Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[David Roberson]

That pretty well sums it up.

Dave


-Original Message-
From: Craig Brown 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Thu, Jun 6, 2013 12:11 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
debunk?



Naval scientist Eldon Byrd put it rather succinctly when he said – “What major 
contribution has any sceptic made to the betterment of humankind?  How many 
Mother Teresa’s have they produced?  How many great scientific discoveries have 
they made?  Many of them are like movie critics–useless and usually wrong.”



 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission
to debunk?
From: Ron Kita 
Date: Thu, June 06, 2013 2:09 pm
To: vortex-l 


Robert Park is 82
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park

In my cabinet I have a bottle to celebrate his no longer  finding a use for 
oxygen.
 
Also..I will debunk his death...as will others.


Ron Kita






On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM, William Beaty  wrote:
 
On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
 
 They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never
 understand why.
 
 
 Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements via 
basic chemistry.  If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate that 
modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been carefully 
maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting in that hole 
are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've been right all along. 
 It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and Rightness are shown to be 
bullies who were beating up innocent victims, and worse, shown to be doing it 
because they never bothered to read a single thing about the topic that wasn't 
their own propaganda.
 
 If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news 
outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics 
meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who led 
it.  The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads and 
controllers of funding.  The powerful suddenly have bosses with old grudges to 
satisfy.  CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of everything that's wrong 
with the modern world.  Crowds of screaming undergrads dance around bonfires 
made of old paper journals and magazines, each copy found to contain a column 
by Park.  Maybe even Physics itself will fall, losing any hope of major funding 
for decades as everyone piles onto the CF bandwagon, and all the young students 
will want to emulate famous chemists (or famous crazy gold-makers.)
 
 
 
 
 (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
 William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
 billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
 EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
 Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
 
 


 

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

Here is what I don't get about these people. Suppose cold fusion is a
> mistake, or fraud. It is inconsequential. The worst that can happen is that
> a few retired professors waste their time and Rossi steals some money.
>

I suspect there are two factors coming together.  First, perhaps there's an
impression that scientific training is in decline and that standards in
science are falling.  This creates a context in which you want to
straighten out science grad students and the public at large and get them
to aim for higher standards.  But to do this they shouldn't be allowed to
be confused by people peddling snake oil.  That will be a waste of their
time and of public money.

The next factor, which lends particular urgency to the matter of cold
fusion, is the level of perceived threat.  Water memory, perpetual motion
machines and homeopathy are not perceived as threats.  Cold fusion is, by
contrast.  So one can snicker at water memory, but it's not as funny when
grants for foundations are being provided at universities once again.  If
one does not act promptly and decisively, we could be back at 1989 again
and have a whole new generation to educate about what science really
involves.  The adherents of these fads are the last people you want to
worry about trying to persuade.  You have to do what you have to do to
ensure that the public at lage and graduate students are not beguiled by
their distorted worldview.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Berke Durak]

I can talk crazy too, here's my 5¢.

In addition to the powerful energy lobbies, I believe CF would unlock
new physics, and that means new weapons.  Now that could be kind-of-OK
if developing those new weapons requires nation-state-level funding
for decades, but if it allows any Joe McTerrorist to assemble a 50
kton CF bomb from a few physical equations and two bags of nickel
shavings then it might just be better to keep the cold fusion genie in
the bottle while the New World Order figures out how to pacify the
population.  In other words, world peace and thus mandatory Google
Glasses and QR codes tattooed on our foreheads might be prerequisites
for letting CF develop.  But it seems like we need cheap energy for
world peace to begin with.  So maybe Rossi didn't die in a car
accident early in the game because his device is not readily
weaponizable...
-- 
Berke Durak

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

"If CF is real...
... and all the young students will want to emulate famous chemists (or
famous crazy gold-makers)."

more likely engineers!
After all, it may very well be an engineer who gets to market first...
;-)

-Mark

-Original Message-
From: William Beaty [mailto:bi...@eskimo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:07 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to
debunk?

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never understand 
> why.

Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements via
basic chemistry.  If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate that
modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been carefully
maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting in that hole
are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've been right all
along.  It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and Rightness are
shown to be bullies who were beating up innocent victims, and worse, shown
to be doing it because they never bothered to read a single thing about the
topic that wasn't their own propaganda.

If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news
outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics
meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who
led it.  The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads and
controllers of funding.  The powerful suddenly have bosses with old grudges
to satisfy.  CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of everything that's
wrong with the modern world.  Crowds of screaming undergrads dance around
bonfires made of old paper journals and magazines, each copy found to
contain a column by Park.  Maybe even Physics itself will fall, losing any
hope of major funding for decades as everyone piles onto the CF bandwagon,
and all the young students will want to emulate famous chemists (or famous
crazy gold-makers.)

(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Craig Brown]

The Bob Park of his dayRichard van der Riet Wooley 
(Astronomer Royal) Fellow of the Royal Society, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
“The whole procedure [of shooting rockets into space]…presents 
difficulties of so fundamental a nature, that we are forced to dismiss 
the notion as essentially impracticable, in spite of the author’s 
insistent appeal to put aside prejudice and to recollect the supposed 
impossibility of heavier-than-air flight before it was actually 
accomplished” link
 
On appointment as Astronomer Royal, he reiterated his long-held view that “space travel is utter bilge”. Speaking to Time in 1956, Woolley noted
 
“It’s utter bilge. I don’t think anybody will ever put up enough 
money to do such a thing . . . What good would it do us? If we spent the
 same amount of money on preparing first-class astronomical equipment we
 would learn much more about the universe . . . It is all rather rot”.
 
Woolley’s protestations came just one year prior to the launch of Sputnik, five years before launch of the Apollo Program, and thirteen years before the first landing on the moon.


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission
to debunk?
From: "Craig Brown" <cr...@overunity.co>
Date: Thu, June 06, 2013 2:11 pm
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Naval scientist Eldon Byrd put it rather succinctly when he said – “What major contribution has any sceptic made to the betterment of humankind?  How many Mother Teresa’s have they produced?  How many great scientific discoveries have they made?  Many of them are like movie critics–useless and usually wrong.”    Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: Ron Kita <chiralex.k...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, June 06, 2013 2:09 pm To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>  Robert Park is 82http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._ParkIn my cabinet I have a bottle to celebrate his no longer  finding a use for oxygen. Also..I will debunk his death...as will others.Ron KitaOn Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM, William Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com> wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:  They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never understand why.   Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements via basic chemistry.  If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate that modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been carefully maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting in that hole are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've been right all along.  It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and Rightness are shown to be bullies who were beating up innocent victims, and worse, shown to be doing it because they never bothered to read a single thing about the topic that wasn't their own propaganda.  If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who led it.  The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads and controllers of funding.  The powerful suddenly have bosses with old grudges to satisfy.  CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of everything that's wrong with the modern world.  Crowds of screaming undergrads dance around bonfires made of old paper journals and magazines, each copy found to contain a column by Park.  Maybe even Physics itself will fall, losing any hope of major funding for decades as everyone piles onto the CF bandwagon, and all the young students will want to emulate famous chemists (or famous crazy gold-makers.) (( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) ))) William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci 

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Craig Brown]

Naval scientist Eldon Byrd put it rather succinctly when he said – 
“What major contribution has any sceptic made to the betterment of 
humankind?  How many Mother Teresa’s have they produced?  How many great
 scientific discoveries have they made?  Many of them are like movie 
critics–useless and usually wrong.”


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission
to debunk?
From: Ron Kita <chiralex.k...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, June 06, 2013 2:09 pm
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

Robert Park is 82http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._ParkIn my cabinet I have a bottle to celebrate his no longer  finding a use for oxygen. Also..I will debunk his death...as will others.Ron KitaOn Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM, William Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com> wrote: On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:  They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never understand why.   Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements via basic chemistry.  If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate that modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been carefully maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting in that hole are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've been right all along.  It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and Rightness are shown to be bullies who were beating up innocent victims, and worse, shown to be doing it because they never bothered to read a single thing about the topic that wasn't their own propaganda.  If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who led it.  The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads and controllers of funding.  The powerful suddenly have bosses with old grudges to satisfy.  CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of everything that's wrong with the modern world.  Crowds of screaming undergrads dance around bonfires made of old paper journals and magazines, each copy found to contain a column by Park.  Maybe even Physics itself will fall, losing any hope of major funding for decades as everyone piles onto the CF bandwagon, and all the young students will want to emulate famous chemists (or famous crazy gold-makers.) (( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) ))) William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com                         http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA  206-762-3818    unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci   

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Ron Kita]

Robert Park is 82
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Park
In my cabinet I have a bottle to celebrate his no longer  finding a use for
oxygen.
Also..I will debunk his death...as will others.

Ron Kita



On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM, William Beaty  wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
>> They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never
>> understand why.
>>
>
> Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements
> via basic chemistry.  If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate
> that modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been
> carefully maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting
> in that hole are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've been
> right all along.  It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and
> Rightness are shown to be bullies who were beating up innocent victims, and
> worse, shown to be doing it because they never bothered to read a single
> thing about the topic that wasn't their own propaganda.
>
> If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news
> outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics
> meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who
> led it.  The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads
> and controllers of funding.  The powerful suddenly have bosses with old
> grudges to satisfy.  CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of
> everything that's wrong with the modern world.  Crowds of screaming
> undergrads dance around bonfires made of old paper journals and magazines,
> each copy found to contain a column by Park.  Maybe even Physics itself
> will fall, losing any hope of major funding for decades as everyone piles
> onto the CF bandwagon, and all the young students will want to emulate
> famous chemists (or famous crazy gold-makers.)
>
>
>
>
> (( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
> William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
> billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
> EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
> Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[William Beaty]

On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Jed Rothwell wrote:

They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never
understand why.


Well, CF is an example of traditional alchemy: transmutation of elements 
via basic chemistry.  If CF is real, then not only does this demonstrate 
that modern chemistry has a huge hole in it, and the hole has been 
carefully maintained by hundreds of experts over centuries ...but sitting 
in that hole are woo-woos: crowds of Crackpot CF True Believers who've 
been right all along.  It means that the Knigts of Scientific Purity and 
Rightness are shown to be bullies who were beating up innocent victims, 
and worse, shown to be doing it because they never bothered to read a 
single thing about the topic that wasn't their own propaganda.


If CF is real, then you just know that all the major magazines and news 
outlets will focus on how the disbelief caught fire; on a certain physics 
meeting where the outbreak of sneering first started, and on the ones who 
led it.  The CF-supporters will be promoted, perhaps to department heads 
and controllers of funding.  The powerful suddenly have bosses with old 
grudges to satisfy.  CF-deniers are suddenly seen as the symbol of 
everything that's wrong with the modern world.  Crowds of screaming 
undergrads dance around bonfires made of old paper journals and magazines, 
each copy found to contain a column by Park.  Maybe even Physics itself 
will fall, losing any hope of major funding for decades as everyone piles 
onto the CF bandwagon, and all the young students will want to emulate 
famous chemists (or famous crazy gold-makers.)





(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Terry Blanton]

On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson
 wrote:

> I suspect this phenomenon has been around for a very long time… perhaps
> since we first became sentient.

And maybe how we became so.

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Roger:

 

> I meant that UFOs are merely a fascination or distraction for

> the rest of us.

 

Agreed.

 

> I am sure that psychology therapy was probably necessary for

> those who experienced it directly, especially the closer encounters.

 

I'd say some do need counseling from experienced professionals, particularly
someone who has some background in the experiencer phenomenon. Not too many
of them around however. The best therapy is probably group therapy, where
experiencers can get together and share their life stories in a safe and
supportive environment. Most who have the courage and fortitude to do this
tend to end up in pretty good shape. It's not unusual for an experiencer to
be transformed in unique ways, and often for the better. New perceptions,
new outlook on life. Sometimes new abilities. It's a mixed bag of tricks.

 

One of the best books I've found on the encounter phenomenon (of the 4th
kind) is a book titled "Beyond my Wildest Dreams", by Kim Carlsberg,
illustrated by Darryl Anka. It's essentially Kim's personal diary
documenting her efforts to come to terms with her own encounter experiences.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-My-Wildest-Dreams-Abductee/dp/1879181258/ref=sr
_1_1?s=books
 &ie=UTF8&qid=1370475811&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+my+wildest+dreams

 

http://tinyurl.com/mq86b5z

 

Kim's website:

 

http://www.kimcarlsbergbio.com/Home_Page.html

 

My own personal opinion:

 

I suspect this phenomenon has been around for a very long time. perhaps
since we first became sentient.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

There must be a reason, Jed, even if we don't know what it is.  The only thing 
that I can think of is that cold fusion is a threat in some sense to people.

If a BigFoot flying a saucer should land on the White House lawn and say (in 
broken English), "Howdy", it would cause a lot of excitement, but there would 
be no paradigms and no funds threatened.  LENR threatens paradigms, reputations 
and funding.  And ruined reputations threaten funding.  And when people start 
to oppose something by making pronouncements against it, they put their 
reputations more at risk, so it snowballs.

Compare the resistance to say juicing for health and juicing to heal cancer 
(Gerson Therapy).  No one bothers trying to prove that juicing for health is 
useless.  But if people say that Gerson therapy heals CANCER, which is mostly 
and basically just juicing, the opposition goes absolutely, positively 
ballistic and even tries to put people in jail.  All of the Gerson therapists 
have to practice in Mexico.  (Of course, it is as easy as banana cream pie to 
learn how to do it from the Internet and do it at home.)  This virulent 
opposition is because of reputations and money.

If you go to some health forum you will see skeptopaths trying to oppose just 
about everything, including juicing.  But the opposition are not real 
scientists, the skeptopaths are few and far between.  But if Dr. Oz did a 
segment about how great Gerson Therapy is and how it works, well, imagine a 
huge pile of human excrement being dropped on a gigantic and very powerful fan 
that was facing up, once every hour for a week.  Dr. Oz would be off the air 
and removed from his profession.  Billions and billions of dollars are at stake 
with cancer therapy, and billions and billions of dollars are at stake with 
fusion.  There is a difference.  Medical doctors are more practiced at 
protecting their turf; fusionists are new at the game.

With Respect,

Roger Bird
Colorado Springs

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:35:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
debunk?
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Here is what I don't get about these people. Suppose cold fusion is a mistake, 
or fraud. It is inconsequential. The worst that can happen is that a few 
retired professors waste their time and Rossi steals some money.

I can understand why people get worked up about other scientific controversies 
which have large consequences, such as the fights over global warming or 
vaccinations. But I cannot understand why anyone who thinks that cold fusion is 
wrong would spend any time fretting about it or discussing it, or trying to 
prevent research.

Science is full of mistakes, dead ends and wacky theories. But you never see 
Nature magazine calling for mockery and vituperation in opposition to these 
things. They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never understand why.

- Jed
  

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is what I don't get about these people. Suppose cold fusion is a
mistake, or fraud. It is inconsequential. The worst that can happen is that
a few retired professors waste their time and Rossi steals some money.

I can understand why people get worked up about other scientific
controversies which have large consequences, such as the fights over global
warming or vaccinations. But I cannot understand why anyone who thinks that
cold fusion is wrong would spend any time fretting about it or discussing
it, or trying to prevent research.

Science is full of mistakes, dead ends and wacky theories. But you never
see *Nature* magazine calling for mockery and vituperation in opposition to
these things. They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never
understand why.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

I can't do block and shadowed fonts.  Perhaps I should switch to my other email 
client and see if it has those features.

Roger


> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:59:31 -0700
> From: a...@well.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
> debunk?
> 
> > From: "Roger B" 
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:54:52 AM
> 
> > What the f o n t is going on here!!
> 
> Much better ... but I know that you jest. Otherwise you would have included 
> block and shadowed fonts.
> 
  

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Alan Fletcher]

> From: "Roger B" 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:54:52 AM

> What the f o n t is going on here!!

Much better ... but I know that you jest. Otherwise you would have included 
block and shadowed fonts.

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

What the font is going on here!!  Do you think that I am some kind of 
pathofont, or scripto-path.  I think that it is a conspiracy of fontical 
correctness.  Do font companies hire you guys to try to promote their fonts.  
You guys are all font deniers.  I believe in FREEDOM OF FONTNESS.
  
(:->)

Roger


Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 06:37:19 -0700
Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
From: mgi...@gibbs.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Teh Google knows all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans
And see: http://bancomicsans.com/main/

[mg]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, Rich Murray  wrote:

uh, what is Comic Sans ?
clueless in Imperial Beach, CA,  Rich

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:



On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:






Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than Comic 
Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams).





I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares away 
anyone who has no stomach for fringe science.





Eric



  

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

Steven,

I meant that UFOs are merely a fascination or distraction for the rest of us.  
I am sure that psychology therapy was probably necessary for those who 
experienced it directly, especially the closer encounters.

Roger

From: orionwo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
debunk?
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:54:20 -0500

>From Roger B: > No, LENR and UFOs are not in the same category. > LENR has 
>lots of physical evidence.  The so-called> physical evidence for UFOs is very 
>weak if not non-existent.   I disagree. They are very much in the same 
>category. In many cases trying to produce a LENR phenomenon has been damned 
>near impossible to accomplish, even by experienced LENR researchers. Granted, 
>lately some seem to be getting better at reproducing the LENR effect. 
>Unfortunately, UFO investigators have had less luck. No doubt the fact that 
>it's impossible to sequester UFO phenomenon within the confines of a 
>laboratory has something to do with the problem. ;-) UFO phenomenon happens 
>when it happens. The phenomenon NEVER occurs under any kind of a laboratory 
>condition. For some to use the premise that the evidence is weak or 
>non-existent because there is no official documented evidence is a blatant cop 
>out. They just don’t want to deal with the issue nor the potential 
>ramifications. See the following commissioned painting I did for an individual 
>who had an unexpected encounter of his own back in the mid 1980s: 
>http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/MayEncounters_m.htm How does one prove it 
>happened. Or that it even existed. The observer certainly knows. But for the 
>rest of us. Ah he just has a vivid imagination, or he was drinking. Blah 
>blah blah. BTW, surely you don't think the military hasn't had a chance to 
>accumulate some interesting gun camera footage over the past 50 years? I bet 
>there is plenty of evidence. And those who have accumulated the best evidence 
>aren't talking. > [LENRs will help people.  UFOs are just a distraction from> 
>worry about paying one's bills.] I disagree. I realizes you are probably 
>saying this in jest, but IMO UFOs are not a distraction. Many had no choice in 
>what it was they saw. It just happened to them – randomly so. What does that 
>have to do with becoming a distraction from paying the bills. > The so-called 
>physical evidence for UFOs are completely> out of our control.  There is no 
>way to predict when a> UFO sighting will happen next.  The physical evidence 
>for> LENRs is in our control, mostly.  We can generally know> when LENRs are 
>going to happen. Indeed. But the fact is that both UFOs and LENR strike many 
>as unproved phenomenon. > The only thing that LENRs and UFOs have in common is 
>that> they are edgy, unexplained, out-of-the-mainstream.  The> UFO sighting 
>phenomena is a legitimate arena of scientific> study, but scientists are too 
>gutless to try.  Indeed, I agree with that conclusion. Regards,Steven Vincent 
>Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
>  

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson]

>From Roger B:

 

> No, LENR and UFOs are not in the same category. 

> LENR has lots of physical evidence.  The so-called

> physical evidence for UFOs is very weak if not non-existent.  

 

I disagree. They are very much in the same category. In many cases trying to
produce a LENR phenomenon has been damned near impossible to accomplish,
even by experienced LENR researchers. Granted, lately some seem to be
getting better at reproducing the LENR effect. Unfortunately, UFO
investigators have had less luck. No doubt the fact that it's impossible to
sequester UFO phenomenon within the confines of a laboratory has something
to do with the problem. ;-)

 

UFO phenomenon happens when it happens. The phenomenon NEVER occurs under
any kind of a laboratory condition. For some to use the premise that the
evidence is weak or non-existent because there is no official documented
evidence is a blatant cop out. They just don't want to deal with the issue
nor the potential ramifications.

 

See the following commissioned painting I did for an individual who had an
unexpected encounter of his own back in the mid 1980s:

 

http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/MayEncounters_m.htm

 

How does one prove it happened. Or that it even existed. The observer
certainly knows. But for the rest of us. Ah he just has a vivid
imagination, or he was drinking. Blah blah blah.

 

BTW, surely you don't think the military hasn't had a chance to accumulate
some interesting gun camera footage over the past 50 years? I bet there is
plenty of evidence. And those who have accumulated the best evidence aren't
talking.

 

> [LENRs will help people.  UFOs are just a distraction from

> worry about paying one's bills.]

 

I disagree. I realizes you are probably saying this in jest, but IMO UFOs
are not a distraction. Many had no choice in what it was they saw. It just
happened to them - randomly so. What does that have to do with becoming a
distraction from paying the bills.

 

> The so-called physical evidence for UFOs are completely

> out of our control.  There is no way to predict when a

> UFO sighting will happen next.  The physical evidence for

> LENRs is in our control, mostly.  We can generally know

> when LENRs are going to happen.

 

Indeed. But the fact is that both UFOs and LENR strike many as unproved
phenomenon.

 

> The only thing that LENRs and UFOs have in common is that

> they are edgy, unexplained, out-of-the-mainstream.  The

> UFO sighting phenomena is a legitimate arena of scientific

> study, but scientists are too gutless to try. 

 

Indeed, I agree with that conclusion.

 

Regards,

Steven Vincent Johnson

svjart.OrionWorks.com

www.zazzle.com/orionworks

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex

 

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Kevin O'Malley]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to
> pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly
> so.  .
>
***It's because they're genuinely interested in the topic.  They are just
hyperskeptical by nature.  When you get to the point where their skepticism
forces them to, say... believe in something that is off by 4500 orders of
magnitude, they think it's simply wrong.

When you show them how wrong they are, a little fuse pops in their brain
and with such cognitive dissonance they cannot function rationally
any more.  They don't realize it, but their thinking just jumped from (more
or less rationally) hyperskeptic to "it can't be true, so it isn't.

That inability to self-apprehend when they have gone over a rational cliff
is what differentiates the hyperskeptic (annoying) from the skeptopath
(useless, hateful and dangerous).

>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[William Beaty]

On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:


A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue
rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so.


Another method is to query your own Skeptic side.  What I find in there is 
something simple:  the goal is not to spread correct knowledge or to teach 
the ignorant, nor is the goal to discover Truth or even Reality.  The goal 
is TO WIN, to win a heroic battle against an inferior, subhuman, 
disgusting foe who threatens to contaminate Purity.


But as you say, this is often a matter of psychological projection, and 
the Skeptic is actually fighting their own inner Woo-woo or spiritual 
believer.  Perhaps they're trying to wipe out their own inner Scientist 
who wants to strip off the cloud of dishonest BS and drill down to the 
truth.




(( ( (  (   ((O))   )  ) ) )))
William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb at amasci com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA  206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Rich Murray]

uh, what is Comic Sans ?

clueless in Imperial Beach, CA,  Rich


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:
>
> Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than
>> Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams).
>>
>
> I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares
> away anyone who has no stomach for fringe science.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs  wrote:

Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than
> Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams).
>

I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares
away anyone who has no stomach for fringe science.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Rich Murray]

Anyone sincerely think I'm a pseudoskeptic since December 1996 ?

I'm keenly alert to hear exactly what folks really think...

--  uh, I'm sure I'm not...

both terms are prejudiced: PseudoSkeptic, TrueBeliever... just justifies
closing down collaborative discussions by classifyinging the other siblings
as unqualified...

I suggest, Convinced Believer, Decided Skeptic -- thus hinting each side is
reason and evidence based, and reasonably free of confused entrepreneurial
or ego processes -- I suggest exercizing extreme reluctance about
diagnosing the shoes others may be walking in -- uh, I'm really totally
barefoot...

The scenario that Abd, Storms, and others offer is that many DPd
electrolysis runs correlate some bit of He with some excess heat --
maybe...

when was last such run?

If 5 out of 50 fairly similar cells produce similar correlations within the
next 3 years, well, what are the statistics of that, and the statistics
combined with the existing claims?

This could be a question that can result in agreements among CBs and DSs
prior to the runs being done...

Well, meanwhile, we getting older, while all affairs evolve explosively
exponentailly -- more likely fleets of black swan events will eclipse the
feeble furor about cold fusion...

being that we are within single hyperinfinity...

I'm imagining a SF plot, yes, indeed there are UFOs, and they are zipping
straight away from us as they can possibly go !

within the community of service,  Rich Murray





On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Giovanni Santostasi
wrote:

> Are UFO and LENR in the same category?
> Giovanni
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:24 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
> orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to
>> pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly
>> so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the
>> specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics
>> think they are trying to convince a vast world "others" of the fact that
>> their conclusions & opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably
>> fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are
>> really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately,
>> they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of
>> their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also
>> helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively
>> relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart
>> the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized
>> doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own
>> disposal is to try harder.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Such irony!
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steven Vincent Johnson
>> svjart.OrionWorks.com
>> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
>> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Mark Gibbs]

Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than
Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams).

[mg]


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Roger B  wrote:

> But, seriously, that was an excellent description.  Can you supply a link
> to it?
>
> Roger
> --
> From: cr...@overunity.co
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to
> debunk?
> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700
>
> Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as
> elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of
> pseudosceptics have an interest in magic.
>
> Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP
>
> *Fictional miss-identification:* Often an IDP will react to fictional
> representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain
> about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get
> irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a
> character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint
> to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all
> subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing
> to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column.
>
>
> *Delusions of superiority:* In many cases the IDP will believe that they
> have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these
> are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center
> around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may
> simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however,
> consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to
> “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated
> substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars.
>
> *Hyper-realistic representation:* This is a tendency on the part of the
> imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in
> all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about
> plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary
> linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10
> subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books
> substantially about correct usage of scientific terms.
>
>   Original Message 
> Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to
> debunk?
> From: "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
> Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm
> To: 
>
> A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to
> pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly
> so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the
> specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics
> think they are trying to convince a vast world "others" of the fact that
> their conclusions & opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably
> fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are
> really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately,
> they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of
> their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also
> helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively
> relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart
> the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized
> doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own
> disposal is to try harder.
>
> Such irony!
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Craig Brown]

This link below is to my own site where I have assembled some of the major character traits of pseudos.  I had plenty of real life experience of these clowns owing to the fact that they were at infestation levels on the Steorn forum before they all got banned for trolling. Mary Yugo, Pennies_Everywhere, alsetalokin (an anagram of Nikola Tesla) et al.http://truthfall.com/pseudoscepticism/Another brilliant resource is http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/One of my favourite quotes about pseudosceptics below:“They claim that their behavior is 
“scepticism” but in reality they know nothing about the true meaning of 
scepticism nor practice it since they apply no scepticism to their own 
beliefs or to the status quo but in fact have a total blind spot to 
them.  Pyrrho,
 the founder of “Scepticism”, intended for it to be about open inquiry 
and suspension of judgment.  I’ve never trusted sceptics, for the very 
reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things 
without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility.”


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission
to debunk?
From: Roger B <rogerbi...@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 1:04 pm
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>

   But, seriously, that was an excellent description.  Can you supply a link to it?RogerFrom: cr...@overunity.coTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of pseudosceptics have an interest in magic.Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDPFictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column.Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars.Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific terms.    Original Message  Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" <orionwo...@charter.net> Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>  A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world "others" of the fact that their conclusions & opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder.Such irony!Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

No, LENR and UFOs are not in the same category.  LENR has lots of physical 
evidence.  The so-called physical evidence for UFOs is very weak if not 
non-existent.  

[LENRs will help people.  UFOs are just a distraction from worry about paying 
one's bills.]

The so-called physical evidence for UFOs are completely out of our control.  
There is no way to predict when a UFO sighting will happen next.  The physical 
evidence for LENRs is in our control, mostly.  We can generally know when LENRs 
are going to happen.

The only thing that LENRs and UFOs have in common is that they are edgy, 
unexplained, out-of-the-mainstream.  The UFO sighting phenomena is a legitimate 
arena of scientific study, but scientists are too gutless to try. 



Roger


Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 22:06:35 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
debunk?
From: gsantost...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com

Are UFO and LENR in the same category?Giovanni


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:24 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
 wrote:

A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue 
rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so. I 
suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience 
they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to 
convince a vast world "others" of the fact that their conclusions & opinions 
are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit 
the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one 
other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this 
because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they 
must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting 
predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of 
their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously 
never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel 
they have left at their own disposal is to try harder.


Such irony!

Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex

  

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Are UFO and LENR in the same category?
Giovanni



On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:24 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <
orionwo...@charter.net> wrote:

> A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to
> pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly
> so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the
> specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics
> think they are trying to convince a vast world "others" of the fact that
> their conclusions & opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably
> fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are
> really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately,
> they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of
> their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also
> helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively
> relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart
> the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized
> doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own
> disposal is to try harder.
>
> 
>
> Such irony!
>
>
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> svjart.OrionWorks.com
> www.zazzle.com/orionworks
> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
>

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

But, seriously, that was an excellent description.  Can you supply a link to it?

Roger
From: cr...@overunity.co
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
debunk?
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700

Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as 
elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of 
pseudosceptics have an interest in magic.
Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP

Fictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react 
to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they 
may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the 
paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or 
spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write 
letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology
 column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one 
(Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine 
included an astrology column.

Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will 
believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other 
people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities,
 and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the 
mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism.
 Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or 
made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and 
subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works 
of some obscure scholars.
Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on 
the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational 
representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage 
in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain 
about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical 
term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects
 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific 
terms.


 Original Message 

Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to

debunk?

From: "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 

Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm

To: 



A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue 
rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so. I 
suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience 
they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to 
convince a vast world "others" of the fact that their conclusions & opinions 
are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit 
the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one 
other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this 
because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they 
must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting 
predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of 
their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously 
never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel 
they have left at their own disposal is to try harder.

Such irony!
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex

  

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

That description gave me quite a start there for a second.  I was afraid that 
you were talking about me.   (:->)

Roger
From: cr...@overunity.co
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to 
debunk?
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700

Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as 
elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of 
pseudosceptics have an interest in magic.
Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP

Fictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react 
to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they 
may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the 
paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or 
spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write 
letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology
 column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one 
(Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine 
included an astrology column.

Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will 
believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other 
people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities,
 and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the 
mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism.
 Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or 
made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and 
subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works 
of some obscure scholars.
Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on 
the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational 
representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage 
in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain 
about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical 
term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects
 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific 
terms.


 Original Message 

Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to

debunk?

From: "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 

Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm

To: 



A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue 
rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so. I 
suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience 
they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to 
convince a vast world "others" of the fact that their conclusions & opinions 
are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit 
the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one 
other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this 
because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they 
must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting 
predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of 
their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously 
never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel 
they have left at their own disposal is to try harder.

Such irony!
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex

  

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Craig Brown]

Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of pseudosceptics have an interest in magic.Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDPFictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react 
to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they 
may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the 
paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or 
spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write 
letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology
 column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one 
(Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine 
included an astrology column.Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will 
believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other 
people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities,
 and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the 
mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism.
 Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or 
made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and 
subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works 
of some obscure scholars.Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on 
the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational 
representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage 
in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain 
about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical 
term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects
 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific 
terms.


 Original Message 
Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to
debunk?
From: "OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson" 
Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm
To: 

A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world "others" of the fact that their conclusions & opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder.Such irony!Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex

Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[John Berry]

It is interesting that it is seldom the other way round.
Someone who believes in something might want to share with others who are
open minded, but they have little interest in converting so-called
skeptics, they don't seek them out.

Pseudo-skeptics are not just content in stopping people from falling for
beliefs, they seek out the believers.

Great insights.


John

RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

[Roger B]

Did you just say this:  skeptopaths need to tear everyone else down so that 
they can feel superior.  Or:  skeptopaths are afraid of anything outside of the 
box, so they try to get you to come back in.  Or:  skeptopaths hate anything 
that might offer hope.  Or:  one skeptopath I know has severe trust issues, and 
does not even trust himself, and won't even look at the evidence because he 
does not trust himself.

All of the above.

Roger

From: orionwo...@charter.net
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:24:58 -0500
Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?

A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue 
rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF & LENR, relentlessly so. I 
suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience 
they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to 
convince a vast world "others" of the fact that their conclusions & opinions 
are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit 
the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one 
other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this 
because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they 
must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting 
predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of 
their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously 
never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel 
they have left at their own disposal is to try harder.

Such irony!
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
svjart.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex