Isn't it interesting....

[ProphetofOccam]

Unfortunately there are times when offending people is an unfortunate side effect of a frank discussion, and if someone is too blimpish to remain graceful under pressure ( I use the word "blimpish" because I think blimps are cool ), then it's reasonable under the circumstances to consider the offense to be a no-fault incident ( I use the phrase "no-fault" in a manner similar to matrimonial law where no blame is placed on either party ).

I guess, but feeling right just isn't that important to me. I'd rather just be chill and get along. We all like the same shit, there's no reason to go to conversational war over it, when we could be exchanging conversational chuckles. If people did half the shit they do on the internet in a bar, they'd be dead. The difference isn't just the fear of death, though, but when you're face to face with other people, it's more interesting to be friendly and empathetic than to self perceive as correct or righteous (which, ultimately, is all that really ends up happening). The only kind of righteous I'm interested in is the kind discussed by Ninja Turtles.

 

[Randall]

If people did half the shit they do on the internet in a bar, they'd be dead.

To come into a forum and lob some contentious comment or another, and then expect anyone who takes exception to it to just "chill" is a passive-aggressive and provocative act. In reality it's far from the façade that is displayed on the surface. Some challenge should be expected and unless the response is something disproportionately abrasive, there is no moral ground to condemn it. If you're only interested in exchanging chuckles, then you can always stick to posting innocuous jokes in the Official Funny Stuff thread.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

To come into a forum and lob some contentious comment or another, and then expect anyone who takes exception to it to just "chill" is a passive-aggressive and provocative act. In reality it's far from the façade that is displayed on the surface. Some challenge should be expected and unless the response is something disproportionately abrasive, there is no moral ground to condemn it. If you're only interested in exchanging chuckles, then you can always stick to posting innocuous jokes in the Official Funny Stuff thread.

Contentious? When?

If you're implying that statement was directed at you, or anyone in particular, you're apparently new to the internetz.

Firstly, welcome.

Secondly, it's a pretty common commentary on the social interaction that takes place in anonymous environments on the internet. It was more a comment regarding Chris's idea for the way skeptics should, apparently, behave. Many people do the things he's talking about in other forums, but they wouldn't behave that way in person. They behave differently for a number of reasons, one being that it's difficult to feel empathetic towards nameless, faceless conceptualizations that say things that one doesn't like.

Some have used the internet long enough to see through that, and understand what is and is not socially acceptable behaviour. There should be no difference between the way one acts on the internet and the way they act in any other public forum. Unfortunately, many people are not as amicable when anonymous -- or not in the presence of others -- as they probably are in person.

I just don't think most people are looking to wreak the emotionally charged and pointless havoc that Chris is talking about. There's nothing to be gained, for anyone.

 

[Randall]

Contentious? When?

Let me preface by saying that when I use the word "contentious comment, I mean it in its primary and widest sense; specifically, any comment that is likely to evoke a contrary response from people of differing views, and not that there was necessarily any intent beforehand to instigate a hostile argument ( although if there was such an intent that would also count).

contentious con·ten·tious [kən ténshəss] adjective:

1. creating disagreement: causing or likely to cause disagreement and disputes between people with differing views. - Encarta
2. causing, involving, or characterized by argument or controversy: contentious issues. - Dictionary.com

In this context, there are numerous comments, and they've served to spark several discussions that IMO have included very positive exchanges. But let's take one recent example and use it to illustrate what I'm getting at. You said:

I am both a skeptic and, in another decade, fancied myself a debunker. These days, I have a different perception of this stuff ... That's not to say that I think a lot of what is classified as paranormal is true - I don't. I've seen enough to feel that I know it isn't. I'm using the word "feel" to avoid offending people.

Not that you haven't noticed, but this is a forum that focuses on paranormal phenomena, largely from the point of view that such phenomena exist and deserve further study. There is also a preponderance of participants who have had personal experiences and therefore believe from the evidence of their own senses that paranormal experiences are true. It is also common knowledge that skeptics have a reputation for mocking and ridiculing people who hold paranormal beliefs.

The above environment is obviously rife with views that differ significantly from yours, but you choose enter and declare yourself a skeptic ( essentially putting anyone who is paying attention on alert ), tell us you don't believe a lot of what is classified as paranormal is true ( which implies that those who do believe aren't being truthful ), declare your reason to be based on your personal experiences ( which implies that the experiences of the people here don't count ), and then make a point of saying you don't want to offend anyone ( which means you know there is a high chance you probably are offending someone, but in case they didn't get that the first time, you are removing all doubt ).

The above fulfills all criteria required to validate the example as contentious ( whether intentional or not ). On it's own it may be contentious but it's not really offensive or objectionable. However you don't stop there. You take it another step by adding provisions that passively deny people their right to challenge your statement by dispensing with any debate on the grounds you'd rather just, "chill and get along". To use your analogy to a real life situation, it's like walking into a clubhouse belonging to a rival gang, announcing politely you think they're all full of crap, and then expecting them all to either just "chill" or take it as a joke. Surely you can see how doing that could really annoy some people ( even if it isn't what you had actually intended ).

I hope that clarifies things. If you just want to hang out and not discuss the issues you bring up, then don't bring them up in the first place. If you do initiate a discussion by posting some comment or another, be prepared for a response, and recognize that we have every right to expect an answer.

 

[Burnt State]

I actually think that the bar analogy is a good one. The more I read through the forum and look at threads involving members whose perspectives I find interesting the more I'm fascinated at how quickly conversation devolves into conflict. Civil conversation, and even commentary on its lack thereof, gets deconstructed into passive aggressive conflict. That wouldn't happen to people face to face meeting for the first time over beer and stumbling into a paranormal conversation.

There doesn't seem to be much forward momentum at all when conflct is always the end result. Chris previously stated he's going to drop the 'Stanford's got the smoking gun' comments so let's get past the bitterness. I'm not sure what a debunking troll is ether, but extremism in any direction is always non-productive, that's for sure. Good intentions should sometimes just be taken as that and nothing more.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

it's a pretty common commentary on the social interaction that takes place in anonymous environments on the internet...Many people do the things he's talking about in other forums, but they wouldn't behave that way in person. They behave differently for a number of reasons, one being that it's difficult to feel empathetic towards nameless, faceless conceptualizations that say things that one doesn't like...There should be no difference between the way one acts on the internet and the way they act in any other public forum. Unfortunately, many people are not as amicable when anonymous -- or not in the presence of others -- as they probably are in person.

Yeah. I stand behind what I do and my stated opinions in regards to my work and my thinking. And you can quote me, cite me, goad me and (if I agree) you can broadcast it to whomever. I have always disliked the anonymity of those who hide behind feigned on-line personas—emboldened to say what they really feel but in many cases, don't have the balls to speak their stand in person.

I truly appreciate all those (like Lance) that post on (controversial subject) web forums that have the balls to use their real names and claim their POV. I like Lance, now that we've spoken. I had a fun time actually interacting—real-time w/ that voice behind all those passive/aggressive posts and participating in a casual, earnest 3-way conversation w/ the REAL guy. He comes across quite different in real-time—like a real person who is not posturing on the web-stage for the benefit of some imagined audience.

I dislike "game playing" and don't take people/posters seriously when I don't know who they are and when I sense that their online persona does not accurately reflect how they would conduct themselves in-person.

I invite anyone on the Paracast forum that considers themselves to be a "skeptic," to band together and propose a roundtable episode on a topic of your choosing to be taped and broadcast on the show. YOU pick the topic—we'll supply differing viewpoints and moderate the dialog. Get creative naysayers , let's educate folks...

 

[Randall]

Yeah. I stand behind what I do and say about my work and opinions. And you can quote me and (if I agree) broadcast it to whomever ...

I think writing is a more accurate reflection of who I am than most of the everyday conversations I have. I don't use writing as a way to hide who I am but as a way to express it more completely. Often when I'm with other people I do a lot more listening than talking, usually because I don't like making offhanded comments about things that I haven't had time to reflect on or lookup the facts for. I rarely use foul language in person, just like I rarely use it in my writing. Therefore I don't need to worry that I might fly off the handle and provoke some kind of violence, and if the people I'm with can't maintain a civil conversation, I don't waste my time on them. I'll walk away before I engage in violence, but on the rare occasion when I have been cornered, I've either been fortunate or it's not gone so well for the other guy. Now as I get older, I just hope I never find myself in another one of those situations. But at the same time I'm not going to remain silent under threat unless the situation is really serious ... like being taken hostage by some crazy religious wackos.

 

[stonehart]

Yeah. I stand behind what I do and my stated opinions in regards to my work and my thinking. And you can quote me, cite me, goad me and (if I agree) you can broadcast it to whomever. I have always disliked the anonymity of those who hide behind feigned on-line personas—emboldened to say what they really feel but in many cases, don't have the balls to speak their stand in person.

I truly appreciate all those (like Lance) that post on (controversial subject) web forums that have the balls to use their real names and claim their POV. I like Lance, now that we've spoken. I had a fun time actually interacting—real-time w/ that voice behind all those passive/aggressive posts and participating in a casual, earnest 3-way conversation w/ the REAL guy. He comes across quite different in real-time—like a real person who is not posturing on the web-stage for the benefit of some imagined audience.

I dislike "game playing" and don't take people/posters seriously when I don't know who they are and when I sense that their online persona does not accurately reflect how they would conduct themselves in-person.

I invite anyone on the Paracast forum that considers themselves to be a "skeptic," to band together and propose a roundtable episode on a topic of your choosing to be taped and broadcast on the show. YOU pick the topic—we'll supply differing viewpoints and moderate the dialog. Get creative naysayers , let's educate folks...

Now there is a very good idea for a show.. I endorse this product, but I am neither a true skeptic or believer.

Having said that it would still be very cool to involved.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

The above environment is obviously rife with views that differ significantly from yours, but you choose enter and declare yourself a skeptic ( essentially putting anyone who is paying attention on alert ), tell us you don't believe a lot of what is classified as paranormal is true ( which implies that those who do believe aren't being truthful ), declare your reason to be based on your personal experiences ( which implies that the experiences of the people here don't count ), and then make a point of saying you don't want to offend anyone ( which means you know there is a high chance you probably are offending someone, but in case they didn't get that the first time, you are removing all doubt ).

I think the problem we end up having, usually, is that you run things that are being said through an exclusively personal filter.

In this case, for example, I think your take one what i said is a little left field. I don't think healthy minded people think that the mere fact that i am a skeptic challenges their truthfulness or intelligence in anyway (as I actually questioned before, only to have it denied, interestingly enough). I apologize to the folks with less than healthy esteem who might feel that way, but they need to understand that, when someone disagrees with them, it just means they have different ways of thinking. I don't think it's a realistic issue, or even needs mention, but I don't think any of you are stupid liars.

I did include the word "feel" in my expression of my personal views, but that's to make it clear that the existence of that fact is not intended as a direct challenge; however, I actually believe than an extreme minority in the forums take the mere existence of skeptics as a personal assault.

All the same, sorry to the folks who do feel that way. Though, that's not really how that works.

It is possible, in the written word, to add inflection and tone to things where they don't actually exist. It's also entirely possible to invent a personality for an anonymous voice. Taken with the difficulty most people experience when attempting to empathize with the faceless, misunderstandings are bound to happen.

In keeping with Chris's idea that everyone should have a name and a face, here's mine. I don't necessarily agree that everyone should use their real names as forum and/or chat handles, because that's fuckin' boring. However, it's definitely a good idea to tear down the walls inherent in the conditions of anonymous interaction.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I invite anyone on the Paracast forum that considers themselves to be a "skeptic," to band together and propose a roundtable episode on a topic of your choosing to be taped and broadcast on the show. YOU pick the topic—we'll supply differing viewpoints and moderate the dialog. Get creative naysayers , let's educate folks...

Skeptic's Guide to the Universe has that market pretty cornered, but it could be interesting. My personal interest in the paranormal revolves around the stories, myths and characters that make up the overall culture, so i don't often favour the skeptic episodes. You guys had fun with Lance, though, and that was a pleasant listen.

 

[Muadib]

I just want to say that I agree with Occam on this one, people can disagree with you on certain issues and not think that you're an idiot or crazy or anything derogatory. In fact, when I think someone is an outright crazy idiot, I say it, and I've only done that with one or two members of this site and that's because that's how I think that they come across. So if I disagree with you, it's probably on your interpretation of the facts or the lack of evidence for your particular claim, it has nothing at all to do with me personally thinking you're an idiot or deluded, unless I say it does. Furthermore, I don't think anyone here expects anyone to change their mind based on what anyone tells them on an internet forum, I know I don't, if I engage in a debate with someone it's usually just to try and get them to see another side of the issue.

On the issue of being anonymous, anyone who I know from this site and know they aren't a crazy whackadoo, can contact me if they want my personal info. I have a problem with just anyone being able to find out who or where I am by signing up to an internet forum. Once you put something out there in public on the internet, it's there forever and when it comes to the paranormal, there's no question it attracts some crazies, so if you want to know who I am, just ask me in private and we can work it out. I'm a private citizen, I don't write books and I don't make claims that rely on my own personal credibility, and anything I say to anyone on this forum, I will say to them in person.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I have stated some contradictory opinions on Ray Stanford myself.

At first (well after the Chris Lambright) episode I was pretty annoyed with Ray with the tantalising news of what he claims to have found out and what he has on film etc. But after more thought I was thinking that it isn't the fact that Ray to date refuses to 'publish' all this, for me it's only the fact that he has mentioned anything at all.

We can make an analogy with a songwriter in a bar telling his friends he is working on the greatest 3minute pop song ever - but it's not finished yet. All his music buddies ask him ' hey c'mon, at least sing us the chorus, hum the melody' etc but the songwriter says, 'no, not until it's finished, it will spoil it otherwise.' - you get the idea. The only real sin was telling all us rabid ufo-lovers something that was always destined to get us salivating. We can hardly be blamed for continually asking.

One more analogy (if needed) is like an inventor, he thinks he has the greatest invention and let's slip to a few friends etc but he refuses to divulge it's purpose. It's annoying but understandable.

I don't have any problem with skepticism, I do with debunkers. And I define debunkers as people who will set out to disprove something, regardless of whether it is actually true or not. A skeptic, I think, is just someone with enough common sense not to swallow that which definitely requires proof.

 

[Wade]

Not that anyone asked me for my two cents but I've never had much problem with taking some things on faith. I do have some parameters of course, and will not wholeheartedly unconditionally apply that same standard to everything but it's just that I've never been one of those need to hear it, see it, touch it, taste it, type of guys, I'm quite willing to accept the existence of other dimensions even though as far as I know, they have yet to be seen, felt, heard or smelled. I guess these dimensions have to exist in order for our universe to make sense, o.k. I suppose a more pragmatic person would point out that mathmatical equations "prove" at the very least the potentiality of these multiple universes, I would ask (respectively of course) if someone came up with a mathmatical equation to show the liklihood that ufos exist would that make it more palatable?

I Still don't know how to define myself ...except I love being considered a satirist, as far as I'm concerned there are few if any sacred cows in this field or any other. Maybe I'm a mongrel, part kool-aid drinker part skeptic. For that matter why define myself at all, I'm me. The only thing I would be willing to debate...even though I have no interest in that not is it why I signed on...is for the existence of the concept of synchronicity or even just plain multiple interrelated coincidences because not a week goes by that I don't experience them. I'm not even sure I should consider it paranormal, it seems completely normal to me, but it was after I heard of these coincidences being tied to things like ufos or mothman that I felt I needed to get down to the source of these coincidences, be it jung, et or atech (from cryptoterrestrials of course ) and hence I signed on here because chris's book was among the first I read about this subject, o.k...third, but just know that the santa monica library has this book because I kept badgering them to buy it...And the reason for this instead of outright buying it is I knew that I was about to get really absorbed into this field and sucked into something that could get really expensive for me in order to purchase every book that seemed revelent to me, so if any local libraries did not have them I would order then through worldcat.The only exception was that the university of santa barbara had the only local copy of charles bowden's 1973 humanoid report and it was in bad shape, they wouldn't release it so I had to go up there, and imho it wasn't worth it. fwiw even though I had some "contact" with this phenomena as a kid I never really had a lot of interest in it until a few years ago, it was about the time keel died and I had a veeerrry interesting summer which I wrote about under under personal experiences thread i.e. the insistent little girl post and the mantis post.

 

[Randall]

I think the problem we end up having, usually, is that you run things that are being said through an exclusively personal filter.

So what? We all experience life through our own "personally exclusive filters". However if by that comment, you are also implying by that statement that I lack sufficient objectivity, you had better think again. The evidence does not support that conclusion.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

it was about the time keel died and I had a veeerrry interesting summer which I wrote about under under personal experiences thread i.e. the insistent little girl post and the mantis post.

Can you link me to the thread if you can find it? I have been going through reading many of those, but I've not yet come across it.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

So what?

Ah. Well, regardless, nobody thinks you're stupid, lying, or insane. Do whatcha' do.

 

[Randall]

Ah. Well, regardless, nobody thinks you're stupid, lying, or insane. Do whatcha' do.

"Ah ... ( what exactly )? If I'm in "left field" as you put it, it's because that's exactly where you hit the ball, and I just happened to catch it. You asked how your comment qualified as contentious, and I provided an answer with reasons, independent references, and your own statement. Therefore my "personal filter" as you put it, is one that operates by filtering out the subjectivity leaving the essential factors on the table. You don't seem to want to recognize that those factors are valid, let alone address them directly. Instead you insert more innuendo, like you don't think. "healthy minded people think that the mere fact that i am a skeptic challenges their truthfulness ..." or ... "I apologize to the folks with less than healthy esteem who might feel that way."

It looks to me like you've taken what I've said out of context and added your own twist to justify another one of you passive-aggressive disingenuous apologetic flames. I'll grant that maybe you don't even realize you're doing it because in your mind you don't intend for it to come out that way; but when you put something into words, they have very specific meanings, and unlike an in-person discussion they can be reviewed. So by all means ... take another opportunity to review:

"I am both a skeptic and, in another decade, fancied myself a debunker. These days, I have a different perception of this stuff. That's not to say that I think a lot of what is classified as paranormal is true -- I don't. I've seen enough to feel that I know it isn't. I'm using the word "feel" to avoid offending people.

• In the above quote you don't merely declare yourself to be a skeptic, but also a past debunker, and that you don't believe a lot of paranormal phenomena is true, and you're saying it in a forum with a reputation for people who are believers in paranormal phenomena. So the actual circumstance is nothing like what you suggested they were in your response.
• Furthermore, the issue isn't about whether or not people are "healthy minded", but whether or not under the actual circumstances, your statement qualifies as contentious given the explanation ( including independent references ) provided.
• Your post was directed at no one in particular and therefore applied to everyone in general, which makes it even more relevant to the illustrative example I posted. It also renders the comment you made below completely pointless:

If you're implying that statement was directed at you, or anyone in particular, you're apparently new to the internetz.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I think it'd just be a lot easier for everyone if you refrained from reading my posts, I guess. Nobody agreed with you. Nobody sees it that way. I'm not getting into this ridiculous garbage with you, again, as it's not very fun. You seem to be incapable of having any other conversation with me, and you're completely indifferent in regards to how many threads you've got to derail to take the conversation there. If I'm that much of a fuckface, just don't read my shit. Yeah, yeah, you're the bigger man and something about maturity and conversation, or whatever. I know. However, since you're incapable of allowing me to participate in threads without venom, I really think it'd be best if you granted me my childish peace.

Other than that, have fun!

 

[Wade]

Can you link me to the thread if you can find it? I have been going through reading many of those, but I've not yet come across it.

I posted them in doc forum as they are pretty lengthy

Synchronicity and the Mantis | The Paracast Community Forums

the insistent little girl | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I posted them in doc forum as they are pretty lengthy

Thanks, man