Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/1701-1800/1724

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-20 | 5.4 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [e-mail](Bruce Daniel Kettler)
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.psi,alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.out.of.body,alt.astrology,sci.skeptic
Subject: "SKEPTICS" how to reach a compromise (reply to Twitch)
Date: 21 Jun 1996 06:50:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <4qdgn4$[e-mail]>
References: <4o9s97$[e-mail]> <4oinai$[e-mail]> <4pb30k$[e-mail]> <4pfgf4$[e-mail]> <4pk65p$[e-mail]> <4pn11t$[e-mail]> <4pnatl$[e-mail]> <4pnhit$[e-mail]> <4po4lf$[e-mail]> <4q7l38$[e-mail]> <4qc6aa$[e-mail]> <4qcgo8$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: den-co5-05.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jun 20 11:50:12 PM PDT 1996
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.paranormal:19801 alt.paranet.psi:5507 alt.alien.visitors:88746 alt.paranet.ufo:53999 alt.astrology:51051 sci.skeptic:73146


>In <4qc6aa$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

<SNIP>  I still adamantly disagree with the concept that
>>alt.paranormal should be a private preserve for believers and I shall
>>still ask for evidence.
>>
>>Enjoy.
>>
>>Twitch
>>
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>(from BDK)

Twitch, as for a "private preserve for believers," no I don't think
that's *quite* what I and Steve Reiser have said or meant
alt.paranormal should be.  I don't want to try to speak for him on that
issue.  So, in general, here's *my* explanation:

Asking for "evidence" is more or less obnoxious to more or less people,
depending upon how often it's done by a number of people, and in what
manner.  It's not an isolated thing.  If you were the only one who ever
did it, and you did it just now and then on certain subjects, probably
no-one would ever notice it, or complain in any way.  You would be
involved in a debate, now and then on *one* subject at a time, on
alt.paranormal and I'm sure I'd never care.

I've noticed [e-mail] in debates on alt.paranormal for quite a
few months in the past, and this latest one has gone on quite awhile.
I started to get into a *discussion* with him (and the subject could
not have been a debate, just theory on how thoughts are transmitted and
received  --  since I never considered it a "proof") but somehow that
drifted off.

Somewhere on alt.paranormal should still be, or if the reader is seeing
this later, it will be in the archives, viewable via one's WWW browser,
then selecting ALTA VISTA or YAHOO and my e-mail address -- the
following:

    ANNOUNCEMENT SUGGESTIONS for "SKEPTICS" (or something like that)
    (2 parts)

There have been a number of ideas tossed about, and these are ideas to
bring some harmony, some good feeling between the "skeptics" and
PRO-PARANORMAL people.  At one point, it was advocated that all
postings of a request for proof/evidence appear on alt.paranormal in
the form of an invitation to go to SCI.SKEPTIC and debate.  That was
signed by a number of PRO people as being a viable alternative.

Since then, I came up with the ideas presented in,

                SUGGESTIONS FOR "SKEPTICS" (or something like that)
                (2 parts)

in which some other ideas were presented, so that "skeptics" would
actually conduct *a few* debates in alt.paranormal.  Skeptics would
first look to alt.paranormal, and if there wasn't a lot of debate going
on, would get in and ask people for debates on *a certain subject* to
be conducted *IN THE NEWSGROUP, ALT.PARANORMAL.*

I gave an example of a good, level-headed, person who has visited
alt.paranormal, [e-mail].  I have observed that he stays with
one subject, and I've never known him to "FLAME" anyone, or be
offensive in any way.

Mr. Lippard is another person who I've had some exchange with.  He's a
gentleman.  He makes pertinent, and interesting announcements in
alt.paranormal.

I've never debated with [e-mail], but I've noted his debates
with others.  He's formidable opposition for the "skeptic" side.

No one has said anyone does not have a perfect *legal* right to write
on alt.paranormal, asking for evidence, etc.  Certain ways of doing it
have been argued on *moral* grounds.  I don't think that the frequency
of posting is something that anyone can do more than criticize people
for.  We cannot get, and I don't advocate people trying, to get ISP's
to ban people for posting opposing views too often.

I've never given a threat that people must curb the number of postings
of opposing views, requests for proof, etc.  or have their ISP
contacted to attempt banning them.

I've also been against alt.paranormal becoming moderated.  I'm not so
sure, anymore.

Rather than becoming a moderated newsgroup, there are other
alternatives that require cooperation from everyone.  Those
alternatives are offered in my "SUGGESTIONS" found either here in
alt.paranormal, or in the archives -- a recent 2 part posting.

If we don't get some agreement, some moderate behavior from the
"skeptics," my reading of postings, and e-mail with people, indicates
that others will want to have the group moderated.  I'll probably agree
that it's the best way, under those circumstances.  People are writing
they want to help do the work of moderating alt.paranormal.

Thank you for reading this.