ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags sean manchester

Reply
Old 26th March 2007, 09:25 PM   #641
CLD
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 789
What say, boys?

CLD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2007, 03:54 AM   #642
Lord Pendle
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1
Mod WarningAs I have stated more then once keep your puerile and quite frankly boring personal feud off this Forum. I've banned this account and suspended your other one.
Posted By:Darat




Edited by Darat:  Personal feud removed.

Last edited by Darat; 27th March 2007 at 04:30 AM.
Lord Pendle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 10:55 AM   #643
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
Hi The Vampire,

Since you call me out on a specific issue, here's your answer:

Quote:
Ok, I'll bite. The forum in question is DavidFarrant.org It's # 3 on Google, so it's no secret.
More specifically, it's here.

It is indeed your only post to the forum thus far, but it is interesting to note the following from it:

Quote:
Mr. Farrant, I will most certainly PM you soon. I'm sure I'll have a few questions as the week progresses ...
I presume you didn't e-mail him then, as you have stated that the message in question was your only interaction with him via that forum.

But how did I know that it was your nick? Simple, and as stated earlier, reading through the thread.

Quote:
Pray, what lead you to this odd conclusion I was associated with Farrant? Upon what evidence? I've tried to stay out of this whole "David Farrant Psychic Investigator" thing. In fact, I cringe and apologize to the admins when the threads bob up to the front page (like corpse in the thawing East River). As I'm fairly well known as the #1 viscous tongued harpy of anti-woo skeptics, I'm perplexed.
While you have stayed out of the "David Farrant - Psychic investigator" thread, you haven't out of this one (after my initial contribution, see here, here, here and here). Which is interesting, considering that your posts on this thread are largely detrimental towards Manchester (however much they're worth). Note the tags alone.

Oh, and by the way, have you cancelled your membership on Farrant's forum?
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 11:02 AM   #644
Miss Whiplash
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,574
Why are you obsessed with my joining Farrant's forum 4 months ago? How does this affect your life in general? Why is my account status your business in the first place?

Why did you join back in January and only start posting now?



BTW: Your PM box is full. Email me: admin@mondoskepto.com

Last edited by Miss Whiplash; 29th March 2007 at 11:13 AM.
Miss Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 01:30 PM   #645
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
For The Vampire

Quote:
Why are you obsessed with my joining Farrant's forum 4 months ago? How does this affect your life in general? Why is my account status your business in the first place?
I'm not obsessed at all. You asked me: "Pray, what lead you to this odd conclusion I was associated with Farrant? Upon what evidence?" I gave you an answer, in context to that.

Your account status isn't my business. You could say you're still a member or that you're not a member or that you don't wish to divulge such information. It's your call. I just thought it might've had a relevancy to the matter we've been discussing.

Quote:
Why did you join back in January and only start posting now?
I joined back in January (after previous, abortive attempts) to respond to the "Vampires Staked" thread. I just never got around to posting a response. I've been heaps busy/distracted by other things in my life, not associated with the Highgate Vampire Case. However, I decided to return some attention to it, recently. You'll note that my initial contributions to the JREF forum, are near contemporary to the latest postings on my own forum (as of this writing).

Quote:
BTW: Your PM box is full. Email me: admin@mondoskepto.com
Cheers for that. I've cleaned it out a bit.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 02:11 PM   #646
Miss Whiplash
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,574
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
I just thought it might've had a relevancy to the matter we've been discussing.
Again, why should it have any relevancy? It's a public forum and what I have posted (or not ) is open for anyone to see.

To clarify in case you've missed a few chapters, this is my take on the whole deal:

The "bish" is a sad old tosser who does nothing but troll the internet sh[rule 8] stirring because he gets off on confusion. He bursts into websites and harasses people who really have nothing to do with him or his claims to pass the time. If you dare ask him a question over his silly, wild claims, he spits even more venom and goes into harassment overdrive. Now that he's too old to pull off his vampire spider chasing Byronic Hero shtick for the media, he went to an Old Catholic diploma mill, gave himself a "title" of Bishop in some dodgy invented order and now tries to pass himself off as a Montague Summers wannabe. Now and then the Beeb will trot him out when they need a good laugh from the audience. It's all sad and depressing to see someone waste their entire lives over laughable claims and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but it's hard to muster much sympathy for someone so unlikable and poisonous.

As far as my opinion on David Farrant, my skepticism, etc - he still has not presented any evidence on this forum to back any claims and dodges questions. I feel no need to draw and quarter him here. However, he is a more likable and easygoing person. He's yet to burst into my website and sh[rule 8] stir. I can't say that for the bish, though. Why this is thought of as evidence of my somehow being in cahoots with Mr. Farrant, is beyond me.

That said, this bullsh*t about the Manchester/Farrant feud has reached its expiry date. If you have any further questions for me, please email me at the aforementioned email address or PM me here.

Capisce?
Miss Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 02:27 PM   #647
Big Les
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,031
A-bloody-men!
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2007, 08:44 PM   #648
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
Well said, Vampire! And, wow, that is the best summary of the entire thing I could imagine.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2007, 07:48 AM   #649
Miss Whiplash
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,574
RANT! This thread makes me long for my old internet stomping grounds, the forum at www.thecreatures.com. That was a real-time, unmoderated free-for-all. We were all fans of Siouxsie Sioux but seldom talked about her. It was the rowdiest forum on the internet. Posting there was like diving into a mosh pit. We discussed and argued about everything. I held my own there for 5 years until they pulled the plug last spring. Then I wandered over here.

I wish it was still around so I could invite the "bish" and his sock puppets to discuss things there. Nothing livens up a debate like cyber chairs and beer bottles being thrown and a 24/7 cyber-brawl with "Love in a Void" blasting in the background. The bish and company wouldn't stand a chance, Hell, just one look at Sioux's picture would have frightened the old git away!



Last edited by Miss Whiplash; 30th March 2007 at 08:19 AM.
Miss Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2007, 05:54 PM   #650
CLD
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 789
Quote:
The Manchester/Farrant feud has reached its expiry date.
Not true! The battle of the Bish and the Psychic Vampire has years of life left in it!

CLD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2007, 07:27 PM   #651
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
Stumped for title!

Well, I guess its better than wrestling!

David Farrant
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2007, 04:17 PM   #652
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To The Vampire

Quote:
Again, why should it have any relevancy? It's a public forum and what I have posted (or not ) is open for anyone to see.
It's relevant, because you opened an abusive thread, which has a link to a blog you admit is an act of provokation (the "poke" reference, Message 1).

Quote:
To clarify in case you've missed a few chapters, this is my take on the whole deal:

The "bish" is a sad old tosser who does nothing but troll the internet sh[rule 8] stirring because he gets off on confusion. He bursts into websites and harasses people who really have nothing to do with him or his claims to pass the time. If you dare ask him a question over his silly, wild claims, he spits even more venom and goes into harassment overdrive. Now that he's too old to pull off his vampire spider chasing Byronic Hero shtick for the media, he went to an Old Catholic diploma mill, gave himself a "title" of Bishop in some dodgy invented order and now tries to pass himself off as a Montague Summers wannabe. Now and then the Beeb will trot him out when they need a good laugh from the audience. It's all sad and depressing to see someone waste their entire lives over laughable claims and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but it's hard to muster much sympathy for someone so unlikable and poisonous.
I agree that the Bishop's league tend to spend a lot of time trawling the 'net for references to him and defending him and so forth. It might be "sad", but it's hardly illegal. Hell, you had an "interest" in him too. I haven't seen the "venom" or "harassment overdrive" you describe. Interesting description considering the content of your own posts. If you find someone "waste their entire lives over laughable claims", then you can give us a much harsher opinion on Mr. Farrant's, the other side in the whole thing.

Quote:
As far as my opinion on David Farrant, my skepticism, etc - he still has not presented any evidence on this forum to back any claims and dodges questions. I feel no need to draw and quarter him here. However, he is a more likable and easygoing person. He's yet to burst into my website and sh[rule 8] stir. I can't say that for the bish, though. Why this is thought of as evidence of my somehow being in cahoots with Mr. Farrant, is beyond me.
You have no need to "draw and quater" him...in a skeptic's forum, but feel the need to do this to Manchester? If you're going to do that, at least be consistant and level the same at both. Being more "likable" or "easygoing", doesn't quite cut it in such matters.

In regards to "bursting on your website" (the same kind of public one as the other forum you belong to), is that preceeding the "bursting", you said this:

Quote:
Some people will buy anything, I suppose. i wonder if he is affiliated with Sean Manchester?

Sure, it might be paltry, but was it neccessary? I'd call that asking for it.

I should mention, that beside the the content I've seen on the page, I'm not aware of the "venom" you mention. It could have been in the form of personal correspondance, I don't know. You're not clear about it.

Quote:
That said, this bullsh*t about the Manchester/Farrant feud has reached its expiry date. If you have any further questions for me, please email me at the aforementioned email address or PM me here.

Capisce?
I don't see how responding to you is part of a "feud". Also, I don't think it's fair that you continued to message to the thread (one that you opened, mind), after abusive messages relating to Manchester and then try to slap a "gag order" on me.

I'm starting to sound like an apologist here, but all I'm asking for is fairness, really. As I said, if you're gonna do one, do both.

Last edited by The Overseer; 31st March 2007 at 04:21 PM.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2007, 04:40 PM   #653
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
You have no need to "draw and quater" him...in a skeptic's forum, but feel the need to do this to Manchester?
I may not always agree with The Vampire, but stuffing words in another person's mouth is not something I'm going to sit by and watch. She never proposed that Manchester should be drawn and quartered, even though he harassed her.

Melodramatic troublemakers like you deserve to be drawn and quartered. Especially when they're trying to escalate a feud that has sprawled across multiple forums. Nobody here gives a **** about who said what when. This is all nonsense that has nothing to do with us. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, get the hell off our forum. We don't need attention whores starting petty drama because their personal lives are a miserable morass of failures and frustrations.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2007, 05:25 PM   #654
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
I've been feeling uncomfortable with this as well. Someone joins here just because of the 'feud,' and now seems to be just trying to stir up trouble? Just...don't. Please don't.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2007, 07:31 PM   #655
CLD
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 789
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
...trying to escalate a feud that has sprawled across multiple forums. Nobody here gives a **** about who said what when. This is all nonsense that has nothing to do with us.
Agree.

The ''feud", while amusing because of its paranormal content, is inappropriate for this forum. It belongs in another venue, perhaps more like this one
CLD is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2007, 07:32 PM   #656
Miss Whiplash
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,574
Originally Posted by Minarvia View Post
I've been feeling uncomfortable with this as well. Someone joins here just because of the 'feud,' and now seems to be just trying to stir up trouble? Just...don't. Please don't.
The guy just can't read. I'm not saying anymore to him on this forum though. Like delphi_ote says, everyone is tired of sock puppets stirring things.
Miss Whiplash is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 12:08 PM   #657
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To All and Sundry

Hi delphi_ote

Quote:
I may not always agree with The Vampire, but stuffing words in another person's mouth is not something I'm going to sit by and watch. She never proposed that Manchester should be drawn and quartered, even though he harassed her.
Yes, she says he harassed her. Still uncertain on how this harassment took form. I guess she'll let me know by private message. No, she never proposed that Manchester be drawn and quatered. I didn't say she said that either.

Quote:
Melodramatic troublemakers like you deserve to be drawn and quartered. Especially when they're trying to escalate a feud that has sprawled across multiple forums. Nobody here gives a **** about who said what when. This is all nonsense that has nothing to do with us. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, get the hell off our forum. We don't need attention whores starting petty drama because their personal lives are a miserable morass of failures and frustrations.
Is it fair to call me a troublemaker in this regard? I'm not the one posting abuse and so forth, or openly ridiculing certain parties. Out of the 17 pages of messages in this thread, my messages appear on about two (if I recall). So how can you honestly sit there and accuse me of "escalating" a feud? That's nonsense.

How have I not been constructive, considering the whole wrestling match/doctored Exorcist pic now being used to pad the thread out?

Hi The Vampire,

Even though you request that a discussion take place via PM (I've responded to your message), you still make room here to take digs, so here goes:

Quote:
The guy just can't read. I'm not saying anymore to him on this forum though. Like delphi_ote says, everyone is tired of sock puppets stirring things.
I can read well enough. You don't have to say anything more to me on this forum. That's your call. If you're indicating that I am a sock puppet though (as with the picture you helpfully posted a few messages back), then as I've said before, I'm not aligned with Manchester. As I said, even DavidFarrant is aware of this.

It's grossly unfair to accuse me of "stirring things", considering your own contributions to this thread. Not to mention starting it in the first place.

Turning the tables on me, as if I'm somehow to blame for all this, is hardly fair either.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 12:27 PM   #658
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
Hi delphi_ote
Hi. Stop playing innocent. Everyone here is ready to drop this petty personal nonsense, but you're obviously still hoping you can bait someone back into it. You enjoy wallowing in this fith of gossip and melodrama, but we're not going to join you.

If you have something substantive you'd like to discuss relating to the topic of "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" and its relationship to Sean Manchester, we're all ears. If not, find some other group of people to harass.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 12:42 PM   #659
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For The Overseer

If you're indicating that I am a sock puppet though (as with the picture you helpfully posted a few messages back), then as I've said before, I'm not aligned with Manchester. As I said, even DavidFarrant is aware of this.

What I AM aware of ‘Overseer’ is that it is yourself who keeps reviving this ancient feud nonsense. You did exactly the same thing on my Message Board, and did so persistently – just as you are now trying to do here. You may try and disguise it by protesting that you didn’t start it here. Maybe so, but you are certainly trying to carry it all on here, just as you have done elsewhere (or tried to do elsewhere as, if I remember, I wouldn’t answer you before either).

David Farrant
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 01:33 PM   #660
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To All and Sundry...Again

Hi again delphi_ote,

Quote:
Hi. Stop playing innocent. Everyone here is ready to drop this petty personal nonsense, but you're obviously still hoping you can bait someone back into it. You enjoy wallowing in this fith of gossip and melodrama, but we're not going to join you.
Bait, how? I didn't know questioning was a form of baiting. I have been seeking confirmations on here, as DavidFarrant would be aware. What gossip and melodrama am I wallowing in?

Quote:
If you have something substantive you'd like to discuss relating to the topic of "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" and its relationship to Sean Manchester, we're all ears. If not, find some other group of people to harass.
I'd be interested to see what your contributions to this thread have been along those lines. Unless you consider doctored pics from The Exorcist to be more worthy. Isolate where my posts have gone awry, and I'll address them. And who exactly am I harassing? How? Who are you standing up for, exactly?

Hi DavidFarrant,

Quote:
What I AM aware of ‘Overseer’ is that it is yourself who keeps reviving this ancient feud nonsense. You did exactly the same thing on my Message Board, and did so persistently – just as you are now trying to do here. You may try and disguise it by protesting that you didn’t start it here. Maybe so, but you are certainly trying to carry it all on here, just as you have done elsewhere (or tried to do elsewhere as, if I remember, I wouldn’t answer you before either).

David Farrant
Ah, so now you claim I am reviving an "ancient feud". How ironic. It's funny that your contributions to it have hardly abated. No surprise that you even have contributions here in the first place. Your message board was rife with such "feud" content. Indeed, aren't you even the same person who published Man, Myth and Manchester? How about The Seangate Tapes? Don't play innocent in this, yourself.

There's nothing to disguise. You've actually managed to pick out that I didn't start it. Nor am I its final contributor. The only thing I am "carrying" is an attempt to get answers. If not, then feel free to quote me otherwise.

And no, you wouldn't answer me before either. You've kept this up in the "David Farrant - Psychic investigator" thread, even claiming my questions aren't "genuine". You also accuse me of relating "propaganda", which you strangely refuse to deny or confirm as being accurate.

There's no feud here.

Nice way to try and turn the tables, guys.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 01:45 PM   #661
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
Overseer, speaking as an outsider and not someone intimately familiar with all of the details of the old "feud," it appears that you are being unnecessarily aggressive. Speaking just for myself, your posts look very combative. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you didn't intend this. But it looks like you are trying to bait Mr. Farrant and The Vampire in particular, and I do not see how either desevers this. Maybe you can just back off a little and re-read your posts before submitting them. It might makes things easier all around.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 02:02 PM   #662
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To Minarvia

Hi Minarvia,

I appreciate your level-headed message.

Rest assured, I am not trying to bait anyone. If you want to look for baiting, go to the first message in this thread and read on. Then, tell me that the language and content used isn't baiting or "combative".

If I appear combative, then perhaps this might be in light of the accusations and attacks that have been levelled at myself, among them, that I am the Bishop himself!

Do you disagree that this has been taking place?

If you like, go back to the first post I made on this thread, and you can perhaps see the way the conversation has flowed to get to this point.

But just out of curiousity, what is your association with DavidFarrant? He seems to think it ok to answer on your behalf, for instance.

You don't have to answer, of course.
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 02:25 PM   #663
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
Overseer, maybe I will re-read the thread, as you suggest. And I'll answer your question about Mr. Farrant. We have no association. I have just expressed that I admire the guts he has to come to a skeptical forum and persevere in being polite and gracious and patient. We haven't butted heads on anything or shared any antagonistic words.
I do see your point about people thinking you were someone you are not. I admit that I wondered that myself. Please keep in mind that where the bishop is concerned one can never really know where and when he will try and pop up next, and any sudden new members popping in on this thread and the related ones may be suspect, especially if they appear combative.
Anyway, maybe I shouldn't have spoken on this at all. I think I'll just go back to lurking and let the people who know all the intimate details of this topic have the thread for awhile.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 02:51 PM   #664
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
There's no feud here.
Then act like an adult and drop it.
delphi_ote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2007, 02:07 PM   #665
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
Hi Minarvia,

Quote:
Overseer, maybe I will re-read the thread, as you suggest. And I'll answer your question about Mr. Farrant. We have no association. I have just expressed that I admire the guts he has to come to a skeptical forum and persevere in being polite and gracious and patient. We haven't butted heads on anything or shared any antagonistic words.
I do see your point about people thinking you were someone you are not. I admit that I wondered that myself. Please keep in mind that where the bishop is concerned one can never really know where and when he will try and pop up next, and any sudden new members popping in on this thread and the related ones may be suspect, especially if they appear combative.
Anyway, maybe I shouldn't have spoken on this at all. I think I'll just go back to lurking and let the people who know all the intimate details of this topic have the thread for awhile.
I appreciate you re-reading through the thread. I accept that you have no association with Mr. Farrant beyond the content of this forum. You may have experienced kindness from him, but I have previously "spoken" to him before, via a Manchester-affiliated forum and my own one. Farrant seems particularly hostile to me when I question him on certain writings of which he is cited within in. Rather than get an answer of confirmation or denial, I get a run-around.

I'm glad that you don't think I'm the Bishop! Hahaha that's something. But it also relates to the reason I thought you might have been someone called songstress (whose real name I won't reveal), but is a member of the Highgate Vampire Society. The Bishop may or may not turn up under various guises (I don't know, I haven't seen authoritative proof on this, like IP addresses, for instance). But let it also be remembered that certain persons associated with the Highgate Vampire Society also like to "turn up" without disclosure, which may otherwise mask an intent. See my posts on this here and here.

It's your call on further responses or whatnot. Everyone's entitled to an opionion, naturally. Doesn't mean we all have to agree, of course.

Oh, and how do you know about Manchester and when and where he pops up and so forth?
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th April 2007, 05:24 PM   #666
Minarvia
fading orb
 
Minarvia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,224
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
Hi Minarvia,



I appreciate you re-reading through the thread. I accept that you have no association with Mr. Farrant beyond the content of this forum. You may have experienced kindness from him, but I have previously "spoken" to him before, via a Manchester-affiliated forum and my own one. Farrant seems particularly hostile to me when I question him on certain writings of which he is cited within in. Rather than get an answer of confirmation or denial, I get a run-around.

I'm glad that you don't think I'm the Bishop! Hahaha that's something. But it also relates to the reason I thought you might have been someone called songstress (whose real name I won't reveal), but is a member of the Highgate Vampire Society. The Bishop may or may not turn up under various guises (I don't know, I haven't seen authoritative proof on this, like IP addresses, for instance). But let it also be remembered that certain persons associated with the Highgate Vampire Society also like to "turn up" without disclosure, which may otherwise mask an intent. See my posts on this here and here.

It's your call on further responses or whatnot. Everyone's entitled to an opionion, naturally. Doesn't mean we all have to agree, of course.

Oh, and how do you know about Manchester and when and where he pops up and so forth?
Me? I'll answer. In brief, not long after I joined here and began reading and posting and whatnot, the Manchester stuff popped up. It was interesting in a twisted sort of way. I couldn't stop reading! The Vampire, I found out from her sig, has a website which I went to and joined and saw what this idiot was doing. Then not being satisfied with trying to wreck her site, he came here and began to stir stuff up. Then I read of some people he had been harrassing for years and saw, from posts and links, that this is a pattern of his.
I know some people here believe YOU are the bishop. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you are. Your posts may seem suspect at times, but they don't sound psychotic or overly paranoid to me! And if indeed you are not the bishop (which, as I said, I don't believe you are) then I'm glad you haven't left this forum because of such accusations. This is really a great place to be and I think we can all learn a lot, and be civil at the same time.
And, okay, I admit I'm glad that Mr. Farrant is here. I hope he sticks around and can tell us something of his career and what he has learned over the years. And I admire his persistence, patience, and sense of humour. But that doesn't mean I have an association with him! I don't, and I don't know who "Songstress" is. I have a feeling that I should be glad about that...
You said you have had unpleasant dealings with Mr. Farrant, and I have no reason to doubt you. But as he has been pleasant and easy-going here it is difficult for me to stand by when someone pops in and seems determined to tear him apart. Of course I have difficulty when I see anyone hear get torn apart if I can't see where they deserve it. Maybe I just need to get a thicker skin. Anyway, I'm no-one of importance here. I don't know the intimate details of the Highgate story (at least not yet). I'm just someone who probably jumped in when she should not have.
Minarvia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 05:10 PM   #667
The Overseer
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 137
To Minarvia

Quote:
Me? I'll answer. In brief, not long after I joined here and began reading and posting and whatnot, the Manchester stuff popped up. It was interesting in a twisted sort of way. I couldn't stop reading! The Vampire, I found out from her sig, has a website which I went to and joined and saw what this idiot was doing. Then not being satisfied with trying to wreck her site, he came here and began to stir stuff up. Then I read of some people he had been harrassing for years and saw, from posts and links, that this is a pattern of his.
I see you are referring to the first message in this thread. I had a look at the link provided again, and I only see 1 comment on it, by "Visitor" on December 24, 2006 - 7:08pm. So going on this alone, I don't see the wrecked-up webpage being discussed. While I know Myth Buster was alleged to have been Manchester, I don't know if this was actually proved.

Quote:
I know some people here believe YOU are the bishop. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you are. Your posts may seem suspect at times, but they don't sound psychotic or overly paranoid to me! And if indeed you are not the bishop (which, as I said, I don't believe you are) then I'm glad you haven't left this forum because of such accusations. This is really a great place to be and I think we can all learn a lot, and be civil at the same time.
Rest assured, you aren't wrong in assuming (as I have repeatedly asserted) that I am not Manchester. Thanks for saying my posts don't sound "psychotic" or "overly paranoid" either. lol I haven't left the forum, because of its accusations, because I know the truth, namely I am not Machester. We don't even live in the same country, so this would be some feat!

Quote:
And, okay, I admit I'm glad that Mr. Farrant is here. I hope he sticks around and can tell us something of his career and what he has learned over the years. And I admire his persistence, patience, and sense of humour. But that doesn't mean I have an association with him! I don't, and I don't know who "Songstress" is. I have a feeling that I should be glad about that...
I know you've expressed an interest in his brand of supernaturalism. That is apparent. But that's your choice, of course. "Songstress", as mentioned, is a member of the Highgate Vampire Society. As you might be able to guess, I've had previous "dealings" with her too. See here and here (note: my username on this one was "The Inquisitive One").

Quote:
You said you have had unpleasant dealings with Mr. Farrant, and I have no reason to doubt you. But as he has been pleasant and easy-going here it is difficult for me to stand by when someone pops in and seems determined to tear him apart. Of course I have difficulty when I see anyone hear get torn apart if I can't see where they deserve it. Maybe I just need to get a thicker skin. Anyway, I'm no-one of importance here. I don't know the intimate details of the Highgate story (at least not yet). I'm just someone who probably jumped in when she should not have.
Here's the dealings I refer to: click here (note: my username on this one was "The Inquisitive One") and here. As to the "tearing apart", I think you'll see I've been fairly calm and rational over the thing. I've provided sources and citations (which anyone can check out) and have asked for confirmation on them. This is a skeptical forum, where doubtful claims are examined. It's the same reason I myself am being turned against, i.e., my identity and intent are questioned.

You're allowed to jump in as much as you want. It's a public forum, after all. If you're interested, here's a Wikipedia entry on the Highgate Vampire Case. You'll find more relevant links at the bottom of the article.

Enjoy!
The Overseer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2007, 05:48 PM   #668
DavidFarrant
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 392
For Minarvia

This is not for me to reply to, I know, but please just ignore him Minarvia. He is only just trying to re-introduce the old feud here. I personally don't want this, and I'm sure nobody else here does either.

I am really not trying to tell you how to answer a personal post; and if I were not at the centre of all these silly comments and accusations, neither would I do so. But as I apparently am (inadvertently at the centre of it), I can only suggest that you do not have to reply to such niave comments.

Contrary to popular belief, perhaps, that 'feud' is 'dead' (forgive the pun!); it is really just a one-sided issue that some people seem so desperately intent on keeping going.

Well, they will just have to do so without any assistance from myself - whoever they happen to post to.

For now,

David (Farrant)
DavidFarrant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:09 AM   #669
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,575
Originally Posted by DavidFarrant View Post
Contrary to popular belief, perhaps, that 'feud' is 'dead' (forgive the pun!); it is really just a one-sided issue that some people seem so desperately intent on keeping going.
Ever heard the phrase "It takes two to tango."? Your cronies have been banned from this forum for exactly the same abusive behaviour that Manchester's have been banned for. I know you don't enjoy reality, but pretending this is all nothing to do with you and your friends is really quite silly when all the evidence is just sitting in this thread for all to see.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2007, 04:23 AM   #670
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,115
Originally Posted by The Overseer View Post
.While I know Myth Buster was alleged to have been Manchester, I don't know if this was actually proved.

...snip...
As Admin:

See:http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=72796

"...A final point - Myth Buster was either Sean Manchester or a close personal and/or business acquaintance of Sean Manchester...."

Note - if I see signs that there are again attempts to continue the puerile personal feud here I will take further action - including suspending and banning Members.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 07:31 AM   #671
CatherineFearnley
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Suspension

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Ever heard the phrase "It takes two to tango."? Your cronies have been banned from this forum for exactly the same abusive behaviour that Manchester's have been banned for. I know you don't enjoy reality, but pretending this is all nothing to do with you and your friends is really quite silly when all the evidence is just sitting in this thread for all to see.
For the record I have not been banned, my account was temporarily suspended because I had not posted for awhile. I'm not going to continue with this feud on here because basically I can't be bothered. I just wanted to set the record straight about my temporary suspension. We have also not been abusive.

Neither of these threads originated with David. He only came on here in the first place to put right the many lies and misconceptions that were being posted by certain individuals. Also it was another member of this forum who started a whole thread for David so he can share his beliefs or disbeliefs about the paranormal. At least David has had the courage to stay put and not back down on any of his thoughts and ideas about life in general for which he should be given credit for.

Personally I don't believe in vampires either, but I tend to believe in all other aspects. And no don't ask me for evidence either because I can't prove it. To all those who believe no proof is necessary. To those who don't believe no proof is good enough. Paranormal, Relgion and even Scientology is a matter of each persons belief and nobody should be criticised for their belief whether you personally agree with it or not.

Catherine Fearnley
CatherineFearnley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 11:48 AM   #672
Big Les
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,031
Originally Posted by CatherineFearnley View Post
To all those who believe no proof is necessary.
True in many (most?) cases, sadly.

Quote:
To those who don't believe no proof is good enough.
Not true. There are blind disbelievers just as there are blind believers, but the former is not the same thing as scepticism. We may sometimes appear unwilling to accept evidence only because there currently is no evidence that proves anything paranormal. If real proof were presented, I for one would be overjoyed - as someone who has always been fascinated by the subject I would love this.

Quote:
Paranormal, Relgion and even Scientology is a matter of each persons belief and nobody should be criticised for their belief whether you personally agree with it or not.
True, up to a point. Where any of those things make testable claims that have been consistently unproven, they absolutely should be criticised. You also might want to do some more research into the darker side of Scientology (which is a pretty enormous side - see www.xenu.net ) before you dismiss it as harmless.
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 01:56 PM   #673
CatherineFearnley
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Big Les View Post
True in many (most?) cases, sadly.


Not true. There are blind disbelievers just as there are blind believers, but the former is not the same thing as scepticism. We may sometimes appear unwilling to accept evidence only because there currently is no evidence that proves anything paranormal. If real proof were presented, I for one would be overjoyed - as someone who has always been fascinated by the subject I would love this.

Yes but is there any real proof and if this were presented in front of most people would they still accept it or would they continue to argue that it isn't proof? Thankfully I am not a blind believer or disbeliever. I fully research all aspects then it is upto yourself to believe or not to believe. There are so many unnatural things in this world that can't be explained and who are we to say any otherwise.


True, up to a point. Where any of those things make testable claims that have been consistently unproven, they absolutely should be criticised. You also might want to do some more research into the darker side of Scientology (which is a pretty enormous side - see www.xenu.net ) before you dismiss it as harmless.
All religion and beliefes have a darker side to them if placed in the wrong hands, just look at what is happening in the world today, in Iraq and Iran (and other such places) all in the name of religion and politics I might add. It is not religion which makes you a better person it is you yourself and your intellect (to know what is rignt and what is wrong). I agree that anything/anyone who makes testable claims that have been unproven can and should be criticised but again it is upto you.

Thanks for the reply BigLes.
CatherineFearnley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2007, 04:07 PM   #674
Big Les
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 5,031
Originally Posted by CatherineFearnley View Post
All religion and beliefes have a darker side to them if placed in the wrong hands, just look at what is happening in the world today, in Iraq and Iran (and other such places) all in the name of religion and politics I might add. It is not religion which makes you a better person it is you yourself and your intellect (to know what is rignt and what is wrong). I agree that anything/anyone who makes testable claims that have been unproven can and should be criticised but again it is upto you.

Thanks for the reply BigLes.
Agreed, although Scientology appears to have been established with the aims of generating money and power for its creator/higher-ups, rather than being co-opted further down the line. In other words "dark" from the get-go rather than good intentions gone awry. Anyway, we're going off topic here. I see there's a new review of one of Manchester's books online...
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 03:06 AM   #675
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,575
Originally Posted by CatherineFearnley View Post
For the record I have not been banned, my account was temporarily suspended because I had not posted for awhile. I'm not going to continue with this feud on here because basically I can't be bothered. I just wanted to set the record straight about my temporary suspension. We have also not been abusive.
But Barbara was banned. It's not all about you.

Quote:
At least David has had the courage to stay put and not back down on any of his thoughts and ideas about life in general for which he should be given credit for.
What exactly should we give him credit for? He has refused to actually say anything about what he believes or why he believes it. If he would actually discuss anything it would be great, but instead all he does is some vague handwaving and then deny that he has ever made any claims. In any case, not backing down is not something to be proud of, it simply means he refuses to admit that he might be wrong. One of the most respected geologists in the world (I forget the name) refused to back down on his ideas about plate tectonics, or at least the lack of it. He didn't get any credit for it, he just made himself look very silly.

Quote:
Personally I don't believe in vampires either, but I tend to believe in all other aspects. And no don't ask me for evidence either because I can't prove it. To all those who believe no proof is necessary. To those who don't believe no proof is good enough. Paranormal, Relgion and even Scientology is a matter of each persons belief and nobody should be criticised for their belief whether you personally agree with it or not.
Of course they should be criticised. If someone makes claims we can test them. If their claims are false we should call them out. If your beliefs are so fragile that they can't stand a little criticism then you should probably be a little less public about them.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 03:53 AM   #676
CatherineFearnley
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
But Barbara was banned. It's not all about you.

I never said it was all about me did I Cuddles? So don't start accusing me of something I have not done.

What exactly should we give him credit for? He has refused to actually say anything about what he believes or why he believes it. If he would actually discuss anything it would be great, but instead all he does is some vague handwaving and then deny that he has ever made any claims. In any case, not backing down is not something to be proud of, it simply means he refuses to admit that he might be wrong. One of the most respected geologists in the world (I forget the name) refused to back down on his ideas about plate tectonics, or at least the lack of it. He didn't get any credit for it, he just made himself look very silly.

We should give David credit for staying around and discussing his beliefs with people like yourself when really he should not have had to do so. David was really forced into this situation by other people. Why should he admit that he is wrong when he isn't. He has a right to believe in what he wants to believe just like everyone else has.

Oh yes, if they are one of the worlds most respected geologists, then he can't have made that much of an impression if you can't even remember his name. Why should people back down on their beliefs, ideas, etc if that is what they want to believe in. Would you back down on your beliefs? No somehow I don't think so.


Of course they should be criticised. If someone makes claims we can test them. If their claims are false we should call them out. If your beliefs are so fragile that they can't stand a little criticism then you should probably be a little less public about them.
That is what I said. You don't have to repeat it. Why should I be less public about my beliefs. I am entitled to them, if other people want to believe otherwise then that is upto them also. We as individuals should have that right. And it should not be upto anyone else to discredit those beliefs. At least it's better to belief in something rather than just wander around aimlessly with no aims in life, no beliefs and nothing to believe in. That is just too sad.

Last edited by CatherineFearnley; 12th April 2007 at 03:56 AM. Reason: Change colour of font to make my response stand out
CatherineFearnley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 04:12 AM   #677
CatherineFearnley
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Big Les View Post
Agreed, although Scientology appears to have been established with the aims of generating money and power for its creator/higher-ups, rather than being co-opted further down the line. In other words "dark" from the get-go rather than good intentions gone awry. Anyway, we're going off topic here. I see there's a new review of one of Manchester's books online...
Great review. What Vampire406 has said is absolutely spot on. We've got both versions of the book and this is exactly what happens. It's interesting to see that a certain person has come back and said that what Vampire406 has said is lies when in reality it isn't. I will close for now as I really don't want to go back down that route, but great review. Might join in the fun on that site.

Best wishes

Catherine
CatherineFearnley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 06:27 AM   #678
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,575
Originally Posted by CatherineFearnley View Post
I never said it was all about me did I Cuddles? So don't start accusing me of something I have not done.
You said you wanted to "set the record straight about my temporary suspension". No-one had mentioned either you or your suspension, but your post implied that I was talking about you. Interesting that you use exactly the same tactics as David where you deny having said things that you posted yourself in the same thread.

Quote:
We should give David credit for staying around and discussing his beliefs with people like yourself when really he should not have had to do so. David was really forced into this situation by other people. Why should he admit that he is wrong when he isn't. He has a right to believe in what he wants to believe just like everyone else has.
What do you mean he should not have had to do so? He didn't and still doesn't have to. Nobody forced him to come here and nobody is forcing him to stay. On the other hand, since he is here he should at least have the courage to actually discuss things instead of hiding behind some of the most pathetic evasions I have seen. Yes, he can believe whatever he likes, but when he makes claims about the real world he can expect to have the questioned, especially since he refuses to bring anything even close to actual evidence.

Quote:
Oh yes, if they are one of the worlds most respected geologists, then he can't have made that much of an impression if you can't even remember his name. Why should people back down on their beliefs, ideas, etc if that is what they want to believe in. Would you back down on your beliefs? No somehow I don't think so.
Do you wish to dispute historical facts as well as scientific ones now? A very prominent geologist refused to believe in continential drift and continued publishing denials until he died, in about 1989 I think. Why should he have backed down on his belief? Because he was wrong, simple as that. Just wanting to believe in something doesn't make it right. I want to believe that I can fly, but should I be encouraged in that belief and told to jump off a building? The whole point of education is that you learn things. If you simply refuse to change your mind and cling to your beliefs even when they have been proveb wrong you do not deserve any credit, you deserve at best sympathy and at worst ridicule.

Would I change my beliefs? I don't have any so that would be a litte tricky. I'm, happy enough in the real world that I don't feel the need to populate it with pointless fantasies.

Quote:
That is what I said. You don't have to repeat it.
Actually that's the exact opposite of what you said. You said "nobody should be criticised for their belief whether you personally agree with it or not.", while I said "Of course they should be criticised". See the difference there?

Quote:
Why should I be less public about my beliefs. I am entitled to them, if other people want to believe otherwise then that is upto them also. We as individuals should have that right. And it should not be upto anyone else to discredit those beliefs.
Yes, you're entitled to them, but if you bring them up in public you can expect people to argue about them. Even if it was just down to opinion you could not complain that we don't agree with you. Unfortunately for you it is not just opinion, there is science involved as well. David has made many claims that can be tested, and so far every single test has shown that he is wrong. You should not be upset that we are discrediting anything, you should be happy that we are willing to give up some of our time in order to educate you about how the world really is. Of course, if you are not interested in the truth then it is all pretty much pointless, but then, if you don't wish to learn anything, why are you here? The James Randi Educational Foundation.

Quote:
At least it's better to belief in something rather than just wander around aimlessly with no aims in life, no beliefs and nothing to believe in. That is just too sad.
It's better to make up some imaginary stuff than to be happy with the world as it really is? What a sad and disappointing life you must have.
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 07:31 AM   #679
CatherineFearnley
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
You said you wanted to "set the record straight about my temporary suspension". No-one had mentioned either you or your suspension, but your post implied that I was talking about you. Interesting that you use exactly the same tactics as David where you deny having said things that you posted yourself in the same thread.

Maybe you didn't directly but you said and note that you said Farrant and his 'cronies' had been banned. I presume that you are referring to myself and Barbara as his 'cronies'? Well I haven't as you can see. I do not use the same tactics as David and I do not deny having said anything. Again you are putting words into my mouth. If I said I said something I would not ever deny it. So again you are wrong.

What do you mean he should not have had to do so? He didn't and still doesn't have to. Nobody forced him to come here and nobody is forcing him to stay. On the other hand, since he is here he should at least have the courage to actually discuss things instead of hiding behind some of the most pathetic evasions I have seen. Yes, he can believe whatever he likes, but when he makes claims about the real world he can expect to have the questioned, especially since he refuses to bring anything even close to actual evidence.

Well if someone had started a thread about you, you would feel obliged to answer any inane comments that are being said about you, therefore he was forced to come on here. Everyone makes claimes about the real world including yourself. So does that make it right for us to question your claims too? Now how does one give any evidence on a message board? And anyway even if he did would you believe it? Somehow I don't think so.

Do you wish to dispute historical facts as well as scientific ones now? A very prominent geologist refused to believe in continential drift and continued publishing denials until he died, in about 1989 I think. Why should he have backed down on his belief? Because he was wrong, simple as that. Just wanting to believe in something doesn't make it right. I want to believe that I can fly, but should I be encouraged in that belief and told to jump off a building? The whole point of education is that you learn things. If you simply refuse to change your mind and cling to your beliefs even when they have been proveb wrong you do not deserve any credit, you deserve at best sympathy and at worst ridicule.

Who is to say what is historical and what isn't. None of us were there at the time. Even now you cannot give the name of this so-called prominent geologist. Why should anyone back down on their beliefs and research just because others think that they are wrong. You have to stick to your guns whether right, wrong or indifferent. If your beliefs were proven to be wrong time and time again would you change them?


Would I change my beliefs? I don't have any so that would be a litte tricky. I'm, happy enough in the real world that I don't feel the need to populate it with pointless fantasies.

Who said that they are pointless fantasies? What you are saying then is that all the historical accounts of Jesus and other religions are wrong. All the worlds religons are wrong, all historical accounts are wrong? Not only are there historical accounts for Jesus and other religions but there are also archeological accounts and evidence that are constantly being unearthed. Show us the evidence that they are wrong?

Actually that's the exact opposite of what you said. You said "nobody should be criticised for their belief whether you personally agree with it or not.", while I said "Of course they should be criticised". See the difference there?

Playing on words here. Maybe I misread the statement but so what? What you are saying then is that everyone should be cricised for their beliefs. Does that include you also? Including Scientology belief?

Yes, you're entitled to them, but if you bring them up in public you can expect people to argue about them. Even if it was just down to opinion you could not complain that we don't agree with you. Unfortunately for you it is not just opinion, there is science involved as well. David has made many claims that can be tested, and so far every single test has shown that he is wrong. You should not be upset that we are discrediting anything, you should be happy that we are willing to give up some of our time in order to educate you about how the world really is. Of course, if you are not interested in the truth then it is all pretty much pointless, but then, if you don't wish to learn anything, why are you here? The James Randi Educational Foundation.

I'm not expecting any other. I am not complaining that you don't agree with me never have, again putting words into my mouth. You say that you have no beliefs? Well what is Scientology if it is not a belief system? How can science be involved in religion? Religion is a complete mystery not meant to be understood by anyone, if we did we would be all God.

I am quite well aware of how the world really is thank you very much and I don't need people on this forum to lecture me or to give me advice. I happen to live in the real world very much so, and no you are not discrediting anything, in fact you are doing quite the opposite and making my beliefs even stronger then before so for that I thank you.

It's better to make up some imaginary stuff than to be happy with the world as it really is? What a sad and disappointing life you must have.
I don't make up any imaginary stuff thank you very much. What I believe in can backed by historical accounts and archeological accounts and has been done time and time again. Actually I live quite a happy and contented life and it's very full at the moment, thank you all the same.

Last edited by CatherineFearnley; 12th April 2007 at 08:07 AM. Reason: change of mind
CatherineFearnley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2007, 08:20 AM   #680
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
 
Professor Yaffle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Emily's shop
Posts: 17,595
Quote:
Who is to say what is historical and what isn't. None of us were there at the time so how can we say any otherwise and even historical facts have been proved wrong time and time again. Even now you cannot give the name of this so-called prominent geologist. Why should anyone back down on their beliefs and research just because others think that they are wrong. You have to stick to your guns whether right, wrong or indifferent. If your beliefs were proven to be wrong time and time again would you change them?


The geologist in question was Harold Jeffreys. Well into the 70's a popular and influential textbook written by him strenuously insisted that plate tectonics was a physical impossibility, just as it had in the first edition in 1924. (with thanks to Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything")

I must say thats a great way to go about science - when new evidence comes along that shows that your previous theory was wrong, just stick with it anyway and ignore the evidence!

You really think that you should stick to your beliefs even if they are proven to be wrong??? What a bizarre idea. If my beliefs were proven to be wrong time and time again, then yes, of course I would change them. The knowledge that something is definitely false is enough to preclude my belief in it. How else can you learn and grow in your beliefs and knowledge?

Do you still believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy? If not, why not?

Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 12th April 2007 at 08:26 AM.
Professor Yaffle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.