We Are The Sceptics My Friend...

wet1

Wanderer
Registered Senior Member
This article came in today in my emails. Guess Malcolm says it very right here. Let's take an example at his observations of an evening among The Sceptics, as these humans call themselves.:)

For those who want to do a little reading and are really interested...;)

We Are The Sceptics My Friend.

(An Article by Malcolm Robinson on the British Sceptic society meeting of 20th February 2002.)

Someone once said, “I don’t believe in ghosts, but you’ll never get me in a haunted house” !! I quote these words quite often to show people what those skeptical of UFOs and the paranormal usually say to me when we are in discussion about such matters. They seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place and although they don’t believe in such things, far be it from me to tempt them to come on any haunting case with me !! This does not apply however to those more hardened sceptics who ‘would’ gladly come with me on any Investigations. UFO and Paranormal research ‘need’ sceptics, sceptics keep us on our toes and make sure our feet remain firmly on the ground. So I decided to jump over the fence and start walking into what some would say, was, ‘enemy territory’ I took in my very first sceptic meeting which was held at the Florence Nightingale pub near Waterloo Station London on a very cold and wind-swept February night.

The bar was full and the atmosphere was pleasant and after purchasing a drink at the bar, I made my way upstairs to where the main meeting was being held. A number of people had already taken their seats and more were coming in. Scott Campbell who apparently had been the main chairman in previous meetings broke into the chit chat and stated that he was now handing over the chairing of all further sceptic meetings to a colleague of his Nick Puller, Scott went on to thank everyone for making his time so enjoyable in hosting these lectures and wished his successor all the best in his new position. With that the new Chairman Nick Puller took over. Nick was a bubbly and very confident chairman and I liked his humour and style immensely. He started by talking about what had been featured in all the British press that day, ie, that at 8:02pm the world would witness a time that is truly, triply palindromic, for the time will read 20:02/20.02/2002. One can read the time, day and month backwards or forwards in numeric form and the result will still be the same, this Nick told us, won’t come round for another 111 years. Now not only this, he went on to say, that great Iranian psychic Uri Geller claims that at this precise time anyone who stares into his eyes on a photograph of him which is featured in the Sun newspaper, could make their dreams come true ! With that, and immense laughter coming from all quarters of the by now busy room, Nick pointed to the dart board where someone had placed the said copy of the Sun newspaper which featured the photograph of Mr Geller. Nick went on to say that he had been in Uri’s web site and began to read statements from it that he found amusing, this raised many laughs from the 45 or so individuals in the smoke filled room. With his jovial statements over and moving away from the dart board with Uri’s face, he then introduced the speaker for the evening Mr John Wall. John is a professional engineer who has been called a ‘sniveling, insinuating little worm’ by Graham Hancock, author of ‘Fingerprints of the Gods’. John was here to sceptically evaluate Hancock’s work and give an overview of the so called ‘Alternative History Movement’. He quickly wasted no time what so ever in firstly poking fun at Uri Geller and certain things that he stood for which again raised many laughs in the audience. Sitting there, I began to realise the stark difference between the society I run Strange Phenomena Investigations (SPI UK) and this one. We never poke fun publicly to individuals who are working in this field, at best we will state publicly that we disagree with them but don’t go so far as to publicly raise some laughs at the expense of them !!

The title of John’s talk was, ‘Alternative History and the Ma’ations From Cyberspace’ subtitled, (Weighing the evidence for alternative history). John was only about 5 or 10 minutes into his talk when Chairman Nick Puller stood up and stated for us all to be quite as it was now 8:02 and that palindromic moment that he earlier referred to was now upon us. He asked each and everyone of us to look at the dartboard with Uri Geller’s picture on it, and stare at Uri’s eyes. He asked out loud, “Can anybody see anything thing ? Is anyone getting anything”. It was hard to hear Nick for the loud belly laughs that came from all quarters of the room. As some people were wiping the tears away from their eyes, Nick quickly apologised to the speaker and asked that he resume his talk.

John then continued with references of ancient civilisations throughout the world by that early pioneer Erich Von Daniken. John showed how in his belief, Von Daniken’s work and conclusions were very flawed, he went on to say, “I personally would never trust anyone with the initials V.D. in a name”. Needless to say, this got the desired result and the audience fell about once more. To his credit, John Wall opened my eyes to a lot about the work of Graham Hancock and others. He spoke about the face on Mars and showed how very different that face was now owing to recent photographs taken of it by NASA. In 1976 the Mars face was clear as a bell, whilst fairly recently (and he showed the slide to prove it) you wouldn’t think it was a face at all, (if it ever was in the first place !) He presented some fascinating stuff about the pyramids of Egypt and told us that when he was there, the pyramids smelt of smelly western tourists !. John might have raced through his slides, but there was no denying he knew his stuff, and a subject like this requires more than the time that was allocated to him. His humour was admittedly at the plight of Graham Hancock and whilst as I mentioned earlier these two chaps may not get on and disagree about each other’s work, it’s nonetheless not professional to raise laughs at the expense of others. I also found John’s discussion on the famous Piri Reis map fascinating. He clearly showed that original peruser of that map, one Charles Hapgood, only saw what he wanted to see, for as John Walls pointed out, the map that Hapgood looked at clearly had the words ‘conjecture’ on it. ! At this point chairman Nick Puller said that there would be a short 10-minute break for everyone to refresh their glasses. Needless to say I partook of this clever advice, but before doing so got talking with a gentleman sat next to me. Like me, this was his first meeting and he said that he was on a search for the truth, “I think we all are”, I replied. This chap never came back for the second half !!

Resuming the talk John went into many many aspects of ancient civilisations, and brought up the name of Zechariah Sitchin. Sitchin too has claimed many wondrous things regarding ancient civilisations and men from the stars. Mr Wall stated quite categorically that in his opinion, Zechariah Sitchin was an out and out fraud and that he was more than happy to say slanderous things about him. The audience was then shown underwater walkways and steps, although as John pointed out these were all ‘Natural Formations’. Slide after slide after slide was shown by John all of ‘Natural Formations’ which Hancock and others believe were either terraces or walls of some ancient and forgotten culture. “Nonsense” said John. Looking at the slides of these underwater formations and hearing John point out the alternative explanation, well it seemed he had a point ! He then showed how flawed Hancock’s work was in regards to the three Egyptian pyramids and their alleged precision and alignment to the stars on Orion’s belt. Hancock, he said, misled his readers with shoddy assumptions, which were not quite true, whereupon John with his descriptions and drawings showed that there were no correlations from the pyramids to the stars. John called the book The Fingerprints of the Gods by Hancock as ‘Fog’ as presumably it clouded the reader’s judgement of matters fed to them by Hancock. John then had a go at Astrology and gave it as much credence as he did the works of Hancock.

‘Signs Of The Sky’ is a book by one Adrian Gilbert, it too, said John, is heavily flawed, as is ‘The Book Keeper Of Genesis’ by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval and also ‘The Message Of The Sphinx’. And in regards to Graham Hancock’s latest book, ‘Underworld’ well John thinks it would have been better called ‘Blunderworld’ and would make a great door stopper. He also said that Graham Hancock is an ancient world Jilly Cooper !! He didn’t stop with these ancient civilisation authors; a number of interesting articles on ancient civilisations have been featured in the Daily Mail of late and John asked the audience had anyone read the Daily ‘Fail’. So dear reader you can see the feelings that the guest speaker had towards his fellow ‘seekers of the truth’ !

All the above may sound very ‘picky’ by me and I really don’t mean it to be so. John Wall presented a thoroughly fascinating lecture which believe you me, made me sit up and think. We as researchers need to see what the sceptics are presenting, we need to attend their meetings and shouldn’t alienate ourselves from them. Far from it, we need to work side by side with them where we can both hopefully share in discoveries and put our hand on our heart when either ‘we’ or ‘them’ are wrong. My attendance at the sceptics in the pub (as they call it) meeting was an exercise for me to practice what I preach. I am always banging on about how there are two sides to every coin and for us never to take any story at face value. Good and honest research may well uncover hidden treasures, which will be a benefit to us all.

At the close of the meeting I spoke to chairman Nick Puller (calling him John, Oops how embarrassing!) where Nick proceeded to tell me that he had checked out the SPI web site and found it interesting but didn’t share my views on our research into the ‘Devon Case’. I expressed the view that this was not a conclusive and researched case, that article basically just told it as it was but I was impressed by his comments nonetheless.

All in all then my decision to attend the sceptic in the pub meeting was a good one, there were around 45 people there and the guest speaker was very knowledagble. And although they kept poking fun at other researchers which I felt was over the top, the evening was a thoroughly good exercise in ‘peering over the garden wall’ into the next door neighbours garden !!

The Sceptic in the pub meetings are usually held on the third Thursday of every month at the Florence Nightingale Pub, 199 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7UT. Tel: 020 7928 3027. Call organiser Nick Puller on 07740 450 950. Non sceptics are welcome. Founded in 1999 by Scott Campbell and run by Nick Puller, they Investigate claims relating to alternative medicines, psychic powers, pseudoscience, UFOs, alien abductions, creationism, fortean phenomena, cult religions, water-divining, lost civilisations, etc etc.

© Malcolm Robinson, Strange Phenomena Investigations (SPI UK). E-mail: spi_spi@hotmail.com 41 Castlebar Road, Ealing, London, England, W5 2DJ. Tel: 07949 178 835.


:cool:
 
Sounds like Malcolm is on The Path to Truth. It is good to see what appears to be a fairly open mind and a neutral approach to scepticism from somebody who is not a professed skeptic.

I think a few people here would do well to take a leaf from Malcolm's book.
 
Anecdotal evidence, even in Free Thoughts, is worth what you've paid for it.

What has anecdote done to change the minds of critical Skeptics? Or to convince non-skeptics they're actually thinking critically?
 
I am also skeptical of the reasoning abilities of those who author supposedly authoritative commentaries on significant events who, themselves, cannot properly punctuate their prose.
 
There we go G...

It is obvious that you didn't read the article. Is it possible for you to make one reply in which you say something relevant?

The posts made by you contain most of the times two lines with a stupid text. Always two till four 'replies' under eachother and nothing to say.

Typical narrow-minded behaviour.

You grow more sour and bitter by the day. Why don't you try a different view and an open mind G...
It'll do you good.

Try to make one, only one, real reply. I have never seen you posting an interesting thread or even an article. All I see on the boards is your worthless babbling.

Perhaps I can't express myself quite well in English, you can. It is your first language. My first language is Dutch. Do you speak and write Dutch G??

Try it, maybe than you'll find out it is not that easy to talk and write in another language, different from your first, native language.

You sound so full of yourself, haunting another member on the boards. My, my, what a big boy you are.

Grow up G, it's about time.

Every human being has the right to speak up for her/himself. Every human being has the right to see the world just the way she/he FEELS is the right way.

With or without evidence. Just respect each other and leave the other in her/his worth...
 
Perhaps I can't express myself quite well in English, you can. It is your first language. My first language is Dutch. Do you speak and write Dutch G??

Banshee,

I feel that you express youself exceptionally well in English. For the most part, better than a lot of British people.

There have been very very few times that I have had to ask you for clarification.

If I were to make one very small and constructive criticism, I would say that when posting very large blocks of text, it is easier on the eyes if the paragraphs are split into four or five lines each.
:)
Peace and Light.
 
Esp...

*If I were to make one very small and constructive criticism, I would say that when posting very large blocks of text, it is easier on the eyes if the paragraphs are split into four or five lines each*

You are right Esp. This article just was posted this way, because it came as an attachment and it was posted this long and the way it is, for a reason. Guess you get the point.;)

Thank you for the nice reply about my 'English expression'.

The article shows that the so called sceptics and the so called non-sceptics, can live together very well and without throwing mud to someone elses head all the time. Just listen to another human being and then you can decide to agree or disagree, or even have a good discussion. Sometimes you see 'things' in a different way when talking to someone with a another opinion. In any case it is important that you listen and have respect for someone elses view on life and don't take the other down, just because she/he lives her/his life in a different way. Always have an open mind for others, they have to live their lives too. THAT is the purpose and the goal of my posting this article... ;)

G...I await your comment on my reply above Esp's post...
 
Banshee,

Well, okay. It's free thoughts, it's your thread and you asked.

First, it was my mistake not to have been more specific in directing my punctuation-related statement squarely at Malcolm Robinson. That comment was never intended to slight your quite impressive English-as-a-second-language skills. (As for myself, I have been trying to master Spanish for 30 years and I still suck at it. I know from personal experience the difficulty of conquering another written and spoken language. I have no motivation to insult your English language abilities. The apparent slight was quite unintended.)

As for Mr. Robinson, author, his complete lack of command of syntax and punctuation -- the disciplined ability to express cogent ideas -- makes me question the veracity of his poorly presented conclusions.

You variously opined:

It is obvious that you didn't read the article.

It is obvious to me that I did.

Is it possible for you to make one reply in which you say something relevant?

To you? Perhaps not. We'll see.

The posts made by you contain most of the times two lines with a stupid text.

And here I labor under the belief that economy of words is appreciated by those without time to read volumes. :( I am dismayed that I am unable to make a salient point, argumentative or otherwise, constrained to only an economical use of words.

Typical narrow-minded behaviour.

Typical air-head critique.

You grow more sour and bitter by the day.

You haven't known me very long, have you? :)

Why don't you try a different view and an open mind G...

I long ago attempted to adopt your "different view" of reality. I still find it lacking in personal relevence. As for your ideas of open-mindedness, I might as well be a bottomless bucket -- accepting of everything, retaining nothing, and unable to fulfill the purpose of my better engineered cousins.

I have never seen you posting an interesting thread or even an article.

I've posted a variety of article excerpts and links when appropriate, many in threads in which you were a participant. What can I say? As for those articles being of no interest to you, well, what can I say?

All I see on the boards is your worthless babbling.

My aren't we sounding sour and bitter. :p

You sound so full of yourself,...

Why do you allow it to bother you?

...haunting another member on the boards.

Hmm. Paranoid and self-flattering. Who's sounding full of themself now?

Grow up G,...

Is this where I'm supposed to reply "Wise up, Banshee"? :rolleyes:

Every human being has the right to speak ... to see the world just the way she/he FEELS is the right way. With or without evidence.

I agree: everyone has the right to speak and the right to formulate a personal world view. However, within the public marketplace of ideas competing for substantive contribution to a community's world view, not all personal world views are of equal weight and merit. It may seem unfair but it has become the natural order of things to rely on evidence.

What can I say? The Universe is a harsh mistress.
 
Now, a proper request of me would be to ask:

Hey, Mr. G. Which conclusions/supportive evidence for the conclusions of Mr. Robinson do you find suspiciously unsubstantial?

Well, allow me to present them in order.

1.
Someone once said, “I don’t believe in ghosts, but you’ll never get me in a haunted house” !! I quote these words quite often to show people what those skeptical of UFOs and the paranormal usually say to me when we are in discussion about such matters.
2.
We as researchers...
3.
My attendance...was an exercise for me to practice what I preach.
4.
I am always banging on about ... us never to take any story at face value.
5.
...a thoroughly good exercise in ‘peering over the garden wall’ into the next door neighbours garden !!

Now you may say, "Mr. G. Those are not earth-shattering conclusions. Surely you missed the really important ones, like:

6.
I...realise the stark difference between the society I run Strange Phenomena Investigations (SPI UK) and this one. We never poke fun publicly (note: my italic emphasis)
7.
Needless to say, this got the desired result...
8.
...it’s nonetheless not professional to raise laughs at the expense of others.
9.
Like me, this was his first meeting and he said that he was on a search for the truth,...This chap never came back for the second half !!
10.
So dear reader you can see the feelings that the guest speaker had towards his fellow ‘seekers of the truth’ !
11.
John Wall presented a thoroughly fascinating lecture which believe you me, made me sit up and think.
12.
...we need to work side by side with them where we can both hopefully share in discoveries...Good and honest research may well uncover hidden treasures...
13.
...my decision to attend the sceptic in the pub meeting was a good one, there were around 45 people there and the guest speaker was very knowledagble.

As to:

1. How logical is it for someone to think that people who do not believe that ghosts exist also believe that houses can be haunted? How logical is it for the author to use this anecdote as his thesis at the beginning of his article's thesis paragraph?

2. Researchers, as in credentialed, credentialed peer-reviewed, researchers? Like Science has?

3. See (12.) and my response to (12.).

4. This sounds suspiciously like a claim to the requirement for empirical proof. Why am I skeptical about (4.) as claimed?

5. For the acquired ability to better appreciate the skeptic's point of view or for the acquisition of fodder for skeptic bashing?

6. At least skeptics make fun of people in daylight where said people have a chance to respond in their own defense. Skeptics seem far less patronizing, no?

7. Needless to say, what was the need to say "needless to say"?

8. Said by a professional researcher. See quote (6.) :rolleyes:

9. Truth? Oh, only the kind of truth he was wanting to find.

10. So, dear reader. You can see the feeling the author has towards his fellow skeptics.

11. So, why didn't the author ever mention the fascinating things he was compelled by the speaker to think about? What does this say about the author's underlying motivations?

12. To what purpose can "no evidence required" non-skeptics productively collaborate with "evidence required" skeptics? Mr. Robinson might have preached some specifics to support his apparent point.

13. Was it the 45 people who made the decision to attend good? Or was it the speaker's knowledge that made attending good? Or was it the never mentioned in the "article", meeting experience-induced, author-specific behavior modification worthy of writing about that made the decision to attend the meeting good?

Why am I skeptical that the author's anecdotal testimonial represents significant progress toward true meeting of disagreeing minds?
 
Last edited:
G...

A normal reply G...?

*To you? Perhaps not. We'll see.*

No, you cannot. It's a pity. You use a lot of words and babble a lot. Nothing is of any interest to me.

*Typical air-head critique.*

Of course, why doesn't that surprise me...

*You haven't known me very long, have you?*

My goodness, do you really have to ask???

*My aren't we sounding sour and bitter*

Yeah, play the words back on the writer, that's what you do best. Take some parts of a post and ridicule what is written down.

*Why do you allow it to bother you?*

You follow me in every thread I go G and don't deny it, for every thread I start and wherever I post, you show up with your 'smart' remarks. This is my last post to you. Go on and have fun. You won't bother me with it.

*Hmm. Paranoid and self-flattering. Who's sounding full of themself now?*

Whatever you want G, I am done with you.

*Is this where I'm supposed to reply "Wise up, Banshee"?*

No, never mind. It is a lost case. Why don't you stay in your own little world G and don't follow me around the boards any more. I have had it with you.

Questions: Why do you take my words to open a thread? Why do you use my words in a reply? Plagiarism? You are becoming good at that G. Why don't you take my words, which you quote, serious and have some more heart for the humans who die of starvation. And why don't you care a little more for the weak and the weary, in stead of making fun of the people who do care and do have heart for others and try to live their lifes well. Don't bother to answer. I won't be there any more.

Talking to you is just like talking to a brick wall.

*It may seem unfair but it has become the natural order of things to rely on evidence.
What can I say? The Universe is a harsh mistress*


Natural order? :p How confused can a person be. Natural? The Universe a harsh mistress? Well, that is typical for you to say something like that. It shows clearly that you have no clue how The Cosmos/Universe(s) work. You are completely lost in your world of evidence. Not everything is to be proven with evidence G. A lot is still a mistery, even to the best scientists and you know it. Goodbye G, live your life in peace and enjoy it, in balance with Earth, Nature and the Cosmos...

It's not easy, banging your heart to a mad bugger's wall... ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You know, Banshee. To the outside observer, it might seem that we are alike in several ways, you and I.

We are combative with members of the "opposite camp". We are stubborn in our estimation of our own world view. We rely on oblique and not so oblique public humiliation in our attempts at discrediting the other's world view.

Whereas that may bother you, I rather imagine good still results for those around us who only stand back to watch. Many good things throughout Nature happen at the confluence of opposing forces. Yes, and bad things, too.

I am of the view that non-violent struggle and conflict are not anethema to personal growth. What is personal growth without challenges to overcome?

You say I follow you around. I say you always seem to be everywhere I go, before I get there.

If you don't wish to invite my comments, don't follow me about by anticipating my every move -- unless you yearn for the challenge.

:)
 
I'm just going to step between you two Banshee and Mr.G just to lok at some points that haven't truly been discussed.

I know that Banshee has been quite open with her backgrounding, and that people are skeptical purely because she doesn't flaunt documents of evidence.

But what I really question, isn't the method of how you discuss these topics Mr. G but more of the matter, What is your Backgrounding?

Afterall I don't think we've heard of what field you are from, or what makes you so bitterly apposed and skeptical.

Perhaps a thread should be made to draw out the real Mr.G rather than hiding behind the Anonymity of a machine.

This piece isn't written as an attack Mr.G but more of a question to what/who you are and how you base your opinions. I hope you see them as fair questions because they are relevant as much to your skepticism as the evidence you always ask of from Banshee.
 
...people are skeptical purely because she (Banshee) doesn't flaunt documents of evidence.

Evidence has a tendency to discriminate what is credible and what is not. Evidence is vital to the survival of any theory. Evidence can a turn a skeptic into a believer. Have you figured out the connection here yet?

What is your Backgrounding?

I question your questions relevancy. If Mr. G were to admit he had no background whatsoever of any topic in which he participated, would you be more or less skeptical of his rationale? If Mr. G were to admit he was a car park attendant, yet was able to successfully debate astrophysics, would that make his responses any less credible? Or anyone else's for that matter?

Afterall I don't think we've heard of what field you are from, or what makes you so bitterly apposed and skeptical.

This is where I get a little confused. The term 'bitter' has been used against Mr. G time and again. Yet, I've never seen bitterness in his posts. Therefore, can someone point out which use of the word 'bitter' is being ascribed and directed?

(1) Difficult or distasteful to accept, admit, or bear: the bitter truth; bitter sorrow.(2) Proceeding from or exhibiting strong animosity: a bitter struggle; bitter foes.
(3) Resulting from or expressive of severe grief, anguish, or disappointment: cried bitter tears.
(4) Marked by resentment or cynicism.

Perhaps a thread should be made to draw out the real Mr.G rather than hiding behind the Anonymity of a machine.

To what ends? What would be the point? How would this change anything? Who cares who is the real Mr. G on this board? Only Mr. G I presume.

This piece isn't written as an attack Mr.G but more of a question to what/who you are and how you base your opinions. I hope you see them as fair questions because they are relevant as much to your skepticism as the evidence you always ask of from Banshee.

You're talking apples and oranges. There is no relevance whatsoever in how Mr. G formulates his opinions and the evidence Banshee cannot provide. Therefore, IMO, you ARE attacking Mr. G. Your statements are as relevant to him as anybody else. If Mr. G responds skeptically to the 'ooga booga' (luv that term) which permeates from Banshee's responses, it is only because he has beaten ME to the punch.

If not for the rational common sense which exudes from Mr. G's responses, 'ooga booga' would rule this board.

I hope I'm not out of line here with my response, Mr. G.
 
(Q)

I'm sure Mr.G is very happy with your Defensive post.
The only reason I wrote my post wasn't to discredit Mr.G but to get an understanding of what backgrounding and thoughts he might have cropped up with to take his apposing position.

Looking at your post though, Your definitely an Inflamist. (The art of inflaming something beyond what it would have been)

Quite simply, my post wasn't for an attack, perhaps I should of "Private Messaged" instead of posted, I was just intrigued.
Afterall, you can talk about a subject, but if you have no backgrounding in it, you can be called a "Crankpot".

You mention he could be a car park attendant and hold a conversation, but you neglect to understand that he would still be a Car parking attendant, he wouldn't be teaching about Physics at the local university unless he was qualified and could justly provide Evidence that he was qualified.

[Although these statements aren't actually directed at Mr.G but more about the points that (Q) raised]

Perhaps we should know more about (Q) after all you called youself that because you must have seen something in the attitude of the fictional character of startrek that mirrored your own persona.

That is just an observation.
 
I'm sure Mr.G is very happy with your Defensive post.

Hmmm, you're not with me here. My response was not in defense of Mr. G. Simply substitute the phrase "rational common sense" for his handle and you'll see the relevance of my post.

Looking at your post though, Your definitely an Inflamist.

'Inflamist' is not a word. Your use of the word 'apposed' is also incorrect. You probably mean 'opposed,' right? 'Crankpot'. You mean 'crackpot,' right? Sorry, I tend to get confused when the English language is strangled. You may want to study Mr. G's posts more closely to see how the English language is correctly manipulated. I myself have learned a thing or two.

You mention he could be a car park attendant and hold a conversation, but you neglect to understand that he would still be a Car parking attendant, he wouldn't be teaching about Physics at the local university unless he was qualified and could justly provide Evidence that he was qualified.

You've missed the point entirely. I'm not a carpenter, but I can build a house better then some carpenters. I'm not a teacher, but I can teach better than some teachers. You see, ones abilities can outweigh another's credentials.

Perhaps we should know more about (Q) after all you called youself that because you must have seen something in the attitude of the fictional character of startrek that mirrored your own persona

Sorry, I'm not familiar with startrek. I presume it's a TV show or movie or something. I don't watch TV and rarely if ever go to movies. You'll need to enlighten me. I find it interesting there is a fictional character ripping off my persona. I better call my lawyer. :D
 
(Q)

The english language is a Bastardised language, It constantly grows and weaves from year to year. The dictionary swells with definitions as the language itself isn't based on some programmatic understanding but more of the common usage among personkind.

To turn around and say "This is not a word" might seem correct to you and your dictionary, but I can assure you that eventually the word if not in use could become used and eventually find itself placed into a dictionary.

So your complaint about errors in spelling (And that of any comments of punctuation to others) isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

As for your explaination of "I can build a house although I'm not a carpenter and better than a carpenter", you have to look at certain other points you left out of the analogy.

Firstly the carpenter you are better than, must be a bad carpenter as Carpentry is a carpenters trade. If he is no good in his trade, then he should consider another job.
Secondly, a carpenter might have certain insurances that are taken out just incase what work he does isn't up to standard.
(If you have a carpenter that isn't covered don't use them)

This means although you might say "My house is better", if it falls down, its your own fault. To some they might say that a shed with overhanging boards and nails that are bent and out of place is a home from home, purely because it's their own work.

As for Startrek, I'm suprised you do not know. If you do know, your Sarcasm is dry.

The character Q is suppose to be this near godlike being, that can control time and space with a mear reasoning to. With the ability to manipulate form. Although the character is suppose to have a rather sadistic, sarcastic and very juvenile attitude, with a hughly eccentric ego.

I have to admit although my texts and concerns might seem inclined to a more argumentative frame of min, I have to admit I admire you (Q). :p

Your indeed an intriguing individual and one of a kind.
 
Banshee & MrG at war?

Originally posted by Mr. G


You say I follow you around. I say you always seem to be everywhere I go, before I get there.

If you don't wish to invite my comments, don't follow me about by anticipating my every move -- unless you yearn for the challenge.

:)

I think that the nature of this place we call the forums is just that. We all are motivated to visit, at some point, most of the individual threads (at least when they're new). The whole place is an unexplored mass of ideas each time you visit. It's in human nature.
If you have individual conflicts, there's always PM's. Try to forget them and work with us in the threads. :)
Please

Please don't belittle people's language skills. Remember; you speak English :)
 
So your complaint about errors in spelling (And that of any comments of punctuation to others) isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Yes and no. Yes, it is poor 'netiquette' to correct someone's punctuation, etc... No, your incorrect use of certain words inferred 'apposed' meanings which 'inflamate' my responses, thus making me appear a 'crankpot.'

As for your explaination of "I can build a house although I'm not a carpenter and better than a carpenter", you have to look at certain other points you left out of the analogy

Firstly, you did not quote me correctly. That is poor netiquette. Secondly, you missed the point, again. That is my fault for not taking the time to give my response much thought. C’est la vie.

The character Q is suppose to be this near godlike being, that can control time and space with a mear reasoning to. With the ability to manipulate form. Although the character is suppose to have a rather sadistic, sarcastic and very juvenile attitude, with a hughly eccentric ego.

I was right! Someone IS stealing my persona. :D

Your indeed an intriguing individual and one of a kind.

The Quintessential! ;)
 
Stryderunknown,

I'm just going to step between you two

No doubt, to save me? :rolleyes:

...people are skeptical purely because she doesn't flaunt documents of evidence.

People are skeptical specifically because they are able to critically think for themselves. Evidence has to be judged on its merit. An argument without substantiating evidence is an arguement without merit.

...what I really question,...Mr. G ...is your Backgrounding...I don't think we've heard of what field you are from, or what makes you so bitterly apposed and skeptical.

Obviously, I am bitter and apposed because I disagree with Banshee.

As for by background, permit me to preface my anecdotal response with this Banshee quote:

Well, that is typical for you to say something like that. It shows clearly that you have no clue how The Cosmos/Universe(s) work. You are completely lost in your world of evidence.

I laughed quite out loud at this gem. You see, I actually earned my living for 23 years teaching astronomy. :D :D

Against my better judgement -- on abhorance of Argument from Authority issues -- here's my synopsized background: I taught astronomy at a community college for 7 years. I was a planetarium director for 13 years. I was for more than a decade the director of a small astronomical observatory. I've been a 3rd and 6th grade substitute teacher. I was a credentialled member of the Press when I covered both the launch and landing of the first space shuttle misson. I've organized and lead two total solar eclipse expeditions and an expedition to the Peruvian Andes to study Halley's comet. I've hundreds of hours on-air experience before regionally broadcasting radio microphones and television cameras extolling the virtues of astronomy and space science. I've dozens of published pieces that have appeared in minor publications. My university degree was in Chemistry. I've a NASA lunar sample certification. I've had alloted time on telescopes as large as 72 inches in diameter. I've not taught for the last 4 years but for the last seven years I've owned and operated my own accounting business, with a client list exceeding 1000 last year. I'm not a rocket scientist but I do see dead people. :rolleyes:

I know its not all that much to work with but, hey, the Universe is a harsh mistress.

I am skeptical and dismissive because I have grown up under the emmensely successful scientific scheme of growth through falsification.

I hope you see them as fair questions because they are relevant as much to your skepticism as the evidence you always ask of from Banshee.

Fair questions, sure. Evidence equivalent to that which is constantly being sought from Banshee? Not even close.

My background data does nothing for an argument but prove that I've been around some block a couple times. It otherwise is useless for proving some other aspect of reality.

Similarly, the evidence frequently being requested of Banshee has nothing at all to do with her personal statistics. It does have everything to do with her abilites to empirically substantiate her multivarious claims to certain true knowledge supposedly in her possession.

The english language is a Bastardised language,...

Name a single language that hasn't/didn't evolve over time from colloquial pressures.

;)

If you want more revealing evidence that encroaches on my personal privacy, you can forget it. I've spent decades in the public domain and I'm tired of the intruding pressures.

From the date of my retirement from teaching/explicating, I am now Mr. Anonymous.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top