What infractions? I spoke my honest opinion. Questioning someone's character shouldn't be a violation of rules; you skeptics use that tactic as your #1 go to weapon. I'm just genuinely skeptical. How would that be ban-worthy?I want to know how Iyace always avoids the ban hammer of Andy. I've seen many members banned for the same infractions they make once which he makes over and over. How does he do it that's what I want to know?
I want to know how Iyace always avoids the ban hammer of Andy. I've seen many members banned for the same infractions they make once which he makes over and over. How does he do it that's what I want to know?
Are we feigning innocence or just rationalizing? I'm taking into consideration nearly all your postings. Here's a quote. Being a smart fellow I think you'll have no trouble figuring out who wrote it.What infractions? I spoke my honest opinion. Questioning someone's character shouldn't be a violation of rules; you skeptics use that tactic as your #1 go to weapon. I'm just genuinely skeptical. How would that be ban-worthy?
And before I forget, add in your use of certain expletives.Your actions in this message are not appropriate. We cannot allow users to be abusive, overly aggressive, threatening, or to "troll". This does not follow our rules.
See post 44Why should Iyace be banned?
I'm confused here, my friend. If pointing out your soap-box style preaching ( it's for the lurkers ), passive accusations of ' wanting to believe ', general lack of aptitude to discuss these issues ( JREF HALP ME!!11), and other general complaints lobbed at you by people other than myself is any of those things then I'm at a loss. Although, I guess this is America where people can act like idiots and then have some sort of moral support for being the victim when someone points it out. I'm sorry you feel like you're the victim in all this, but I can't say I'm really surprised. If you're going to constantly call into questions the mental faculties of proponents ( accusing everyone of ' rationalizing ' ( see your thread bashing maaneli ) ), then I'm going to constantly call into question your mental faculties.Are we feigning innocence or just rationalizing? I'm taking into consideration nearly all your postings. Here's a quote. Being a smart fellow I think you'll have no trouble figuring out who wrote it. And before I forget, add in your use of certain expletives.
Also, remember that time where you endorsed limbo as an honest non-sockpuppet? Remember when he was banned along with BlueMule for being a sockpuppet? Seems you were endorsing some nefarious shit there. Something the admins might want to take a look into. ;)Are we feigning innocence or just rationalizing? I'm taking into consideration nearly all your postings. Here's a quote. Being a smart fellow I think you'll have no trouble figuring out who wrote it. And before I forget, add in your use of certain expletives.
We call it the woo-ngularity.Referring back to the original topic of this thread, I'm going to need some corroborating evidence and a peer-reviewed report about this thread before you can convince me that it exists and I'm not just engaged in magical thinking about invisible people talking through boxes on a mystical woo-network. Otherwise, I just have subjective experience, which is less than useless.
That's a convenient way to dismiss what people say without actually engaging with it. You seem to be pretty experienced at that. ;)I was not surprised by either of your responses.
I was not surprised by either of your responses.
That's a convenient way to dismiss what people say without actually engaging with it. You seem to be pretty experienced at that. ;)
Eyewitness testimony. Now this something I'd really like to get a skeptical explanation on. It's amazing that so many debunkers are psychologists, not recognizing that with the sort of grand scale lying and hallucinating that would have to be taking place for the objects of debunkery not to be happening as described, would entail an enormous amount of healthy individuals manifesting the temporary onset of symptoms of severe pathologies only to revert back to normality as the timeline of applied debunkery ends (or whatever). It's not a matter of cognitive bias or wishful thinking when people are five feet from an anomaly that is staring them in the face. So, either way, there's an interesting phenomenon here. The first is the paranormal event itself. If not that, the second is the temporary fucked-up-ness of an otherwise healthy witness. The second fits nothing we know about human psychology. Not to mention that hallucinations are personal. A hallucination by many individuals is called consensus reality. It's fascinating either way. And one of the two requires an explanation.
Nice. I'm proud of you.Your ideas about space & time are something I revisit, probably think about at least once a week actually.
Nice. I'm proud of you.
Eyewitness testimony. Now this something I'd really like to get a skeptical explanation on. It's amazing that so many debunkers are psychologists, not recognizing that with the sort of grand scale lying and hallucinating that would have to be taking place for the objects of debunkery not to be happening as described, would entail an enormous amount of healthy individuals manifesting the temporary onset of symptoms of severe pathologies only to revert back to normality as the timeline of applied debunkery ends (or whatever). It's not a matter of cognitive bias or wishful thinking when people are five feet from an anomaly that is staring them in the face. So, either way, there's an interesting phenomenon here. The first is the paranormal event itself. If not that, the second is the temporary fucked-up-ness of an otherwise healthy witness. The second fits nothing we know about human psychology. Not to mention that hallucinations are personal. A hallucination by many individuals is called consensus reality. It's fascinating either way. And one of the two requires an explanation.