A plea

I would like to note just how amusing the following from Enrique Vargas' exchange with Chris is.

Enrique: "Great argument."

That was in response to Chris' comment ("Rubbish") to Enrique, which is all Enrique's earlier reply deserved.

Chris then went ahead with a detailed explanation about why Enrique's view is "Rubbish."

Enrique's reply: "Ah, ok, you bias against Tim is loud and clear. Nothing to talk about."

"Great argument" indeed.

Listen, you, "high-IQ researcher", you have demonstrated your lack of intellectual honesty and human decency by begging the moderators to lock the thread which you created, when things didn't work out for you but.... you happily continue attacking Tim in an ad hoc thread. So, that "high IQ" seems more and more questionable with every post you excrete.

Moderators: why are you allowing a virtual lynching of a forum member? IMO, this thread should be deleted. It stinks.

More "for me (and my friends), but not for thee" tactics from you, Enrique. tim and his ilk (e.g. you) have elected to continue the attacks. I then defend myself because the attacks continue, and I am in the wrong for doing so?

I lack "human decency" for requesting that a thread be locked to stop further petty name-calling and the like (not that that stopped you or tim)? Think through what you write before posting it, perhaps.

And I see no defense of your flagrant hypocrisy that I highlighted. Even more amusing.

Also, at what point did I claim to be a "high-IQ researcher"? You and tim have a similar penchant for not reading what is put before you prior to responding. Why even respond if you haven't even registered what has been said?

EDIT: And now this from Enrique: "Moderators: why are you allowing a virtual lynching of a forum member? IMO, this thread should be deleted. It stinks." This is the same guy who accuses me of lacking "human decency" for requesting that a thread be locked. Enrique, can you post anything that does not evidence overt hypocrisy?

+Either you pretend to be not intelligent or you really are. It's obvious that this thread was created to attack Tim. You, begging to close the thread you created but continuing posting in the thread created to attack your opponent tell a lot about I. You, perhaps, should think through before you post. It's you who displayed flagrant hypocrisy.

Projecting mu8ch, "High-IQ Researcher"? I stated to Tim that you workin IQ.

Apparently, you have difficulty understanding things. 1) or the third time, you beg your thread to be locked, but continue attacking your opponent in the thread created for the specific purpose of attacking him. 2) Because this thread HAS BEEN created with the purpose to attack a forum member, I want it deleted. Got it, High-IQ Researcher?

[Laird]

Moderators: why are you allowing a virtual lynching of a forum member?

I think that's unnecessarily hyperbolic, Enrique. This thread's motivation is reasonable, in my view. Chris wanted to express his concerns. I imagine that he would have done that in the original thread if it hadn't been locked at the time. He did so politely. He has not attacked, much less "lynched" anybody, nor has anybody else who shares his view. I think we need and ought to distinguish between constructive, if uncomfortable, criticism and personal attacks. This thread falls in the former category. PR entered the thread late and only to respond to comments that had been made about him. That's perfectly valid.

I wish people could make more of an effort to be open to reasonable and courteous discussion - particularly with people who are new to the forum, particularly when they are questioning rather than dictating, and particularly when they make it clear that they are not approaching the subject from a hardline sceptic position.

Questioning our assumptions should never be a bad thing to do, and when the questioner is met with and defensiveness and hostility they are not likely to be persuaded. If newcomers to the site meet with that kind of reaction, we risk alienating people who could make a valuable contribution to the field.

You do not question the IQ of someone you just met... He came out swinging, Chris. Worse, even if you were correct in labeling the interpretation of him as “aggressor” as “rubbish”, the kid is still sitting on top of one hell of a high horse.

First, your post is incoherent in places.

"You, [sic] begging to close the thread you created but continuing [sic] posting in the thread created to attack your opponent tell [sic] a lot about I [sic]."

"I stated to Tim that you workin [sic] IQ."

Not exactly ideal in a message in which you attack an interlocutor's intelligence.

'Projecting mu8ch [sic], "High-IQ Researcher" [sic]?'

The accusation of projection offers yet more amusement, since you exhibit the most transparent sort of projection possible, namely repeating criticisms from an interlocutor back at them, with no justification: "You, perhaps, should think through before you post"; "It's you who displayed flagrant hypocrisy."

Much like tim, things that are "obvious" to you are not obvious, or are clearly false, to those who have actually understood the matter at issue. For instance, you make the following claim: "It's obvious that this thread was created to attack Tim." In fact, any even remotely accurate reading would make clear that this thread was created to encourage better behavior on this forum so that good contributors won't be driven away. Chris wishes members "could make more of an effort to be open to reasonable and courteous discussion". Somehow, you've twisted that into persecution of tim--similar to how tim twists any statements about the Reynolds case not in perfect agreement with his (flawed) understanding of the facts into an attack on him and/or the paranormality of that case.

"you beg your thread to be locked, but continue attacking your opponent in the thread created for the specific purpose of attacking him"

You continue to ignore the fact that my further responses have been occasioned by attacks on me. I was hoping that further replies would not be necessary, but you, tim, and others had different plans. You have a peculiar lack of understanding of the predictable causal connections between your (and others') behavior and the subsequent behavior of others.

"I want it deleted" *mere minutes earlier* "you have demonstrated your lack of intellectual honesty and human decency by begging the moderators to lock the thread which you created"

"For me, but not for thee!"

I decided to cut any interaction with you, "High-IQ Researcher", when I saw you using a typical low IQ trolls' tool: picking on typos. Try to type accurately, "High-IQ Researcher", while being in a dog park, typing and watching your dog at the same time. But, no worries, this modus operandi reveals a lot about your ethics and your IQ. Basically, you just ceased to exist as a valid opponent in any possible debate. Pathetic as hell....

I think that's unnecessarily hyperbolic, Enrique. This thread's motivation is reasonable, in my view. Chris wanted to express his concerns. I imagine that he would have done that in the original thread if it hadn't been locked at the time. He did so politely. He has not attacked, much less "lynched" anybody, nor has anybody else who shares his view. I think we need and ought to distinguish between constructive, if uncomfortable, criticism and personal attacks. This thread falls in the former category. PR entered the thread late and only to respond to comments that had been made about him. That's perfectly valid.

Then, we will disagree on this. Have you read, by the way, the contribution of the individual supposedly interested in psy but totally uninterested in Pam Reynolds case, the most fascinating case in NDE research history? If, what he said about Tim is not a chekist style lynching, I don't know what is.

You do not question the IQ of someone you just met... He came out swinging, Chris. Worse, even if you were correct in labeling the interpretation of him as “aggressor” as “rubbish”, the kid is still sitting on top of one hell of a high horse.

If you think he "came out swinging," you really need to read the thread.

Not only was he asking very pertinent questions, but when people repeatedly appeared to misunderstand, he continued to explain what he meant very patiently and courteously. I'm not surprised he lost his temper. I would have lost mine much sooner. There are few things more frustrating than people repeatedly appearing to misunderstand clear statements - but continuing to respond to them in a dogmatic manner.

Now Tim says he is just a layperson who has never professed expertise, and it would be better to ask an expert.