining could cease, Randal's ''nit-picking'' is actually true skepticism in practise.

Whining? I dare call Randall out on his very obvious nonsense in one hour and that is 'whining'? I am one of the few who do name Randall's nonsense. What Randall does is very far from "true skepticism". He is a rude poster to put it kindly. But of course I have been so relentlessly trolled by this poster that I am a bit sensitive, I'll grant you that. Let's just say, there are many who are fed up with him. Whatever value he brings - and he does - is clouded by his lack of internet manners.

 

[manxman]

Tyger we are all different, somethings we agree on, somethings we do not.

What you consider trolling in Randal, is his desire to pin down everything HE does'nt understand or feels is incorrect assumption/belief.
Ive been around Randal for the best part of 4 years, and i agree e can come over abrassive.

but this for me sums him up just about spot on, it is all about 'correctness' pity you cannot see it.
he could cut others abit of slack i suppose, but he only thinks black and white, grey disturds him, he seeks clarity in everything.


Psychedelic_Alchemist said:

Your responses come across as being extremely pompous and dismissive, as if you know the answer to everything, which you've clearly demonstrated that you don't.

randal.....

That seems to be the typical response of those who can't or are unwilling to substantiate their position. If you can't address the issues, attack the poster.


peace.

 

[Tyger]

What you consider trolling in Randal, is his desire to pin down everything HE doesn't understand or feels is incorrect assumption/belief.

HE controls the dialog - and when he can't he gets unruly - and that's being kind.

Ive been around Randal for the best part of 4 years, and i agree e can come over abrasive.

When he doesn't get his way - when a poster doesn't play along with his side-step-shuffle - you bet he gets abrasive.

but this for me sums him up just about spot on, it is all about 'correctness' pity you cannot see it.

Thing is, it's not about correctness - or, yes, it is, but it's the literalist's correctness, the pedant's correctness. It's a correctness related to his very precise world view. His agenda becomes very clear as time wears on. He is trying to hammer everything into a square hole.

he could cut others abit of slack i suppose,

Better, he could stop his proselytizing for his world view.

but he only thinks black and white, grey disturds him, he seeks clarity in everything.

Clarity is not being sought. His intention is very clear - to bring the targeted poster to an admission of the errors of his ways and submit to Randall Murphy's view of the universe.

ufocurious.....Your responses come across as being extremely pompous and dismissive, as if you know the answer to everything, which you've clearly demonstrated that you don't.

You have incorrectly attributed this statement to UFocurious. She did not say this, another poster did: Psychedelic_Alchemist

randal.....That seems to be the typical response of those who can't or are unwilling to substantiate their position. If you can't address the issues, attack the poster. peace.

This is what Randall's typical response is when he is pointedly shown his nonsense to his face. It becomes a 'personal attack'. He never answers questions put to him. He always controls the dialog with his own carefully chosen points. If one does not play his game - out comes the accusation that one is not substantiating one's position. Its' a very deft tactic that he uses too great effect to confuse his (innocent) targeted victim.

 

[manxman]

Ive said how i see it, it was your own brand of internet bullying that made me reply, your personal clarion calls to have him banned, made in several posting's now, are frankly distasteful to me.

ps
ive corrected the quoter.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

OK folks stop with the personalities. If you don't want to read a member's posts, put them on Ignore. Thanks.

 

[Tyger]

OK folks stop with the personalities. If you don't want to read a member's posts, put them on Ignore. Thanks.

Understood - and agree.

Ive said how i see it, it was your own brand of internet bullying that made me reply, your personal clarion calls to have him banned, made in several posting's now, are frankly distasteful to me.

For clarity - I have never advocated that Randall be banned, and have in fact argued against it.

Things are not always what they seem. Context as all.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Your evasiveness and lack of constructive input is once again noted. I'm going to bed now. Go ahead and get your last word in.

"Why can't we all just get along?" —Rodney King (1992)

FWIW: I get out there and interact w/ people on a personal level. I find that when I pull back from the outside world and fixate on my fanciful 'net identity, I tend to lose my real "social" perspective and descend into a place of know-it-all self righteousness. But that's just me. That's one of the really fab things about my Grand Canyon tour work. I get out of "my" digital head, and meet new analog folks from all over the US & the world. But, again that's just me.

We all need creative outlets and that chance to be heard. And we all want to let people know where we stand on any and all issues and reality views and an accommodating 'bedside manner' and a casual manner goes a long way with the average person. Nobody likes to be badgered and co-opted, I know I don't!

 

[Randall]

"Why can't we all just get along?" —Rodney King (1992)

FWIW: I get out there and interact w/ people on a personal level. I find that when I pull back from the outside world and fixate on my fanciful 'net identity, I tend to lose my real "social" perspective and descend into a place of know-it-all self righteousness. But that's just me. That's one of the really fab things about my Grand Canyon tour work. I get out of "my" digital head, and meet new analog folks from all over the US & the world. But, again that's just me.

We all need creative outlets and that chance to be heard. And we all want to let people know where we stand on any and all issues and reality views and an accommodating 'bedside manner' and a casual manner goes a long way with the average person. Nobody likes to be badgered and co-opted, I know I don't!

I think you might find the Extreme Ball Lightning comment in the New Ted Roe Interview thread interesting. Skip the intro paragraph on the politics if you want to avoid more of what's gone on here. New interview with Ted Roe. | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Constance]

BTW, Marsha talked with Ted Roe for over an hour, and we are going to present a slightly trimmed version of that in upcoming episodes of API Case Files. I encouraged her to listen to the Paracast interview first, which hopefully helped.

Here's my question, which I know Ted doesn't have an answer for, but I hope to explore more in the future: why was there no ONE legitimate, non-suspect image from a cell phone camera of the O'Hare object? There must have been dozens of witnesses. I tell ya, it wakes my normally deeply slumbering inner conspiracy theorist.

It should.

 

[PCarr]

It should.

It's out now. To me, the most interesting thing he said about O'Hare is that there were pilots who reported seeing the object from the air.