A plea

I think maybe the creation of this thread has done more harm than good.

Maybe it should be locked.

Keep the self-owns coming. "[sarcastically] You poor, poor thing complaining about being attacked." *a little while ago* "tim is being attacked and this thread must be DELETED!"

The thread was created to attack Tim, you nincompoop. I know, it's hard to understand, but, with a bit of luck, if you read aloud the first sentence in this post a few times, maybe you will understand it. If the concept is still to complex to grasp, I'll make a little cartoon for you, where Mikey and his friends will explain it to you dancing and singing.

The thread was created to attack Tim, you nincompoop.

No, it wasn't. If I'd wanted to attack Tim, I would have done so. I if wanted to attack you, I would do so (believe me, I can name-call as well as anyone else here - name-calling is very easy).

The reason it was created is that my hope for this site was that it could attract - and encourage the involvement of - more people who are interested in the scientific investigation of psi. I don't think that's an unreasonable hope, given the name of the site. It's why I spend some time every morning looking for news and information and posting it here, despite the fact that most of it appears to raise very little interest at the time. After all, it all goes into Google and over time it may achieve something.

Anyway, that's why I was particularly appalled by what happened in this instance after a new member who was interested in the scientific investigation of psi posted his first question. This thread was a genuine attempt to get people to think about what kind of effect that has, and to try to get people to be more open to discussing things with people who may have different views or may question their views.

Except Laird and I don't agree with your view of the purpose of the thread, and I'm quite sure Chris doesn't agree either. More importantly, we (Laird and I) have clearly explained the reasons for our disagreement with you. You have done nothing but assert that we're wrong.

LOL! Ad populum fallacy much, huh, High-IQ Researcher?

Allow me to highlight the key part of my reply to you: "More importantly, we (Laird and I) have clearly explained the reasons for our disagreement with you. You have done nothing but assert that we're wrong." So you're incorrect, yet again. We've already given the reasons for thinking that you're wrong, none of which is fallacious, but you offer nothing that could be further rebutted because you simply insist that we're wrong without attempting to give any justification for your view.

Now, it's "we", not "I", so..... Voila ad populum...... And another sign of intellectual immaturity. Be part of a group, part of "we", to feel more secure..... Curious.

You think that identifying the people who have given reasons against your view, so as to make clear what reasons you are to consider and respond to, is "ad populum"? Lol, this is beyond sad.

LOLOLOLOL!, identifying, no, substituting "I" for "We", High-IQ Researcher,  As to debunking your "arguments", E. Flowers did a splendid job on that.