Nancy Talbot - Still in Hall of Fame?

[Schuyler]

* Work - Did you meet your objectives or not? There is no maybe.

Yes there is. I met some of them, but not all of them. Here's why I didn't meet number three. Blah blah blah. Besides, in my field and position you can meet your objectives and still get in trouble for not having the proper attitude. And then there's the politics. Some incompetent bastard who has the Director's ear can really screw your career up. Funny thing, the Director screwed up and was the one who got fired. Tables can turn in a hurry!

* School - Did you pass the test or not? Did you graduate or not?

I passed most of them. I sucked at math, but I had enough credits to graduate and my GPA was tolerable. Turned out later in life I was very good at math, but that was because I had to learn regression equations to program a computer. Math turned out to be fun after all! Who woulda thought?

* Did you pass your driver's test or not?

I did, but I lost 4 points because I screwed up the parking and the examiner said I was too far in the middle of an unmarked road even when there was no opposing traffic, which I thought was a little unfair.

* Did you pay your taxes or not?

Actually, I was behind, but I managed to get them paid - with pennies - the day before foreclosure proceedings were to start. They weren't very happy, but pennies are legal tender so they had to take them.

* Were you speeding or not?

Technically, yes, but if you look at the law it allows you to exceed the speed limit for short periods of time. There was this big truck, see? And I felt it was safer for me to get ahead of him on this bridge rather than risk hitting him if he were beside me. Going slower was not an option because it was a BIG truck and I was being tailgated. It was a tough call, but I had to do something to prevent an accident. The ticket was dismissed.

* How in dippety doo did this ever get elevated to a discussion about humanity? Swift as a poet -- of course he would wax philosophical. Had he leaned toward logic philosophy instead of ethics in your quote, he would have chosen one side or the other.

Because Nancy Talbott is a person just like everyone else. She is not a yes/no, black/white character. She has done great work in one field and poor work on another. the latter does not simply discount the former.

* Was Richard Nixon good or bad?

He was both. History will judge him much less harshly than we do now, especially compared to his bungling inept successor. (Not Ford, the other guy.)

* Was John Wilkes Booth good or bad?

Clearly that is a political issue, the answer to which depends on whose side you are on. This is an excellent example, btw, of why judging in a binary fashion is suspect.

* Was Adolph Hitler good or bad?

Bad, of course, unless you are a Nazi, in which case he is a hero.

* Erich von Däniken, good or bad?

Interesting case. He's kind of a wide-eyed believer who managed to bring out a subject to the masses heretofor less discussed. He's an embezzler, too, of course. So, some of both.

* I didn't establish the rules.

Yeah, you kinda did here, Bob. You've decided it's a black/white world and you judge accordingly. That's your perfect right. It's your poll. It's your point of view, and I accept that it is your point of view. I'm simply arguing that your point of view is not the only one, and that the world is actually in color with many shades of grey. Also, and please don't take this negatively, you don't really get to choose who is in or out of the Hall of Shame. It's kind of a moot point.

I believe you and I agree far more than we disagree and I have said so publicly on another thread how I respect your posts. Can we just agree to disagree here and move on? I understand your point of view; I wish you would understand mine. But if not, okay. Nothing I can do about it and it doesn't really matter in the long run.

Peace.

 

[bobheck]

*
Because Nancy Talbott is a person just like everyone else. She is not a yes/no, black/white character. She has done great work in one field and poor work on another. the latter does not simply discount the former.

Peace.

We can certainly agree to disagree and I too am most respectful of you and what you contribute here.

But I simply must respond to the item quoted above, because it is crucial. The great and poor work that Nancy did are in the SAME field - crop circles. Not two different fields, as you implied. There is no latter and former. It is the same field. That is why it is so difficult for me to accept her crop circle work.

Peace also.

 

[bobheck]

If someone doesn't easily fit into one or the other, shouldn't they just be excluded altogether? Or... you could have a Hall of Questionable or something where you identify why they may qualify for both. It is likely fair to say that if you qualify for the Hall of Shame, your work warranting kudos should be held in the questionable category anyway.

Well, I was trying to stay within the parameters of the current site which is Fame or Shame (which is why I was hell bent on yes or no). But, if the site owner (which Schuyler ever so delicately reminded everyone was not ME), decides to put a "Questionable" category up, I think that would be fine.

 

[Schuyler]

If someone doesn't easily fit into one or the other, shouldn't they just be excluded altogether? Or... you could have a Hall of Questionable or something where you identify why they may qualify for both. It is likely fair to say that if you qualify for the Hall of Shame, your work warranting kudos should be held in the questionable category anyway.

You know, that's not a bad idea, kind of a WTF?!? Hall. for people who have done what is considered good work, then gone native. Can anyone else think of people who have clearly gone this route? Bill Moore, maybe?

 

[aNorthernSoul]

You know, that's not a bad idea, kind of a WTF?!? Hall.

Ha ha ha! When I was trying to think of a name for it, that was exactly my first thought too!

 

[russhorseman]

Forum Friends,

Just some quick thoughts about the debate over "Hall of Fame" members and what happens when a member...messes up(?).

I think the criteria for getting in the HoF should be strict, understandable, and unassailable. For example, I've voted to leave Nancy in due to her outstanding scientific contributions to the crop circle enigma. I think we all can agree with her credentials there.

In my opinion, once you're in the Hall, you're in the Hall to stay. This eliminates the need to constantly reevaluate Hall members for their eligibility based on where their current research or belief system takes them. You'd go crazy trying to keep on top of that. Again, let's put the plaque up on the wall noting their specific HoF accomplishments and leave it at that.

However...

We do need a Hall of Shame as well. The HoS is where we can list the proven bad guys and gals, and on their plaques we can note that their charades fooled many Hof members, and list those HoF'ers who were taken in.

Nancy is a perfect case study for this system. Who can recognize great crop circle researchers and not include her? Yet if and when Robbert is officially renounced by this community (I'm in that camp), she would have to be noted in his HoS blurb as one of his staunchest supporters.

This keeps her in the Hall of Fame, yet recognizes (in the HoS) that she may have been deceived.

Let's say, for example, that tomorrow, Nancy states publicly that she renounces Robbert. If she had been removed from the HoF, does that mean that she gets back in? I think the system I describe eliminates the revolving door and appeases both camps by putting pertinent information in both Halls.

Definitely not a perfect system by any stretch, I understand.

Have at it, gang!

 

[russhorseman]

We can certainly agree to disagree and I too am most respectful of you and what you contribute here.

But I simply must respond to the item quoted above, because it is crucial. The great and poor work that Nancy did are in the SAME field - crop circles. Not two different fields, as you implied. There is no latter and former. It is the same field. That is why it is so difficult for me to accept her crop circle work.

Peace also.

I disagree, Bob. Granted, there is a crop circle overlap, but Nancy is straying well into areas outside her "comfort zone," like orbs, precognition, and psychic projection.

 

[bobheck]

Just as an observation -- although we do not have a large population of votes yet in the poll, the dispersment of the votes we do have certainly supports the lively discussion in this forum.