|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 12, 2012 10:19:44 GMT -7
And you don't think that your Serpo, Sauce A and Foreskin dramas detract from serious consideration of UFOlogy? Foreskin's Princess Evil in league with picklemen, condiments and evil Hortas are not exactly the sorts of disclosure that lend credibility to the study, are they? An open mind devoid of a modicum of rational skepticism results in credulity- and worse. Do you have a difficult time understanding that? Case in point in your post above. If we are dealing with 'speakers' communicating in these 'stories'...whether they are or are not what they present themselves to be, do we conduct ourselves in a way that allows us to see or progress to 'understand' why they go to this type of effort if you further color it with explicative monikers as you have done above? If we learn from inequity do we do it justice by addressing what we believe in this way? Or do 'communicate' something about ourselves in return by how we present ourselves? This you do above in the world of professional communication is referred to as a "Contribution". It may or may not be a clear representation of yourself. But it IS designed to communicate something. Information that is designed to be perceived a certain way whether or not it is recieved positively is done so in order to "speak" something in particular. When we disparage it, then we miss the point of the "speaker". Cy |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:23:57 GMT -7
But he also made the fatal mistake of turning the day to day running of the affairs of the board over to a coterie of closed minded gauleiters focused not on fostering an atmosphere of free expression but rather on consolidating and wielding whips and power over an increasingly submissive membership. Hard to argue this point |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:25:25 GMT -7
What were these offensive methods in the Murray/ Hicks investigation that so upsets your sensitive stomach? An empty accusation isn't enough. How about something specific? Yes...I'd like to know |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:29:23 GMT -7
There in lies the misunderstanding I think....Jake described yesterday how all the Admins were observing the various stories brought to them with interest....and how they knew that they couldn't all be true.... That illustration shows us that Open Minds Forum was not about belief OR rational process but rather about how I have defined for everyone here: Communication. Communication tells us things that belief and rational process cannot. It is an initiator and a stepping stone toward eventual Disclosure which employs belief and rational process. Communication is only the precurser What I've seen is a continual mistake to attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole...everyone has tried to treat Communication like Disclosure...two different animals representing different stages of the process toward understanding or perceiving different parties. People have been too quick....if everyone slowed down then Communication would have the chance to eventually EVOLVE into attempts at Disclosure...but they never get that shot but everyone tries to take the reins and drive it forward rather than allow the Communicators to make that decision, and if there are mediators involved, then mediators to express that the source(s) are thus ready to do so. The methods that have been employed instead is like walking into a pen full of hungry tree climbing goats with a bowl of grain without spilling...and getting so jumped on that it spills everywhere and then your effort is ruined and they are then left trying to pick the pieces up out of the dirt, one by one...and they end up with sand colic for having gotten more sand than feed. Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure. Besides...you don't even know who is telling the lies or what they represent. Disclosure coming from a car salesman has no value...in fact it was a 2 year waste of time that left many with egg on their face....including you |
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 12, 2012 10:31:14 GMT -7
And you don't think that your Serpo, Sauce A and Foreskin dramas detract from serious consideration of UFOlogy? Foreskin's Princess Evil in league with picklemen, condiments and evil Hortas are not exactly the sorts of disclosure that lend credibility to the study, are they? An open mind devoid of a modicum of rational skepticism results in credulity- and worse. Do you have a difficult time understanding that? Case in point in your post above. If we are dealing with 'speakers' communicating in these 'stories'...whether they are or are not what they present themselves to be, do we conduct ourselves in a way that allows us to see or progress to 'understand' why they go to this type of effort if you further color it with explicative monikers as you have done above? If we learn from inequity do we do it justice by addressing what we believe in this way? Or do 'communicate' something about ourselves in return by how we present ourselves? This you do above in the world of professional communication is referred to as a "Contribution". It may or may not be a clear representation of yourself. But it IS designed to communicate something. Information that is designed to be perceived a certain way whether or not it is recieved positively is done so in order to "speak" something in particular. When we disparage it, then we miss the point of the "speaker". Cy Now to address what you 'said': An open mind devoid of a modicum of rational skepticism results in credulity- and worse. Do you have a difficult time understanding that? Having a "modicum of rational skepticism" is inherent in everyone to one degree or another under different circumstances. It is FREE WILL in how it is applied or if it is "illustrated" to the other participants. Not everyone shows it openly. I can in fact either agree or disagree with you without showing how or when I employ rationality or skepticism. This is what has added to confusion with regards to participants in these "stories". I have observed an element among some of the participants in this "culture" to "need" a "display" of what they believe is a "healthy-level" of skepticism. If the display or non-display of the participants do not meet their approval then they feel justified in conduct un-becoming the circumstances because there is no pre-set boundaries of conduct previously agreed upon outside of forum TOS/rules etc. In this way communication between members fails because pre-sets are not in place and there is no clear understanding of cultural requirements or agreement on what is applied culturally between multi-group and multi-cultural members. In fact many members do not even recognize that there are multiple-cultural-conduct-presets of a personal nature and application in operation amongst them. Cy |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:32:03 GMT -7
It runs even deeper than that Toon. The prior Admins & mods went to the lengths they did moderating members because of the incessent and pernicious Sock Attacks by your community. I sat back and watched it all prior to deciding to return to posting at OMF. I knew to an extent what I was getting myself into returning to posting. The Sock Attacks drove the Admins & Mods to behavior they never would have done otherwise....that chaos resulted in In-Fighting. The In-Fighting eventually evolved into the Split and later into the Complaints to ProBoards. The root of the Cause is over how information is handled and a lack of understanding about Communication and that Open Minds Forum was unique in that it was first and foremost about the INITIATION of Communication that then may or may not evolve into an eventual act of DISCLOSURE. The membership was who attempted to make Communication into Disclosure, something it is NOT. When the efforts resulted in unreconcilable disagreements and inflexibility the first thing that happened is GUESTS jumped ship. Then other GUESTS refused to participate. And then remaining GUESTS were hammered into oblivion and then InFIGHTERS turned on each other. Simple. Cy Edit to add: and now my input -- according to DIFFERENT GROUPS of observers, they observed exactly this and their opinion is THIS: you aren't ready...and may never be ready. that is the consequence of operating without determined boundaries of acceptable CONDUCT. Cyrellys Oh please....I was the only sock and there were no attacks. Paranoia....big destroia....lol |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:32:48 GMT -7
And who exactly were these pernicious socks from 'my community?' I was the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 12, 2012 10:35:15 GMT -7
There in lies the misunderstanding I think....Jake described yesterday how all the Admins were observing the various stories brought to them with interest....and how they knew that they couldn't all be true.... That illustration shows us that Open Minds Forum was not about belief OR rational process but rather about how I have defined for everyone here: Communication. Communication tells us things that belief and rational process cannot. It is an initiator and a stepping stone toward eventual Disclosure which employs belief and rational process. Communication is only the precurser What I've seen is a continual mistake to attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole...everyone has tried to treat Communication like Disclosure...two different animals representing different stages of the process toward understanding or perceiving different parties. People have been too quick....if everyone slowed down then Communication would have the chance to eventually EVOLVE into attempts at Disclosure...but they never get that shot but everyone tries to take the reins and drive it forward rather than allow the Communicators to make that decision, and if there are mediators involved, then mediators to express that the source(s) are thus ready to do so. The methods that have been employed instead is like walking into a pen full of hungry tree climbing goats with a bowl of grain without spilling...and getting so jumped on that it spills everywhere and then your effort is ruined and they are then left trying to pick the pieces up out of the dirt, one by one...and they end up with sand colic for having gotten more sand than feed. Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure. Besides...you don't even know who is telling the lies or what they represent. Disclosure coming from a car salesman has no value...in fact it was a 2 year waste of time that left many with egg on their face....including you and this helps to continue what I was attempting to express to Toon, is that so when recognition of the needs of these cultures does not occur by this or that party, what happens is the parties revert to statements of principles that are true for those particular individuals representing those cultures. Such as this: Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure.Mur, you do not recognize the difference between Communication and Disclosure, hense EVERYTHING to you is an act toward Disclosure. This is your CULTURAL interpretation. Your needs are not being fulfilled is what you are saying by reverting to these statements rather than continuing to participate in the OUTREACH EVENT on neutral terms. Cy |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:37:02 GMT -7
It was at Amkon that I learned these things not OMF. Would you like to participate in the reborn OMF? If so what concessions would you be willing to make? How would you like to be treated differently? Cy Concessions? Ok...I'd be willing to give up free speech....lol How about no concessions. I don't need omf to be my though police. I don't need to participate in more hoaxes and thought steering. 90% of omf was bogus passed as real |
|
|
|
Post by Greatwaller on Jan 12, 2012 10:39:38 GMT -7
There in lies the misunderstanding I think....Jake described yesterday how all the Admins were observing the various stories brought to them with interest....and how they knew that they couldn't all be true.... That illustration shows us that Open Minds Forum was not about belief OR rational process but rather about how I have defined for everyone here: Communication. Communication tells us things that belief and rational process cannot. It is an initiator and a stepping stone toward eventual Disclosure which employs belief and rational process. Communication is only the precurser What I've seen is a continual mistake to attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole...everyone has tried to treat Communication like Disclosure...two different animals representing different stages of the process toward understanding or perceiving different parties. People have been too quick....if everyone slowed down then Communication would have the chance to eventually EVOLVE into attempts at Disclosure...but they never get that shot but everyone tries to take the reins and drive it forward rather than allow the Communicators to make that decision, and if there are mediators involved, then mediators to express that the source(s) are thus ready to do so. The methods that have been employed instead is like walking into a pen full of hungry tree climbing goats with a bowl of grain without spilling...and getting so jumped on that it spills everywhere and then your effort is ruined and they are then left trying to pick the pieces up out of the dirt, one by one...and they end up with sand colic for having gotten more sand than feed. Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure. Besides...you don't even know who is telling the lies or what they represent. Disclosure coming from a car salesman has no value...in fact it was a 2 year waste of time that left many with egg on their face....including you Hi Mur; I am please to read your posts. Well, UFOlogy is like a double-edge sword. There is the disclosure and there is also the possibility of misinformation. One has to make up his mind after going through all the salient points and weighing the pros and cons of the issue at hand. Having studied UFOs for more than 50 years, I still believe that I have to try and sieve through the massive amount of information and then try to separate the wheat from the chaff. Have a nice day, my friend. Cheers; GW ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:42:40 GMT -7
Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure. Besides...you don't even know who is telling the lies or what they represent. Disclosure coming from a car salesman has no value...in fact it was a 2 year waste of time that left many with egg on their face....including you and this helps to continue what I was attempting to express to Toon, is that so when recognition of the needs of these cultures does not occur by this or that party, what happens is the parties revert to statements of principles that are true for those particular individuals representing those cultures. Such as this: Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure.Mur, you do not recognize the difference between Communication and Disclosure, hense EVERYTHING to you is an act toward Disclosure. This is your CULTURAL interpretation. Your needs are not being fulfilled is what you are saying by reverting to these statements rather than continuing to participate in the OUTREACH EVENT on neutral terms. Cy There is no value in reaching out to a car salesman. Don't be penny wise and dollar foolish |
|
|
|
Post by mur on Jan 12, 2012 10:46:13 GMT -7
There is the disclosure and there is also the possibility of misinformation. Possibility of misinformation? Bank on it. Jake admitted the stories were all bogus. The only value in that is for the liars. I don't want to be their lab rat. But Cy thinks their is a value in being the "good rat" Very naive |
|
|
|
Post by Greatwaller on Jan 12, 2012 10:46:13 GMT -7
It was at Amkon that I learned these things not OMF. Would you like to participate in the reborn OMF? If so what concessions would you be willing to make? How would you like to be treated differently? Cy Concessions? Ok...I'd be willing to give up free speech....lol How about no concessions. I don't need omf to be my though police. I don't need to participate in more hoaxes and thought steering. 90% of omf was bogus passed as real Hi Mur, I am glad to read that you are willing to give the resurrected OMF a try. That's the way to go, pal. But given the appalling treatment at the now defunct OMF, how can anybody blame you for your reservation. But do give another thought in that we need more members to restart a revive, friendly, tolerant UFO dissemination organization...though perhaps not necessary the way how the once OMF works...it is now a dinosaur. Cheers; GW ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Cyrellys on Jan 12, 2012 10:49:25 GMT -7
There in lies the misunderstanding I think....Jake described yesterday how all the Admins were observing the various stories brought to them with interest....and how they knew that they couldn't all be true.... That illustration shows us that Open Minds Forum was not about belief OR rational process but rather about how I have defined for everyone here: Communication. Communication tells us things that belief and rational process cannot. It is an initiator and a stepping stone toward eventual Disclosure which employs belief and rational process. Communication is only the precurser What I've seen is a continual mistake to attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole...everyone has tried to treat Communication like Disclosure...two different animals representing different stages of the process toward understanding or perceiving different parties. People have been too quick....if everyone slowed down then Communication would have the chance to eventually EVOLVE into attempts at Disclosure...but they never get that shot but everyone tries to take the reins and drive it forward rather than allow the Communicators to make that decision, and if there are mediators involved, then mediators to express that the source(s) are thus ready to do so. The methods that have been employed instead is like walking into a pen full of hungry tree climbing goats with a bowl of grain without spilling...and getting so jumped on that it spills everywhere and then your effort is ruined and they are then left trying to pick the pieces up out of the dirt, one by one...and they end up with sand colic for having gotten more sand than feed. Disclosure built on a foundation of lies is not disclosure. Besides...you don't even know who is telling the lies or what they represent. Disclosure coming from a car salesman has no value...in fact it was a 2 year waste of time that left many with egg on their face....including you Actually, Mur makes a very valid point here. If an OUTREACH EVENT is collectively determined (no matter if this is true or not of the presenter) to be something such as a "car salesman" then we still have a cultural discussion going because representatives of 'ideologies' are then perceived to be speaking. Even someone who engages in lying is representing a 'cultural ideology'. It may be that such a person believes so deeply that ufos or extraterrestrials are real that he feels as justifed in supporting that ideology via lies as You do feel justified in responding to that ideology with with a form of social disruption, such as taking internet communications held under the auspices of confidential identity maintenance to the level of attempting to hunt the participants down at their places of residence, work, or via phone calls when it is explicitly understood at the outset that this is Not to be part of it. Even something that is recieved with disbelief still teaches us about the HUMAN CONDITION of broader society in which mulitiple ideological cultures co-inhabit. Even a event perceived as dishonesty can teach us about how different types of individuals view their fellow man or the subjects which concern him. When we destroy what is perceived as dishonest communication instead of walking away when it exceeds our needs or boundaries then we lose out on what can be learned from such communication or any inequity that may be involved. Hense when the forum was destroyed because it was perceived by a handful of individuals that their cultural and need boundaries hand been exceeded thus justifying conduct of the type that occured, the entire Internet World and all of Mankind lost access to the lessons housed in its pages. Cy Edit to add: Since the public can see that there are people here whom felt distressed over this loss, and/or their part in it, then it can be suggested that the Ends did not justify the means... Thus the conduct of the Culture in play was inappropriate for the needs of the collective, and we are then able to recognize that a lack of agreement about Conduct under various circumstances is not a good policy. The proof of this is that there are now four going on FIVE forums where at one point in time a single forum sufficed. Each of the new forums caters to the needs of the different "Cultures" in play. The expression of how they present themselves and how they operate, and under what principles operative behavior occurs is illustrative of each "Culture". |
|
|
|
Post by greatwaller on Jan 12, 2012 10:50:31 GMT -7
There is the disclosure and there is also the possibility of misinformation. Possibility of misinformation? Bank on it. Jake admitted the stories were all bogus. The only value in that is for the liars. I don't want to be their lab rat. But Cy thinks their is a value in being the "good rat" Very naive Hi Mur, I am inclined to agree with you about being careful... By it doesn't means that you have to reject every piece of information you do come across. Sometimes there are gems within that you could have missed if you reject it out right. More research and more reflection is often required by one to come to a conclusion - whether positive or negative. And until just accept it until proven otherwise later. I wouldn't miss the world just because I am subject to anyone's influence other than you be your own judge, pal. GW ;D |
|
