(split) On lies, sexual harassment, and moderation

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Magical Realist, Oct 28, 2017.

  1. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    That sounds like the beginning of a witch hunt where the innocent get trampled on simply because they have a difference of opinion on the details. You do not have ownership of concern over the issues of sexual harassment;you do not necessarily have the solution to eliminating it; and I find it quite despicable that you should attempt such a devious approach.

    There is more than one type of harassment and I am disgusted to see you party to such.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Devious? Interesting... the rules are on full and obvious display for anyone who wishes to read them. Their meaning is quite clear, and is provided in detail. It is also stated, quite clearly, that moderators are to act in accordance with the spirit of the rules, not the letter (to prevent exactly this sort of attempted "technicality" excusing/hand waving of bad behavior).

    If you want a platform where you are free to say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want without any need to support your claims or act in good faith, I would suggest Facebook or Twitter.

    Given that seems the be the only comment you can make in response, I have to admit - I am utterly unconcerned about your disgust; you merely appear to be disgusted with anyone that disagrees with you at this point, given that you are unable or unwilling to provide an actual retort.

    If it seems I am being harsh, again, the invitation is open for you to make these kinds of "snarky remarks" on social media - however, SciFo has a posted set of rules, and the option is simple - abide by them or be infracted.

    If you don't like that, then I suggest taking it up with the administration.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I'm probably the most intelligent and reasonable participant that you have on this board. As for my opinion of you, I think that you are obviously bright and much of the time you do argue well (when the topic isn't emotionally charged in your mind). So I do respect your intelligence.

    Unfortunately, I don't think that you administer this board well. I'm not impressed by your choices of moderators, who often seem clueless about the subjects they moderate and often seem rude and emotionally unstable. Worse, you never seem to discipline them, you never make any attempt to hold them to the same standard that is apparently expected of rank-and-file board participants. And that seems to be a sliding standard, loosely construed if you or the moderators agree with somebody, but tightly construed when you don't. So bad actors that you happen to like effectively get carte blanche, while those who disagree with moderator opinion are quickly banned. (I expect that my own banning is immanent.)

    As for the "crude insult" I supposedly directed at you, you had written this directed at MR:

    :::Moderator Edit:::

    Offensive comments removed because they constituted sexual harassment and insinuations that another member would actually be the type of person who would actually provide sexual favours, in response to James request that he stop lying about what he had said, which is also sexual harassment.

    Then when I continued reading the thread, I saw that you had tried to smooth it over a little, a few posts below. So I deleted my sarcastic remark which was only up for a minute or two.

    It was rude, but what else is new on Sciforums? I think that it captured my emotional response to what you were doing very well. And I think that my emotional response was justified.

    It was hyperbole.

    You and your moderators seem unwilling to even consider the possibility that some (not all) anomalous events might conceivably have extra-mundane explanations. That's not the same thing as insisting that they do, it's just acknowledging the possibility.

    Worse, the threads always turn hostile and abusive. You, your moderators and a good portion of the board's dimmer participants seem to think that anyone who suggests that a ufo sighting might be a sighting of something hitherto unknown should be dismissed not only as wrong, but as stupid and evil as well.

    One of the real defects of Sciforums is that every argument seems to turn into a moral argument. It's always implicitly good vs evil. That's full frontal in the "politics" and "ethics" forums where your moderators seemingly spend most of their time, but it's also obvious in the 'fringe' fora.

    'Something that deviates from what is normal and expected. Something extraordinary.'

    Sometimes I give the word 'anomalous' a stronger meaning, where it means something like 'Something that is seemingly inconsistent with our current scientific understanding of how the universe behaves.'

    In other words, I intend 'anomalous' to refer to the flip side of 'mundane', which also embodies that same ambiguity.

    Not necessarily. We can start with the nature of particular reports: something seemingly metallic, something that behaves as if it was under control, something witnessed by multiple observers and occasionally on radar too. Obviously jumping from that to space aliens is a non-sequitur, but just bleating that eye-witness testimony is bullshit by its nature doesn't suffice either.

    Obviously things like imagination, confabulation and misidentification of something more common might be possible explanations. But not obviously so, unless one has already stacked the deck in their own mind.

    That's why I've asked (repeatedly) why the 'fringe' fora even exist, if people who give these kind of things some credence are so unwelcome. Are these just 'insult people who take fringe subjects seriously' fora? I would much prefer that these be fora where problem cases in the philosophy of science can be discussed intelligently. The problem cases are typically going to arise at the fringes, not where everyone is already in agreement and need only repeat what the authorities say. But in order for it to work, people need to be able to deal emotionally with differences of opinion and with the frustrations that might accompany that.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 30, 2017
    Magical Realist likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Oh my...

    This is, most likely, because you aren't privy to what goes on in the Moderator sub-forum...

    Curiously enough, you are correct in a way - folks who continually are a drain on moderator time and/or contribute little of value to the forums, as their bad behavior continues, are leaned on harder and harder, while those who only occasionally slip up and continually make quality, thought provoking contributions are given more leeway.

    This is built into the system intentionally, by way of infraction points expiring after a duration. Additionally, it allows for the handling of those who attempt to game the system by acting in ways they know (and have been warned before) are inappropriate, then simply "go dark" long enough for the points to expire, just to return and repeat said bad behavior.

    Curious that you use "supposedly" - do you deny writing it? Maybe someone else was at your computer at the time?

    The fact that you immediately jump to such a conclusion (that you were picturing James having a sneaky wank at the prospect of a member grovelling) is telling of your supposed "respect" for him.

    Curious. You say that your "emotional" action was "justified", yet in the same post whinge that you feel moderators are too emotional... while ALSO whinging that we aren't held to the same standard.

    What's it going to be Yazata? Are we all held to the same standard? Are we held to different standards based on our station?

    So, from now on, whenever someone calls MR out for something using an absolute, if anyone takes umbrage to it, the defense of "it was hyperbole" is sufficient, correct? Or, are we to give MR special dispensation and preferential treatment in this regard?

    Certainly you can prove that we are "unwilling to even consider the possibility that some (not all) anomalous events might conceivably have extra-mundane explanations." I would be curious to see what you come up with...

    ... especially given that I have recounted my own seemingly paranormal tale that I cannot provide any reasonable explanation for.

    Always? Is this more hyperbole, or do you actually mean what you are saying? Or is this a case where the intent will change based on how well you feel you can actually back what you are saying?

    And yes, they do often turn hostile - in the case of MR, they typically turn hostile when he is requested to provide supporting evidence, and responds with some variation of "LOL no do your own research" or "I already did". Or, as he often does, when he makes a thread (such as this one) into yet another of his "Everyone is mean to me, I'm such a victim wahh!" pity parties. Or when he becomes hostile first, such as when asked if he will continue a conversation instead of abandoning thread, and responds with:
    Yes, people tend to get a little miffed when you start simply ignoring large parts of their posts because you cannot refute it, and so instead pretend it doesn't exist. What a shock!

    1) Curious that you seem to infer you know what is going on in our heads.
    2) Curious that you would, in the same post where you are ranting about poor behavior, take it upon yourself to insult the intelligence of some insofar unspecified portion of the Forum Community.

    Us moderators spend most of our time in the "politics" and "ethics" forums precisely because those sub-fora are where things get heated the most, and thus most moderator intervention is required.

    Most other sub-forums, either things stay civil enough to not need more than a gentle nudge back on track, posts are so egregiously off-topic (or spam) that we just punt them to another subforum (or delete them altogether), or things go well enough that we can *gasp* interact as just another member partaking in stimulating discussion.

    By that same token, an F/A-18 Super Eagle buzzing a local high school at high speed is anomalous - it does not make it supernatural.

    And yet, it appears that bringing up the obvious questions of "Were these eye-witness accounts verified, cross-examined, and checked against more mundane explanations" seems to be the more egregious of insults one can utter.

    Ideally, some modicum of decorum and rationality is expected... but lately, that seems like it is too much to ask.

    Lets rule out the plausible first, before jumping to little green men with a penchant for prodding us with weird instruments, eh?

    EDIT - per mod note below - removed quoted offensive remark.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note..

    Post #48 has been edited to remove offensive content that constituted sexual harassment of other people on this website. An infraction was also issued.
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I don't view it as a literal suggestion, so I don't see it as sexual harassment either. I see it as a metaphor for having a power trip and forcing someone to humiliate themselves for your own gratification. It's like saying somebody is kissing ass, or screwing you over, or any of the other colorful ways of expressing non-sexual situations of power and forced submission. It's a literary device, much as my humorous hyperbole was. You mods really need to go back to English class and study "figures of speech."

    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And certainly the most modest.
    exchemist, origin and Bells like this.
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Hm... yet if memory serves, you took offense a while back regarding a figure of speech literary device referencing a door hitting you on the way out...

    Curious how you pick and choose what infuriates you.

    EDIT - a few minutes searching SciForums history brings up a few examples of similar behavior surrounding pop-culture phrases, but not literary devices - at this time, I am unable to adequately substantiate the above comment regarding literary devices in particular.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2017
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Really? Can you refer me to that complaint?
  13. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Hm, at this point I cannot - searching for the post in question, I have found several making potential reference to it, but without direct links, and cannot find the post itself.

    I did come across two that were similar, but did not reference literary devices (rather, they referenced pop-culture phrases instead), but as that is not a direct correlation - consider the comment redacted.
  14. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    Remember when Paddoboy made a "joke" about a door handle and its, well, contact to your backside, not to mention the many comments aimed at you about anal probing and the holy hell that was raised, infractions issued for his sexually harassing you? You were well in agreement that that constituted sexual harassment.

    We didn't see it as a "joke". It was sexual harassment. And it was treated as such.

    And you also viewed that as sexual harassment.

    And yet, you are now defending even worse comments made about James (and you as well), as not being sexual harassment?

    Look dude, we get it, he's your friend. But that does not justify his response and his sexually harassing others on this site. And by the way, those "sexual comments" he made about James? He was also making them about you too, because he was depicting you in a sexual manner and remember how you used to find that offensive? As I said, he is your friend. And you might not view it as sexual harassment, but we have a clear record on how we view and treat these kinds of statements. It wasn't made in jest. It wasn't a joke made between friends.

    Most importantly..

    Given that Yazata was already informed that it was not welcome, and he was advised by James that it was not welcome or funny or seen as a joke and was instead told it was vulgar, he chose to not only repeat it, but decided to make it even worse. By any standard or definition, that is sexual harassment.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    You won't find them because the posts were deleted because it was sexual harassment.
  16. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification above - I thought I had recalled MR going down this kind of path before.
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I don't recall ever complaining about a door hitting my backside. And descriptions online of me getting anally probed weren't literary devices. They were literal suggestions, which makes them sexual harrassment.

    I never complain about figures of speech. And you have no record of me ever doing so.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Well, this has all escalated quite a bit, hasn't it?

    First off, let me talk about Magical Realist's role in all this.

    To those people who think my request to Magical Realist that he apologise for posting "hyperbole" (read "a lie") about me was unreasonable, I suggest that you might like to consider the point at which a member's past and current record of behaviour becomes relevant to how other people - moderators or otherwise - respond to him. Each post a member makes here does not exist as an isolated curiosity, but in a context that includes all the other posts that member makes. It also exists in the context of any previous or ongoing discussions that the member has with other members (including moderators).

    Anybody reading the most recent threads (and a lot of past threads) in which Magical Realist and I have gone back and forth could hardly avoid noticing Magical Realist's many snarky remarks directed at me. (And yes, I have directed quite a few at him, too.) Given that context, it is clear that there was nothing "light hearted" about Magical Realist's false claim that I say that every UFO is the planet Venus. What he was doing there was trying to score a cheap point by making me look unreasonable - like I have a pre-formed opinion on every particular UFO case his throws up, before looking at any evidence.

    Add to that the fact that he started doing that in post #3 of the thread, and continued in post #7, before I even posted in the thread. Had he not decided to target me for ridicule, I might not even have posted in that thread - who knows?

    But this is need not be about me. If Magical Realist's target had been another member and not me, and that member (or somebody else) had reported MR's posts for telling lies, or flaming another member, or for trolling, chances are good that I would have responded the same way: i.e. to ask MR to post evidence of the truth of his claim about the member, or else to retract it and apologise (or be officially warned).

    As I wrote to MR at the time, I would have been well within the bounds set by our site rules to have issued him with an official warning immediately, on any of several different grounds (or a combination of them). Given MR's accumulated warning points at present, that would have meant an automatic ban of several days for him. Instead, I decided to give him the chance to act like a decent human being and simply apologise for his rather grotty behaviour. And that he grudgingly did, if only to avoid the ban he knew would be coming if he did not apologise.

    Now, it seems that two people here - and perhaps there are others less outspoken - view this incident from a rather different perspective. They see me as a bully, who made what they would consider to be an unjustified threat to ban Magical Realist unless he kowtowed to me. As far as I can see, there's not much I can say that will be likely to change those people's point of view on this. I can urge that you read more widely,with recent and past interactions between MR and myself obviously being relevant background to this, but I'm aware that if you haven't already done that then it is unlikely you will be motivated enough to do so now.

    The other thing I would say is that my impression is that the support Magical Realist is getting from some people on this is not entirely altruistically motivated. I am aware that a certain proportion of our members think that the administration/moderators/site rules/whatever are not sufficiently tolerant of certain points of view, the most relevant here being the idea that "paranormal" events can and do occur, at least sometimes. And therefore, there is an understandable tendency to stand behind a person who argues stridently for these supposedly "suppressed" points of view, as well as a tendency to forgive bad behaviour on the part of that person. To the cheer squad, I suggest that you try harder to separate issues of general civility, good manners and good faith in a debate from issues that have more to do with your personal beliefs regarding the debated matters themselves.

    Is this whole thing an abuse by myself of moderator powers? To that, I say simply: look at what happened here. I had not participated in the thread. Magical Realist brought me into it by referring to me by name not once, but twice, in a way that was both factually false and also deliberately intended both to cause offence to me and to create a false impression of me for others who might not know me. The option was open for me to jump in with all moderator guns blazing, but I did not do so. I simply asked MR for a retraction and an apology - i.e. to act like a decent human being and redress the wrong he did. I offered the carrot, but there was, of course, an implied stick, too. Not one that I would have likely wielded myself in this instance, given my personal involvement, but one that I would happily have offered to another moderator.

    The overriding aim of moderating somebody for something like this is to model a standard of acceptable intercourse on this discussion forum. Members are not required to agree with one another, but when flaming and trolling starts, all hope for a useful discussion ends. It is not acceptable for members to knowingly tell lies - either about the topic of discussion or about other members. To flame and lie and troll is to lose the respect of other members, as well as one's right to impose on the time and energy of those members.
    exchemist and Kittamaru like this.
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Secondly, I'd like to address the issue of Yazata's potty-mouthed harassment.

    I am still at a loss as to what prompted Yazata's first outburst. Perhaps Yazata was having a bad day. Or maybe it's something else. Maybe it grew out of a kind of misguided and overblown sense of loyalty to Magical Realist, whom I get the impression that Yazata might know in "real life". And maybe it was also spurred on because Yazata thinks I don't give a fair hearing to claims of the "paranormal", or something like that.

    The original comment has been removed, but it is important that we know its content so we can consider it properly. In response to my request to Magical Realist that he apologise to me, Yazata suggested that I might also want Magical Realist to perform a sexual act on me. How Yazata came to the conclusion that such a response was justified is frankly a mystery to me. And Bells is right: the response is a form of sexual harassment, directed intentionally at myself and also at Magical Realist, to whose defence Yazata probably thought he was jumping. Apart from that, Yazata's response was appallingly ill-mannered, as well as crude and inappropriate.

    Would Yazata have made the same comment to me if we had been face to face? I don't know. If not, I wonder why he thought it acceptable to put it in writing.

    I was most surprised by the hatred implied in Yazata's comment. I don't think I have ever done anything to Yazata to warrant this kind of extreme reaction. We have disagreed on a number of discussion points from time to time, but I never regarded those differences of opinion as reflecting fundamental character flaws on Yazata's part. In fact, I have made a point of following Yazata's posts and have on numerous occasions "liked" posts of his, whether or not I have responded on the same topic. So, I don't quite see where the hatred comes from. It both surprised and disappointed me, and I said so to Yazata. I also wrote "I'll now wait and see whether you will do the decent thing."

    Obviously, people say some things they later come to regret. At the risk of spelling out the blindingly obvious, the "decent thing" here was, as it was in Magical Realist's case, to apologise to me. The insult and harassment was uncalled for and unnecessary, besides being ultimately unhelpful. I thought that, given a little time, Yazata, if he was the reasonable person I thought him to be, would realise that he had done me an injustice and would be sorry.

    That's not what happened, of course. Instead, Yazata chose to escalate the insult and harassment, adding a new sex act that he had not previously mentioned. Apology? Not a bit of it. Just an excuse and self-justification: "It was rude, but what else is new on Sciforums? I think that it captured my emotional response to what you were doing very well. And I think that my emotional response was justified."

    On a personal level, the effect of all of this is that I will no longer look at Yazata in the same light as before. He is not the person I assumed he was. I accept that. It's not the first time I have been wrong about somebody. We will not be friends, and I will move on.

    As a moderator of this forum, my only comment is that nobody who has been on sciforums for any length of time could possibly be under the impression that insulting another member using sexual slurs is an accepted form of discourse here. It is completely appropriate, and it should come as no surprise, that both comments have been removed from public view. Harassing another member by focussing on his or her sexual preferences, or sexual activities, real or imagined, is completely inappropriate, uncivilised, and in many places actually illegal. To those who are unsure of what kinds of behaviour amount to sexual harassment, I urge you to educate yourself - there are a lot of good online resources available. This is something everybody should be educated about, not just for forums, but for life.

    I am aware that, at some point before I saw it but after some other posters saw it, Yazata edited his original post to remove the sexual slur. Clearly he regarded it as merely a "snarky comment" or a "sarcastic remark", but at some level he knew it was inappropriate. After knowing I had seen it, why did he not simply apologise for the wrong he knew he had done? It could have been done privately, by personal message, if he was worried about somehow losing face. I have no answer as to why he would choose to double down on the original wrong, and also seek to excuse it on the grounds that he was "emotional" and that it was somehow "justified", other than that maybe he just fundamentally doesn't understand what was wrong with what he wrote.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Because, by your own admission, you're not here very often, I imagine that you may have not read many of the recent (or not-so-recent) exchanges between Magical Realist and myself. The context is important, as I have indicated above, and I think you just might be going off half cocked.

    There's nothing gentle in MR's attitude towards me, I assure you. From his point of view, I'm an impediment to his mindless parroting here of "paranormal" material from other web sites. I'm too demanding when I ask for more from him than a cut-and-paste job of a shiny video he has found on youtube. And for him, a reasoned response to my objections takes far too much effort. Better to attempt to ridicule me at any opportunity.

    My response is above.

    Perhaps you should hold off on forming an opinion until you know what he wrote, then. (I have given you a rough idea above.) What do you think?

    I can only suggest that perhaps you're not sufficiently informed as to the full extent of the relevant past posting history.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Except in the case of first-post spammers and the like, there are no "manual" bans of anybody here. Bans depend entirely on accumulated warning points. The full policy is published in the Site Feedback subforum.

    Regarding the moderators: sciforums is not a dictatorship, I'm not pulling all the strings, and I don't get to choose everything. We have a separate Moderators subforum that is not visible to the general membership, in which issues of moderation and policy are discussed on a daily, ongoing, basis. "Discipline" of moderators (and of administrators!), such as it is, happens there. If a moderator needs to be warned repeatedly regarding breaches of site rules that they are supposed to be upholding and enforcing (to some extent) then the appropriate sanction is not to give the moderator a warning like a regular member, but to remove the moderator from his or her appointment. Think of it, if you like, as being a bit like academic tenure. Barring some kind of gross misconduct or abuse of the position, moderators remain while they have the confidence of the administration.

    Moderators are not a monolith. Each moderator has his or her own views on things, and sometimes moderators (and administrators) disagree regarding particular decisions that are taken. Except in extreme circumstances, I as an administrator do not second-guess decisions made by other moderators, by which I mean reversing or overriding them. If I disagree with something somebody does, I will tell them, and we can discuss it. At the end of the day, we might still end up with a disagreement; that's the way it goes sometimes.

    I can't speak for other moderators on this. But I can say that you're certainly misreading me. I would say I'm always considering whether the anomalous event might not be readily explainable. We live in a messy world where there are always lots of loose ends. The fact is that many of the "paranormal" events put up by Magical Realist and his ilk are unresolvable on the basis of the evidence that is readily available. But some of them are resolvable, as it turns out.

    It's not that. A UFO sighting might be anything. There's no way to know until/unless it is investigated. And any investigation can stall due to lack of sufficient evidence. Any reasonable person starts with the possibility that the sighting could be a cloud, or it could be an alien spaceship, or something else. That should go without saying.

    The reason that threads tend to turn hostile, I think, is that so often we see proponents of the paranormal refusing to engage in the discussion in good faith. That means not cherry-picking evidence that supports their preferred conclusion, giving due consideration to evidence or explanations that might refute their preferred outcome, and so on. It means seriously considering plausible alternatives rather than dismissing them out of hand.

    When dishonest tactics are used, or troll-like tactics such as changing the topic or refusing to provide evidence whilst demanding it from others, then people tend to get frustrated, and that can turn things hostile. Hostility goes both ways, too. Often, believers in the paranormal get very defensive about their beliefs, and they engage in personal attacks when their beliefs are challenged.

    Moral arguments are about good and evil, right and wrong, by definition. But probably you mean when an argument devolves into something like "You're an idiot/bad person if you believe in ghosts" or "you're a closed-minded idiot/bad person who assumes he already knows everything if you are not credulous about ghosts". The fault there is not on just one side of the fence.

    It's one thing to point at something and say "We can't explain that (yet)". It's quite another thing to say "Science won't ever be able to explain that."

    In other words, there are plenty of unsolved mysteries. But demonstrating inconsistency with current scientific understanding is a much higher hurdle to jump. In my experience, most UFO believers and ghost hunters don't try very hard to find out whether something really is inconsistent with known science; they just assume that it is from the start.

    There was a time not too long ago when there was only one Fringe forum here, called "Pseudoscience". All the other fringe fora were created as a specific response to requests from the membership. However, they were created on the understanding that sciforums remains a place where there is some respect for science and evidence and critical thinking. The Fringe fora were never intended to be a free-for-all haven for any crazy idea to be immune from any serious examination.

    There is an inherent tension between the Fringe fora and our other fora, that has been apparent right from the start. I think it's there because the True Believers in the Fringe want a free-for-all in which their minds are free to take unbounded flights of the imagination, whereas that's not what they get in practice. For example, very early on, I asked the membership what they thought we should require for something to qualify as an "Alternative Theory". As it turned out, the people who were interested in posting in that forum thought that there should be essentially no particular requirements. Any crazy idea should fit in their quite happily. So, that's kind of what we've ended up with. But that doesn't mean those crazy ideas won't be criticised.

    When it comes to the philosophy of science, the philosophers can't even agree on what "standard" science (done by actual scientists) is like or how it is done, so it's not quite true to say all the interest is at the fringes.
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    After all that laborious verbiage and rationalization and excuse-making by James R, I think the simpler explanation becomes far more plausible. James R got pissed off because I ribbed him about his overreliance on standard explanations for ufos, and so had to force me to apologize as an act of revenge. It's really a quite human response we can all understand suggesting little more than that James R is too oversensitive and defensive about his self-touted ability to debunk ufo sightings even though he basically just goes to skeptic Philip Klass's websites to find his debunking information. There..wasn't that easier?
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2017
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    You seem a little paranoid....

Share This Page