Where did Craig go?

Good, so we have established that you ignored how I directly mention Bill's previous MO before randomly "chastising" me.

I didn't ignore it. I saw room to come to a different conclusion.

Can we now get to the part where you acknowledge that this medium, legit or not, was being slandered and had no way to know it?

Whether it is slander/libel depends upon whether the story was true (it's not slander/libel if it's true). So we can argue over whether or not Bill was sincere. But to the point which led me to jump into this thread, you seem to agree that if you make claims you don't know to be true, you might get what you deserve. I'm looking for you to extend that consideration to yourself (you and others made claims about me which I know to be false and which remain unsupported), or recognize that you are acting on a double-standard so we can drop the pretense that this is about my behaviour rather than your prejudices.

Linda
 
Did any of us say anything about you anywhere that was out of your reach? No. I did not go to any other page and say "How about that annoying know-it-all Linda?". Bill slandered that guy for the sake of pushing an agenda knowing damn well that he does not post here. But, its only natural that you would defend his behavior, since you do the same to Alex knowing that he rarely goes outside the shows section. You are lucky that he doesn't give a damn about your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Having a homogenous group of people is always "easier". If would be easier to have all white men who speak the same language and wear the same size of clothing, but clearly that isn't practical, especially in a military that does not use conscription. You have to deal with individuals from various ethnic and religious backgrounds. Not everyone speaks English. NATO missions mean dealing with working with people from a variety of nationalities, and even different rules of engagement for each nationality involved.

I personally think that allowing for that kind of variety is not just a challenge, but also a strength.

I can remember when being gay was legalized in my country's military. People said the military couldn't adapt to that, which was silly, because there have always been gay people in the military. The only difference was that they wouldn't go to jail or be discharged from service for admitting it any more.

It's not a life that I would recommend. I joined to pay for my education, as many people do. I'd like to see a world where soldiers were not needed.

EDIT: In the US, women are now becoming Rangers. I thought Vault 313 might enjoy knowing that.
http://www.army.mil/article/154286/First_women_graduate_Ranger_School/

Hi again, K9 some people welcome that as progress. Just to reiterate I just can't personally see why it is liberating for women (at least as far as human existence goes) to get killed.or maimed. Clearly we are not going to agree about this but I'm going off the forum again, probably for some time (Hooray !) so all the best and no hard feelings from me.
 
Hi again, K9 some people welcome that as progress. Just to reiterate I just can't personally see why it is liberating for women (at least as far as human existence goes) to get killed.or maimed. Clearly we are not going to agree about this but I'm going off the forum again, probably for some time (Hooray !) so all the best and no hard feelings from me.
I'm sorry to see you go, Tim. All the best.

For the record, I don't think it's good for anyone to be killed or maimed in combat. If it makes you feel any better, during my years of service, I never killed or maimed anyone. I did help look for people in need of rescue in isolated wilderness areas. I helped with sandbagging efforts related to saving homes from flooding. I trained to be ready to protect my country, but a lot of work done by the military involves helping people at home... in extreme weather, flooding, earthquakes, or in remote areas where special rescue efforts are needed.
 
Last edited:
Did any of us say anything about you anywhere that was out of your reach? No. I did not go to any other page and say "How about that annoying know-it-all Linda?". Bill slandered that guy for the sake of pushing an agenda knowing damn well that he does not post here. But, its only natural that you would defend his behavior, since you do the same to Alex knowing that he rarely goes outside the shows section. You are lucky that he doesn't give a damn about your opinion.

Huh? This has nothing to do with talking about people who have nothing to do with this forum. Nor do I go around trash-talking Alex (yet more BS from you). I pointed out that the claims made about me were false, and that examples which support your claims have not been produced. And the excuses you provided for why I should put up with this BS were specious.

Linda
 
It has everything to do with that, since you claim that we have a double standard, when the cases are obviously diferent. Again, this guy had no idea that this hoaxer was slandering him here. His entire name was posted in a public forum and tied to a phooney story. You are trying to compare that to the jabs that we take at your forum persona, which is laughable. None of those were hidden outside of your view (i.e. In a page that you never visit), nor were they intended to mess with your livelihood.

Are you really going to deny that you talk about Alex behind his back? We already had a conversation about this in a topic were you and some of your buddies were talking about Alex without even bothering to contact him. And that is without quoting the jabs that were already mentioned by others here. Maybe you could argue that you have yet to reach the classlessness that Bill reached, but don't give me that BS.
 
It has everything to do with that, since you claim that we have a double standard, when the cases are obviously diferent. Again, this guy had no idea that this hoaxer was slandering him here. His entire name was posted in a public forum and tied to a phooney story. You are trying to compare that to the jabs that we take at your forum persona, which is laughable. None of those were hidden outside of your view (i.e. In a page that you never visit), nor were they intended to mess with your livelihood.

If you want to make it about telling lies about people who aren't here, there are plenty of examples of proponents denigrating various skeptics and scientists with false statements. Nobody seems to mind when Alex falsely characterizes Krauss, for example. Again, it doesn't look like you can make a distinction on this basis.

Are you really going to deny that you talk about Alex behind his back?

I'm denying that mentioning somebody in a forum in which they participate is not "talking about Alex behind his back". If that were the case, then you and others talk about me and PAL behind our backs far more than the other way around. Again, it doesn't look like you can make a distinction on this basis.

And that is without quoting the jabs that were already mentioned by others here.

That's because you can't quote the jabs mentioned by others here because they were made up or mis-characterized (i.e. there's nothing for you to "QUOTE"). You can't persuade me that my behaviour is reprehensible by referring to behaviour I haven't engaged in, or behaviour which proponents engage in in spades without comment.

Linda
 
If you want to make it about telling lies about people who aren't here, there are plenty of examples of proponents denigrating various skeptics and scientists with false statements. Nobody seems to mind when Alex falsely characterizes Krauss, for example. Again, it doesn't look like you can make a distinction on this basis.
I don't agree with Alex on everything, we recently clashed about the lack of communication and coherence exhibited by one of his guests. If you feel that he was bad mouthing Krauss, I am not his delivery boy, go ahead and tell him. That has nothing to do with either of us.

I'm denying that mentioning somebody in a forum in which they participate is not "talking about Alex behind his back". If that were the case, then you and others talk about me and PAL behind our backs far more than the other way around. Again, it doesn't look like you can make a distinction on this basis.
When was the last time that he made an appearance outside the top two sections? You are assuming that he is going to see any BS that you post about his postures.

That's because you can't quote the jabs mentioned by others here because they were made up or mis-characterized (i.e. there's nothing for you to "QUOTE").
No, it's because I wasn't around back then and don't care about you to the extent where I would bother browsing pages of pretentiousness. But, given your use of demagogue and other manipulative tactics in the conversations that I am aware of, their credibility exceeds yours.

You can't persuade me that my behaviour is reprehensible by referring to behaviour I haven't engaged in, or behaviour which proponents engage in in spades without comment.

Linda

Finally we can agree. I never expected you to admit anything, you never do so in topics that have nothing to do with you, so NM one where your shortcomings are noted. I was, however, interested in seeing just how deep the roots of your cognitive dissonance go.

Can we at least agree that Bill was out of line? Or are we supposed to endorse libel?
 
I don't agree with Alex on everything, we recently clashed about the lack of communication and coherence exhibited by one of his guests. If you feel that he was bad mouthing Krauss, I am not his delivery boy, go ahead and tell him. That has nothing to do with either of us.

When you attacked Bill after he told us about his experience, it had "nothing to do with either of us" either. I was offering an example of a double standard. I was supposed to regard it as necessary to attack Bill because "Bill slandered that guy for the sake of pushing an agenda knowing damn well that he does not post here." Yet, it's not necessary to attack Alex for doing the same.

When was the last time that he made an appearance outside the top two sections?

I don't know. Where he posts is his own business. He can go anywhere he likes, whereas I cannot go to some sections of the forum where jabs are taken against PAL. Again, if a habit of not posting in certain sections is cause for me to be the bad guy if I mention Alex while posting in those sections, how are those people who take jabs at PAL, in sections where we are not allowed to defend ourselves, not worse?

No, it's because I wasn't around back then and don't care about you to the extent where I would bother browsing pages of pretentiousness. But, given your use of demagogue and other manipulative tactics in the conversations that I am aware of, their credibility exceeds yours.

Finally we can agree. I never expected you to admit anything, you never do so in topics that have nothing to do with you, so NM one where your shortcomings are noted. I was, however, interested in seeing just how deep the roots of your cognitive dissonance go.

Well, given that nobody has offered up examples of manipulation, or the use of demagogue, or of posting BS about Alex, I'm not sure why you would expect me to admit to something I seemingly haven't done. I'm also not sure why it's 'cognitive dissonance" not to be gullible when people make up BS about me.

Can we at least agree that Bill was out of line? Or are we supposed to endorse libel?

If Bill was sincerely relating his personal experience, he was not out of line. It's not libel if it's true.

Linda
 
When you attacked Bill after he told us about his experience, it had "nothing to do with either of us" either. I was offering an example of a double standard. I was supposed to regard it as necessary to attack Bill because "Bill slandered that guy for the sake of pushing an agenda knowing damn well that he does not post here." Yet, it's not necessary to attack Alex for doing the same.

No, you made Bill's hoax "our" problem by randomly jumping in. I was doing my part to help the people that were already getting suckered in by his BS and trying to save whatever reputation that man may have. You had no place there whatsoever, you did not know Bill's background nor mine.

Again, I have no issues responding to Alex if there is a disagreement in our postures. But, his issues with Krauss have nothing to do with me, you look desperate by trying to get me involved in something that took place before I even created this account. Regardless of that, even you must admit that he had the guts to contact Krauss directly (http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/skeptiko-krauss-upcoming.1871/), whereas all Bill did was stand there like a deer caught in the headlights and come up with weak excuses. I gave him a way out: publish something illustrating the charge on your credit card while protecting your personal information. What did he say? "I can't because my mother-in-law (or some other family member, I don't care enough to look it up) paid for it." Wait, wasn't this the guy complaining that the medium charged him an outrageous amount?

I don't know. Where he posts is his own business. He can go anywhere he likes, whereas I cannot go to some sections of the forum where jabs are taken against PAL. Again, if a habit of not posting in certain sections is cause for me to be the bad guy if I mention Alex while posting in those sections, how are those people who take jabs at PAL, in sections where we are not allowed to defend ourselves, not worse?

Seriously? How long have you been here? It doesn't take long to notice where he posts if you follow the updates, which you obviously do or otherwise your name would not be everywhere. Also, all of my posts in the shows section have been relevant to the premise of the episodes, so please stop digressing. I don't care about your issues with Alex or if he banned seven of you.

Well, given that nobody has offered up examples of manipulation, or the use of demagogue, or of posting BS about Alex, I'm not sure why you would expect me to admit to something I seemingly haven't done. I'm also not sure why it's 'cognitive dissonance" not to be gullible when people make up BS about me.

A- Do you really want me to post a link to that thread? We had a long discussion there, didn't we? I dropped the topic because some of the skeptics tried to justify its existence because several of you are unable to post in some sections, but the fact that you randomly post about the postures of a sysop and don't feel the need to notify him shows that you intended to dissect them behind his back. As far as demagogue goes, your little rant in defense of Bill combined with all of the posts still trying to defend it now (knowing that he had a history in other pages and having seen the original source of his "personal experience") is more than enough.

B- I know that you are not "sure", that is why it's known as "cognitive dissonance".

If Bill was sincerely relating his personal experience, he was not out of line. It's not libel if it's true.

Linda

By the time that you randomly jumped into that thread, I had taken the time to both note the skeptic slant present in all of Bill's posts (leading up to that thread) and even bothered to post an external link to the original version of the story that he was trying to pass as "personal". He had also declined providing any proof that this event actually happened, which is exactly the kind of thing that usually leads to a libel case in our legal system.

Before posting your rant... Did you even consider the possibility that the medium was unrepresented in that discussion?
 
No, you made Bill's hoax "our" problem by randomly jumping in. I was doing my part to help the people that were already getting suckered in by his BS and trying to save whatever reputation that man may have. You had no place there whatsoever, you did not know Bill's background nor mine.

Again, I have no issues responding to Alex if there is a disagreement in our postures. But, his issues with Krauss have nothing to do with me, you look desperate by trying to get me involved in something that took place before I even created this account. Regardless of that, even you must admit that he had the guts to contact Krauss directly (http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/skeptiko-krauss-upcoming.1871/), whereas all Bill did was stand there like a deer caught in the headlights and come up with weak excuses. I gave him a way out: publish something illustrating the charge on your credit card while protecting your personal information. What did he say? "I can't because my mother-in-law (or some other family member, I don't care enough to look it up) paid for it." Wait, wasn't this the guy complaining that the medium charged him an outrageous amount?



Seriously? How long have you been here? It doesn't take long to notice where he posts if you follow the updates, which you obviously do or otherwise your name would not be everywhere. Also, all of my posts in the shows section have been relevant to the premise of the episodes, so please stop digressing. I don't care about your issues with Alex or if he banned seven of you.



A- Do you really want me to post a link to that thread? We had a long discussion there, didn't we? I dropped the topic because some of the skeptics tried to justify its existence because several of you are unable to post in some sections, but the fact that you randomly post about the postures of a sysop and don't feel the need to notify him shows that you intended to dissect them behind his back. As far as demagogue goes, your little rant in defense of Bill combined with all of the posts still trying to defend it now (knowing that he had a history in other pages and having seen the original source of his "personal experience") is more than enough.

B- I know that you are not "sure", that is why it's known as "cognitive dissonance".



By the time that you randomly jumped into that thread, I had taken the time to both note the skeptic slant present in all of Bill's posts (leading up to that thread) and even bothered to post an external link to the original version of the story that he was trying to pass as "personal". He had also declined providing any proof that this event actually happened, which is exactly the kind of thing that usually leads to a libel case in our legal system.

Before posting your rant... Did you even consider the possibility that the medium was unrepresented in that discussion?

This back and forth is a boring, never-ending game of "last". If Craig Weiler wasn't so busy making people laugh he would have put his foot down, for sure!
 
We are talking past each other a bit. I understand that you feel that your actions were justified. I also understand that you and others sometimes feel frustration when talking to me and other people here. I also understand that you have an impression of "use of demagogue and other manipulative tactics" from me. I would like you to understand that your perspective isn't privileged in this regard. I also feel that my actions are justified. I also feel frustration when talking to you and others (probably the same people). And I also start to build negative impressions of others, which may or may not be valid. I'm not trying to claim that my perspective is privileged either. Mostly I simply would like some recognition that whatever you feel is likely also felt by your opponent in any argument (i.e. empathy). And that your negative impressions may not be valid - that they are possibly based on mis-remembering, misunderstanding, or too much dependence on people making stuff up.

At the very least, double-checking whether you've remembered something correctly by revisiting a thread, helps to address this issue. But more importantly, I have already changed my behaviour substantially based on previous criticism. When people are able to point to specific examples, it clarifies what they are taking issue with, and gives me insight or gives me concrete direction in what I have to change. At the moment, all I have been provided with are vague references to behaviour that, as far as I can tell, I haven't actually engaged in (or behaviour which is as common as mud here and there's no reason to single me out). In some cases, I have already specifically looked at whether the claim is valid and have discovered that it is false. Continued reference to claims which I already know to be false does not help me buy the idea that there is something wrong with me.

No, you made Bill's hoax "our" problem by randomly jumping in. I was doing my part to help the people that were already getting suckered in by his BS and trying to save whatever reputation that man may have. You had no place there whatsoever, you did not know Bill's background nor mine.

As I said, I also felt my actions were justified. I was doing my part to help someone who seemed vulnerable and hurt, which seemed a much more directly relevant problem than the trivial effect on a psychic's reputation. I'm not arguing over which of us was correct in our justifications. You could be right and I could be wrong. I'm just showing you that I'm not much different from you or others with respect to our motivations and actions, once you take perspective into account.

Again, I have no issues responding to Alex if there is a disagreement in our postures. But, his issues with Krauss have nothing to do with me,...

I understand that. I just wanted to make the point that there are plenty of opportunities here to "help people that were already getting suckered in by his BS" (insert whomever you want into "his"). And if this is a justification for you, it is also a justification for me.

Seriously? How long have you been here? It doesn't take long to notice where he posts if you follow the updates, which you obviously do or otherwise your name would not be everywhere.

Again, you are depending upon a claim which is untrue. My name obviously isn't "everywhere". Even if I weren't inclined to only participate in those areas of the forum which are interesting to me (some sections I find deadly dull), I am banned from posting in some parts. Therefore you must have a mistaken impression. And I have no way of knowing which areas Alex reads, even if I had any interest in keeping track of his activities (which I don't).

A- Do you really want me to post a link to that thread? We had a long discussion there, didn't we?

We did? I can only find two posts to you, both of which address your concerns. Yes, I want you to post a link and to specify what I said that supports your claim, and singles out my behaviour out as different from the behaviour of proponents, because I can't find anything like that.

I dropped the topic because some of the skeptics tried to justify its existence because several of you are unable to post in some sections, but the fact that you randomly post about the postures of a sysop and don't feel the need to notify him shows that you intended to dissect them behind his back.

First, it wasn't about Alex, per se. It was about the issue that he raised. And second, Alex banned us from his podcast threads specifically so that he wouldn't feel obliged to address criticisms coming from non-proponents (as he regards them as generally "stuck on stupid"). He also specifically told me, in the past, not to waste his time with notifications. I understand that you think he needed special notification, but nobody notifies me when they are going to talk about an issue I've brought up, and I don't care. It's up to me to pay attention, or not.

As far as demagogue goes, your little rant in defense of Bill combined with all of the posts still trying to defend it now (knowing that he had a history in other pages and having seen the original source of his "personal experience") is more than enough.

A demagogue is a "rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower socioeconomic classes in order to gain power and promote political motives". That doesn't apply to my defense of Bill. At worst, it was an appeal to the emotion of sympathy for someone who seemed hurt and vulnerable. But it had nothing to do with gaining power or promoting political motives. It didn't assume anything about whether or not the psychic in question was a fraud. It was about showing sensitivity and caution when we are unsure about something.

B- I know that you are not "sure", that is why it's known as "cognitive dissonance".

Except that you haven't shown where there is any dissonance in my perspective. I was "not sure" how you are seeing dissonance, when there doesn't seem to be any. All I'm asking is for you to be specific.

By the time that you randomly jumped into that thread, I had taken the time to both note the skeptic slant present in all of Bill's posts (leading up to that thread) and even bothered to post an external link to the original version of the story that he was trying to pass as "personal". He had also declined providing any proof that this event actually happened, which is exactly the kind of thing that usually leads to a libel case in our legal system.

Like I said, I saw plenty of room in the information you presented for a different interpretation (certainly enough room not to be comfortable with being nasty). It's entirely different when proof is asked for during legal proceedings, so the comparison isn't apt. To be honest, I also would be very reluctant to provide any personal information to something who was behaving like you were. Especially since that never seems to settle the case anyways (publishing the email exchange to show that I never said the things Tim claims certainly didn't shut him up or do damage to his credibility, like it should have).

Before posting your rant... Did you even consider the possibility that the medium was unrepresented in that discussion?

I did. I have scads of empathy. But like I said, weighing the potential harm seems to settle squarely on erring on the side of Bill.

Linda
 
Oh, but Craig has signed with CC and is flying high! Haven't you heard?

Seriously, though, someone did say that he was doing a special, but then another person said it was a joke and that the original person was being sarcastic. I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to Craig. The Moderator isn't an active member anymore so I'm not sure who we could even ask.
 
Back
Top