Sheldrake dissertation

Non proponents will lie or mislead much more than proponents, not sure why you are trying to pretend it's the non proponents that are treated unfairly.

I'm not sure where you got "unfair".

I happen to consider "lying and misleading" poor behaviour regardless of its source, as opposed to those who excuse the behaviour when it comes from someone in-group (this thread as a good example). And this excuse-making is much more prominent here than at Skeptic forums, where the behaviour gets called-out (at least it was back in the day when I hung out on the JREF forum). Has any proponent here (or elsewhere) ever criticized Bem's lies, for example? Did any proponent here even notice that Sheldrake's statements about Wiseman were highly misleading? 

Linda

Describing Wiseman as a conjurer when his primary occupation is as a professor and media commentator is misleading, and unnecessary.

I'm not sure where you got "unfair".

I happen to consider "lying and misleading" poor behaviour regardless of its source, as opposed to those who excuse the behaviour when it comes from someone in-group (this thread as a good example). And this excuse-making is much more prominent here than at Skeptic forums, where the behaviour gets called-out (at least it was back in the day when I hung out on the JREF forum). Has any proponent here (or elsewhere) ever criticized Bem's lies, for example? Did any proponent here even notice that Sheldrake's statements about Wiseman were highly misleading? 

Linda

Yeah in the Skeptic forums they aren't biased at all. There are no hit pieces against proponent scientists, the skeptics didn't make a wiki which contains character assassinations against proponents. 

And this thread you has a debate where you attempted to excuse make for Wiseman, despite the person you were debating making reasonable statements. 

Not that any of this matters, nobody on this forum takes you seriously as you cannot have a conversation in good faith.

Yeah in the Skeptic forums they aren't biased at all. There are no hit pieces against proponent scientists, the skeptics didn't make a wiki which contains character assassinations against proponents.

Why are you suddenly bringing bias into this? I didn’t say that skeptic forums are unbiased. Of course they are - just as much as proponent forums/wikis/blogs, etc.

I was speaking about lying and misleading, the claim you leveled against non proponents, and the response of non proponents to lies or misleading statements coming from non proponent parapsychologists or prominent bloggers/forums. For example, the Australian skeptics called out Randi for misrepresenting the Carlos Hoax.

And this thread you has a debate where you attempted to excuse make for Wiseman, despite the person you were debating making reasonable statements.

Can you give me an example of a reasonable statement that you think I made invalid excuses for (it is not invalid to point out that scientists attempt to publish/present their results in a timely manner, for example)?

Not that any of this matters, nobody on this forum takes you seriously as you cannot have a conversation in bad faith.

Can’t disagree with that statement.
(Just kidding. I know you misspoke.)

Linda