Forum Casualties, Deserters/AWOL & MIA

I think the point I was trying to make was that, in the context of this thread, we have lost some interesting contributors and I wonder whether they (and other lurkers) might have been more inclined to participate had it not been for some petty spoiling tactics. On the other hand, you are correct: the regular skeptics seem to have so little in the way of convincing arguments that they clearly feel the need to use such spoiling tactics.
 
Kamarling,

It is good to see you here again!

I agree with a lot of what you have written, but I think by letting sceptics have some say on the forum, they tell others - including many that do not post - that sceptics only have weak responses. I mean, you don't have to be a medic to see that claiming that Pam Reynolds could have heard the process while her heart was stopped and her brain cooled is - to say the least - clutching at straws. I would suggest that you just put people who upset you on your ignore list.

David

Yep, David. I have no problems with PAL and a few others because I have them on ignore.
 
Yep, David. I have no problems with PAL and a few others because I have them on ignore.

It was a general observation. When I was more active on the forum, I did have Linda on ignore because her obvious game-playing made me angry and I don't want that from a discussion group. I don't mind differences of opinion - even heated arguments at times - but I do mind being played.

Since I stopped posting, I can read with a certain detachment and just shake my head a little when I see others getting drawn into one of Linda's frequent "games of last". I joined a real-life discussion group (along with Psiclops) which involved like-minded people getting together in a hotel meeting room every couple of weeks. People like Linda would not last long in that environment, I suspect. Obviously a web based group can bring a geographically diverse group of people together - which is a wonderful thing - so long as there are no saboteurs determined to spoil the experience.
 
I see that Linda has quoted some of this conversation in another forum. Doesn't that undermine the point of having a restricted discussion? Perhaps my understanding is off-base.

Anyhow, I really don't want to get into a back and forth with her so I'll leave it at this: did anyone else have the impression that Jay (JT512 as was) came out of the Ganzfeld (and others) discussion having exposed Maaneli? My abiding impression was the reverse of that. Also, in case anyone thinks that Linda is correct in saying that proponents don't read what she says or that she is the sincere one, I'd remind you of the comments made by Johann - probably the least biased member in the forum history.

http://forum.mind-energy.net/forum/...says-chris-carter-podcast?p=197169#post197169

February 20th, 2013, 06:49 PM
-------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by fls
You could save yourself a lot of trouble by simply taking my words at face value. If I state a particular position, it is because I hold that position. If you need clarification, ask.

---------------
Bullshit. I have done my very best to give you the benefit of the doubt in the past, even when it was painstakingly difficult to do so—owing to the obvious nature of your games. I defended you and made every effort to treat you without judgement. I even apologized to you on several occasions. But you continue to distort, obfuscate, and mislead, and so my resivoir of patience—never once expended for another member of this forum—has run dry for you.

For anyone who thinks I am being unduly harsh on Linda, I invite you to skim these threads:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...s-predict.html

http://forum.mind-energy.net/skeptik...tence-esp.html

And please ignore my utterly naive post in the second one, if you find it, where I attempt to defend her.

In summary, there are very good reasons that virtually the entire forum now considers Linda disingenuous. Maaneli and Davidsmith73, who figure prominently in the threads I listed, all started out respectfully giving her the benefit of the doubt, but when the bullshit became sufficiently clear, they too realized its pernicious nature.

Maaneli recently announced to the entire forum, in a thread, that he is ignoring Linda. Unfortunately, it was deleted. Now, I am doing the same. If someone thinks I should respond to a post of hers, PM me. I do not anticipate the occasion, however.

- Johann
 
And with that, I think it is probably wise for me to return to lurking. See how difficult it is to avoid getting drawn in? Yes, I did have a go at Linda and I don't really mind that she had a go back, but I stand by my comments and will leave it at that.
 
Let's start checking off the above here in this thread. This will probably end up being the official record of the death of the Skeptiko forum.

I'll start...

Not too long ago we suffered a major casualty, the loss of our beloved tim. Certain members of the forum were (apparently) holding to the position that males and females are physical equals, basically interchangeable in military combat roles. Yes, it seems this-- or what he thought-- was a blatant denial of objective reality and lack of common sense killed our friend. So sad. If only tim could have envisioned the platoons of heroic young women who had hacked through the jungles of Vietnam.

Who else is there?
Thank you, FDRS my friend. Linda is the reason I'm not posting, I can't stand the woman and I'm pretty sick of Arouet, too. My contributions are not that great anyway, Kamarling , Gabriel, Typoz and the rest were bigger casualties.
 
Last edited:
Just as an addendum to my previous post, I spent some time yesterday reading the MoonDoggie thread which seems to have resulted in LoneShaman deciding to quit. Now, while there is some pretty ugly language from LS in that thread, it is an example of what I was talking about earlier when I said the constant doubt-casting and nay-saying leads to anger which spoils the thread. That is why I stopped posting too and the particular annoyance in my case - as with LS (and others too) - was Linda. It is difficult to nail down one particular post proving these tactics (and I do believe they are tactics) but if you read that thread and compare it to other Linda classics, such as Pam Reynolds* and the question of how much Pam might have heard despite all the precautions, you see a pattern. It amounts to a concerted "nothing to see here" campaign by which she will insist that any given anomaly has a more mundane and prosaic explanation. Usually she will back up her alternative explanation by claiming some kind of expertise in the field, be it medical, biological or mathematical (particularly statistics). This was why it is a shame that LS, Maaneli and Johann have all gone - they could effectively call her on her BS. Yet she is always at pains to be civil and reassure the proponents that she has no agenda.

I'm sorry to pick out a particular member but I suspect that some of the valued members this forum has lost might still be around but for Linda. I wonder whether that gives her some satisfaction? I'm not going to indulge her in a conversation to find out, however. Once bitten, as they say.

* Search the old forum for threads about Pam Reynolds.

Good to see this!
Yes, as maybe some of you may remember I had also my clashes with Linda, and precisely for the same reasons as explained above by Kamerling. These clashes were about the Denture man case and also the Pam Reynolds case. She was and is truly capable of getting under someone's skin. She angered me with the way she was seeding doubts, and above all about the observational qualities of the persons involved such as those of neurosurgeon Robert Spetzler.

Well, you may be aware of the book about verified veridical NDE-cases which my friend Titus Rivas and I are preparing for the American market (yes, thank you, it is going well - we try to get it published by May 2016) and of course the Pam Reynolds case will occupy quite a few pages. In those pages Dr Robert Spetzler makes it very clear that during the moments she "saw" and "heard" particular going-ons in the operating room, she was under "EEG Burst Suppression", that is, effectively flatlined. We found full confirmation (and more) for this from Spetzler's then assistent-neurosurgeon whom we could track down at last. So, Pam was truly and totally under deep anesthesia. The whole idea, so forcefully propagated by the indomitable Dr Woerlee, that she was simply awake ("anesthetic awareness") falls flat.
 
Good to see this!
Yes, as maybe some of you may remember I had also my clashes with Linda, and precisely for the same reasons as explained above by Kamerling. These clashes were about the Denture man case and also the Pam Reynolds case. She was and is truly capable of getting under someone's skin. She angered me with the way she was seeding doubts, and above all about the observational qualities of the persons involved such as those of neurosurgeon Robert Spetzler.

Well, you may be aware of the book about verified veridical NDE-cases which my friend Titus Rivas and I are preparing for the American market (yes, thank you, it is going well - we try to get it published by May 2016) and of course the Pam Reynolds case will occupy quite a few pages. In those pages Dr Robert Spetzler makes it very clear that during the moments she "saw" and "heard" particular going-ons in the operating room, she was under "EEG Burst Suppression", that is, effectively flatlined. We found full confirmation (and more) for this from Spetzler's then assistent-neurosurgeon whom we could track down at last. So, Pam was truly and totally under deep anesthesia. The whole idea, so forcefully propagated by the indomitable Dr Woerlee, that she was simply awake ("anesthetic awareness") falls flat.

Interesting, Smithy were they able to track down the medical records of this case?
 
The medical records of this case have always been there, they were never away.
So what Pam reported afterwards could be verified against the written records.

Heh, see, the perils of memory - I could have sworn I remember reading that they were missing!
 
The medical records of this case have always been there, they were never away.
So what Pam reported afterwards could be verified against the written records.
Isn't itunny how skeptics will make up something to plant the seeds of doubt (such as "missing medical records"), when they are at a loss for cogent arguments? Arouet must be getting coached by Linda.
 
I think perhaps we need to be careful about this phrase "planting the seeds of doubt". If there are areas which are susceptible to alternative explanation, I can't see the problem in raising these.

If they are simply unsubstantiated potshots of course then that's a different matter. Even then it is perhaps worth entertaining them even if it's only to show the absurdity of them give the the information available.

I don't think it benefits anyone to ignore alternative explanations (I don't think anyone is suggesting we do that either) or to see them necessarily as insincere.

Truth to tell, I think we can only get to a degree of probability with second or third hand experiences and they often leave plenty of areas of uncertainty.
 
Thanks, Pepe, for thinking of me. It's an honour.

To explain my absence: I simply ran out of steam, most of which, shamefully, had been based on alcohol and caffeine. Most of the premises - parapsychological; anti-materialist; those affirming the reality of the spiritual; etc - of Skeptiko are, I believe - based both on personal experience and on evidence and reason - correct/accurate, but, to be honest, I am not well-enough studied in them, and nor had I (at the point I left - I've done *some* catch-up since then) listened to enough of the podcasts, to contribute effectively, so I felt/feel a bit out of my depth. I also suspect(ed) that my forcing of an issue (compassionate choice of diet/consumption) in which I believe strongly had the opposite effect than I intended (repulsing, insulting and offending people rather than inspiring, encouraging and uplifting them), which caused me to pull back to reflect on my approach.

Am aware that I owe several responses in that thread which I started, as well as in another, and have been hoping to some day regain my posting drive enough to fulfil those obligations. Have been checking in occasionally without logging in, which is how I found this thread. Love this community, especially that it takes an evidence- and reasoning-based approach to non-material phenomena: a rare find on the internet. Sad to hear that Neil, too, has dropped out: despite that we had our disagreements, I respect(ed) his respectful approach to dialogue, as well as his learning, and valued our interactions.

Well, that's my drive-by "hello, you mentioned me and so here I am" thought for the day, so, thanks, guys, especially Pepe. :-) Be well, Skeptiko, and if I can properly gird my loins, recalibrate my approach, and re-source some energy, I'll start contributing again! Cheers all.
 
Thanks, Pepe, for thinking of me. It's an honour.

To explain my absence: I simply ran out of steam, most of which, shamefully, had been based on alcohol and caffeine. Most of the premises - parapsychological; anti-materialist; those affirming the reality of the spiritual; etc - of Skeptiko are, I believe - based both on personal experience and on evidence and reason - correct/accurate, but, to be honest, I am not well-enough studied in them, and nor had I (at the point I left - I've done *some* catch-up since then) listened to enough of the podcasts, to contribute effectively, so I felt/feel a bit out of my depth. I also suspect(ed) that my forcing of an issue (compassionate choice of diet/consumption) in which I believe strongly had the opposite effect than I intended (repulsing, insulting and offending people rather than inspiring, encouraging and uplifting them), which caused me to pull back to reflect on my approach.

Am aware that I owe several responses in that thread which I started, as well as in another, and have been hoping to some day regain my posting drive enough to fulfil those obligations. Have been checking in occasionally without logging in, which is how I found this thread. Love this community, especially that it takes an evidence- and reasoning-based approach to non-material phenomena: a rare find on the internet. Sad to hear that Neil, too, has dropped out: despite that we had our disagreements, I respect(ed) his respectful approach to dialogue, as well as his learning, and valued our interactions.

Well, that's my drive-by "hello, you mentioned me and so here I am" thought for the day, so, thanks, guys, especially Pepe. :) Be well, Skeptiko, and if I can properly gird my loins, recalibrate my approach, and re-source some energy, I'll start contributing again! Cheers all.

Hi Laird,

Glad to see you back. I appreciate the kind words; I have been around but mostly quiet. I was wondering where you went. I was just posting less because there didn't seem to be much response to many of my comments, so I have been spending more time reading books and papers and finding new subjects to read. I started to feel like there is a bit of a dichotomy between more spiritual explanations and scientific ones, rather than trying to get the two to meet, and that my ideas don't draw much interest from either side. I know it's not about me; it's just when there isn't much response my participation just naturally declined.

Despite some of our differences in the vegan thread, I thought there were a few things that really got me thinking. In particular, questions of morality and consciousness came up, and I have been reading a lot on the subject. Another interest has been related to IIT and Emergent Interactive Agency from social psychology, and it's relations to quantum interactive Dualism of Stapp. But, since IIT seems to be rather out of favor, I haven't posted much other than recently in the Consciousness and Science board, but that was only because of the response of the author of the paper that I criticized.
 
Back
Top