Modless Paranormal

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Psi you asked me for my opinions on the issue, twice, even after I expressed concern that expressing my opinion could result in a repremand from the mod or even a banning.

You asked again. I replied. You then removed my post for breaking the charter.

It is a bit rich TBH saying that I have trouble with people disagreeing with me... :rolleyes:

I think I have explained this to you in rather simple english more than once.

You are either choosing to ignore this or unwilling to accept it. In either case, I have given you the facts of the matter, even apologised that there was a misunderstanding (for which the fault is equal tbh, I just assumed you would refer to the origin of my enquiry rather than follow up my general comments in reference to it), if you want to continue to whine, feel free, it will get you nowhere.

Zillah

Ok, how about the fact that you repeatidly refused to even try to come to an agreement on what scepticism was, and then posted a whole swathe about scepticism in the charter?

This is an especially relevant point, considering that you have shown quite clearly that you do not understand it. You have repeatidly painted sceptics as people who seek only to "debunk", which is quite untrue. Which is why its so foolish to then post rules for sceptics in the charter.

I'll add to that the fact that in the thread wicknight is discussing, you freely mingled your opinion and your moderator comments, and in essence tried to use your position as moderator to bully him into aquiescence.

EDIT: Finally, I'll point out that we could refer to the posts themselves to solve this issue, but you deleted them all when the discussion turned against you. Also note that you posted after wicknight, only deleting the posts after I pointed out that he wasn't in violation of the charter.

Now wicknight, I've noticed that you seem quite insistant on getting your own way and get quite stroppy when you don't. You also don't seem to accept other points of view if the detract from what you want to believe or the way you feel things should be.

You've accused me of the same. Does everyone who disagrees with your moderatorship share this trait?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

I think I have explained this to you in rather simple english more than once.

Funny, because your "explaination" keeps changing..

What you have said more than once was basically "you are wrong", and then completely mis-represented what I wrote so it fits into breaking the charter.

You still say I was discussing paranormal events in general, and attempting to say they are all nonsense, which is a complete lie. I could understand if you misread my post once, but come on Psi you have had plenty of oppurtunity to re-read my post. But then that was your basis for moving my post, so it would be kinda hard for you to back track on this point.

Then, I assume when you realised you had made a mistake and not read my post properly, you said more than once "you miss understood what I actually was asking", which of course is the classic Boards.ie cop-out when some one realise they read or wrote something wrong.

It is a bit silly really. You asked what you asked, there was very little space for me missunderstanding the question. It wasn't a specifically difficult question.

I have quoted back the questions to you a few times, each time you ignored that and continued to say that I missunderstood you

psi wrote:

it will get you nowhere.

I don't expect it to get anywhere.

As I said, the mod in Paranormal can remove anything they want for any reason, and there is nothing to protest because the charter is worded so that anything can cause offense to someone. I don't expect my post to be returned, I don't even exact an "oh sh*t, sorry my mistake" from you.

But I am still going to point out what a silly system this whole situation is. I mean I have been a member of Boards.ie since 2001 and never had any issues with the running of any forum. Since I stumbled into Paranormal a few weeks ago it has just been silly situation after silly situation. The entire forum needs an overhawl in my view. But I don't expect that to get anywhere either. I notice the "charter review" did sfa though.

So I guess you are right, not much point continuing ... l8r :v:

Gordon

Wicknight wrote:

The entire forum needs an overhawl in my view.

What would you do if you were mod of that forum?

Zillah

[Interrupting]

Well for starters there was a whole discussion about this here.
An that note I'll point out that Psi completely ignored that discussion and did exactly what she wanted with the charter.

[/Interupting]

GuanYin

Wicknight - I gave you a pretty consitant and definitive review of your post for you. If you like, I'll post up the PM here, just to refresh your memory. Like i said, like it or lump it.


Zillah, I read the thread, looked over the contributions - looked over the posts in the forum as a whole and the general posting contributions, conversed with solas ans T4TF on the charter and then set it.

So far, you and wicknight are the only complaints I have. Like I said, I've given plenty of scope for debate and options for moving to ISS, which, frankly, is time and effort I don't have to contribute.

I honestly, honestly don't care about what you specifically want or think. If I get a critical mass of complaints from regular posters, then I'll see about reviewing or overhauling the forum. In the meantime, I'll let you and wicknight bitch and moan about not being allowed to do your thing and I'll sit and laugh it up with faint amusement

Zombrex

Gordon wrote:

What would you do if you were mod of that forum?

I would state in the charter that skeptical opinions should not be volunteered, or used to bully posters.

They should only be put forward if the OP or the following discussion requests opinions that could go either way (in fact I think that is what the charter kinda says, though this is seemingly ignored by the mods)

So if the OP says "Whats the deal with this? Is is real" or "I'm not sure about this, what are people's opinions on this" is would be prefectly fine for someone to say "yes it is real..." or to say "no, there is a prefectly logical cause why this happens"

The "spirit" of the charter that Psi keeps referring to was, supposed to stop people posting something like this

OP - "Hey, my grandmother just died, but I can still feel her in my house"

Skeptic -"Don't be stupid, it is physically impossible for you grandmother to still exist in any form, she is dead, get over it"

A rather extreme example I agree, but I prefectly agree that these types of posts whould not be allowed. The OP isn't asking if what she is feeling is real or not, so someone should not tell him it isn't real.

But this would be perfectly fine

OP - "Hey, whats the story with ghosts? Do they really exists?, A lot of people claim to have seen one, they can't all lying?"

Skeptic -"Really there are perfectly rational explinations for why people believe they are seeing ghosts without need to resort to lying about it. The human brain works like ... etc"

The OP is asking a question, all responses should be allowed. The OP can make up his own mind

Saying that in this situation no one is allowed reply with an opinion that these events or processes (ghosts, orbs, ufos, lake monsters, psyhcic read, fortune telling, what ever the topic is) don't actually happen in a paranormal way because some time in the future someone might read that post and might decide that they possibly are now not sure about posting about their paranormal event, is nonsense in my view.

Or we could just ban people from asking questions ...

Zillah

psi wrote:

I honestly, honestly don't care about what you specifically want or think. If I get a critical mass of complaints from regular posters, then I'll see about reviewing or overhauling the forum. In the meantime, I'll let you and wicknight bitch and moan about not being allowed to do your thing and I'll sit and laugh it up with faint amusement

A very healthy attitude you have...

So you'll dismiss our points on the basis that there aren't many of us, rather than actually address the points we've made. Bit of a fallacy.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

So far, you and wicknight are the only complaints I have.

It is only your first week... :v:

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

They should only be put forward if the OP or the following discussion requests opinions that could go either way (in fact I think that is what the charter kinda says, though this is seemingly ignored by the mods)

Where?

Skeptic -"Really there are perfectly rational explinations for why people believe they are seeing ghosts without need to resort to lying about it. The human brain works like ... etc"

This is strictly the skeptics opinion. There is absolutely no published work that specifically proves or disproves ghosts either way. so, yes, I'd have a problem with this, seeing as it doesn't answer the question but offers a pseudoscience as a generalised multi-use answer.

If the poster were to reply along the lines of:

SkepticThere are indications that many reports of ghost sightings are due to X, Y and Z and in the majority of investigate cases explanations such as A, B and C have come to pass - so many so-called ghosts are merely... etc


At the end of the day, all anyone can do is take what they have afor evidence and choose what they decide to believe.

However, Paranormal IS NOT a science forum and I again repeat, there are numerous forums in which you can debate and discuss the paranormal in science terms.

The OP is asking a question, all responses should be allowed. The OP can make up his own mind

But hold on, the skeptic just put forward an opinion that suggests that all ghosts are just aspects of the mind. Thats just the skeptics opinon, it doesn't cover all cases ever.

In any case, ISS is there. Whats the HUGE reluctance to post there, its a great forum.


Saying that in this situation no one is allowed reply with an opinion that these events or processes (ghosts, orbs, ufos, lake monsters, psyhcic read, fortune telling etc) don't actually happen in a paranormal way is nonsense in my view.

Or you could just ban people from asking questions ...

I haven't banned anyone yet.

GuanYin

Zillah wrote:

A very healthy attitude you have...

So you'll dismiss our points on the basis that there aren't many of us, rather than actually address the points we've made. Bit of a fallacy.

I have addressed them.

Noted, dismissed.

What do you want done from there?

Zillah

psi wrote:

This is strictly the skeptics opinion. There is absolutely no published work that specifically proves or disproves ghosts either way. so, yes, I'd have a problem with this, seeing as it doesn't answer the question but offers a pseudoscience as a generalised multi-use answer.

And whats wrong with sharing that opinion...? Even if its pseudoscience, is pseudoscience less valid that unscientific belief? So now the problem is that their opinion isn't scientific enough?

How exactly do you intend to quantify these things, aside from allowing your personal opinion to be the new charter?

In any case, ISS is there. Whats the HUGE reluctance to post there, its a great forum.

I know and like a lot of the regular paranormal forumites. The paranormal forum is quite busy. People post paranormal things on the paranormal forum.

I have addressed them.

Noted, dismissed.

What do you want done from there?

Those words will need a lot more context before they make sense.

rsynnott

What in fact is the PURPOSE of the forum, if critical discussion is not allowed?

Is it a case of "I see dead people." "Oh, yes, so do I; good for you", or am I missing something?

GuanYin

Because, Zillah, paranormal isn't a science forum.

Paranormal was conceived after ISS to allow people discuss paranormal issues without being hopped on by people wanting to talk about why these issues are fallacy.

The majority of posters don't partake in the type of discussion you want, which is best suited to ISS and only 3 have given any indication they wish to.

Its quite simple. This is the way its going to be. Tough luck buddy.

If in the future, I feel there is a need to change it, then I will change it. For now, I'm going this direction (which is what was originally intended for the forum and the way solas wished it to go) and we'll see what happens.

Now, I don't see the point in discussing this any further.

GuanYin

rsynnott wrote:

What in fact is the PURPOSE of the forum, if critical discussion is not allowed?

Is it a case of "I see dead people." "Oh, yes, so do I; good for you", or am I missing something?

Read the charter.

Gordon

I see Wicknight. It seems that you are unhappy with the allowed amount of skepticism on the paranormal forum. I imagine that it must be frustrating for you to feel choked of your views, I sure would feel that way being a bit of a skeptic myself. But there are a few things you need to take on board:

We're talking about the paranormal forum here. It's for talk of paranormal topics. It's not the science forum or the ISS forum. It would be inappropriate for the science board to have users giving paranormal explanations to very basic scientific topics don't you agree? Hence such debate is considered 'noise' as opposed to the healthy 'signal'. Psi is simply trying to reduce the signal to noise ratio.

Also, as you are obviously aware - the previous mod is no longer modding, and there seems to have been some ambiguity over the paranormal forum's ethos. Psi is coming back in to mod the forum again so it is natural that he must lay the heavy hand on any ambiguity and set the record straight. Personally I think that after some time he will probably relax and let a bit more skeptical views on board but only when the forum is comfortable with itself.

I get the feeling that there are a good few people wanting to post on Paranormal but don't because they will get ridiculed by skeptics. And this just stifles the whole nature of the forum. On one hand I believe that it should be there for all of us, skeptics or not, but on the other hand it should be a community in its own right with a group of users that believe in the paranormal and aren't afraid to talk about it however wacky it may sound to others.

I think the best thing for the forum is to let it chill for a while, to heal and grow. Psi's doing a great job listening to all sides and laying the heavy hand on what he believes is appropriate or not for the forum. Can't you just chill out for a while and try to see what psi is trying to do with the forum by sticking to these rules?


woah, I type slow these days...

Hobart

rsynnott wrote:

Is it a case of "I see dead people." "Oh, yes, so do I; good for you", or am I missing something?

Zillah

Gordon wrote:

We're talking about the paranormal forum here. It's for talk of paranormal topics. It's not the science forum or the ISS forum. It would be inappropriate for the science board to have users giving paranormal explanations to very basic scientific topics don't you agree? Hence such debate is considered 'noise' as opposed to the healthy 'signal'. Psi is simply trying to reduce the signal to noise ratio.

But its not even consistent! If the science forum allowed people to propose that it was ghosts, but refused to entertain the notion that it was fairies, then it would be an apt comparison.

Personally I think that after some time he will probably relax and let a bit more skeptical views on board but only when the forum is comfortable with itself.

I doubt that. And it is my understanding that Psi is a she. Blame Wicknight if im wrong .

I get the feeling that there are a good few people wanting to post on Paranormal but don't because they will get ridiculed by skeptics. And this just stifles the whole nature of the forum. On one hand I believe that it should be there for all of us, skeptics or not, but on the other hand it should be a community in its own right with a group of users that believe in the paranormal and aren't afraid to talk about it however wacky it may sound to others.

This relates to the crux of my problem with this whole issue. I have no intention of ridiculing anyone that wants to freely discuss paranormal issues. I am part of that community, I have hundreds of posts on that forums for years. I do have a genuine interest in the paranormal, and to a degree I am convinced that a lot of it truly does have a valid basis.

Sceptics could be defined as "people who do not leap to conclusions", but everyone seems to be so eager to rewrite that to mean "mean people that want to reinforce the current status quo", which is very untrue and down right infuriating. Especaially because I have had to explain that difference half a dozen times and people seem to want to completely ignore it.

Like in the thread I linked to above, and in this very thread, Psi has shown quite clearly that she holds a view of scepticism of the status quo variety, and has refused to discuss the matter. Which makes the entire discussion farcical considering she has included a whole section on scepticism in the charter.

And her dismissive, arrogant attitute only compounds the entire situation.

Can't you just chill out for a while and try to see what psi is trying to do with the forum by sticking to these rules?

I have no intention of breaking the rules, thats why im on feedback to protest those rules. But the rules are not even consistent, they essentially say "DO what Psi wants". But I'll agree to chill for a while.

And Hobart, please feel free to share something constructive any moment now.

Hobart

Zillah wrote:

I doubt that. And it is my understanding that Psi is a she. Blame Wicknight if im wrong .

ROFL

{snip}And Hobart, please feel free to share something constructive any moment now.

I'm surprised you have failed to see the woods for the trees TBH. Is your nose really that much out of joint because you did'nt get to mod the board? FWIW this is my reading of the situiation:

1) PSI has been appointed as the moderator by the admins
2) He has updated the charter (as is his wont)
3) He has introduced some "newish" rules for that board
4) You and 1 or 2 others disagree with this
5) Your opinions/grievences/bitching has been noted and has been discussed
6) Nothing will change

Now you have a simpe choice:

1) You can abide by the rules

or

2) You can decide not to, and go post elsewhere.

That consturctive enough for you?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Where?

Sorry, should have said the "original charter", before all mention of skeptics were removed ...

btw when the f**k did that happen. That certainly wasn't what was suggested during the charter discussion thread.

psi wrote:

This is strictly the skeptics opinion.

I never said it wasn't. But then that is not the point.

If someone asks for opinions should the mod censor all opinions they don't agree with??

What is the point of allowing the question to be asked in the first place then? If you continue your logic all questions on paranormal events should be removed because the answers can only be one sided and therefore pointless.

It would be like someone asking what other people like for dinner and a mod removing an reply that doesn't say "Chicken"

psi wrote:

There is absolutely no published work that specifically proves or disproves ghosts either way.

So stating a skeptical view is a less valid opinion how exactly??

psi wrote:

so, yes, I'd have a problem with this, seeing as it doesn't answer the question but offers a pseudoscience as a generalised multi-use answer.

And saying "My cousin saw a ghost last year" does answer the question???

psi wrote:

However, Paranormal IS NOT a science forum and I again repeat, there are numerous forums in which you can debate and discuss the paranormal in science terms.

Thats great Psi but you might want to tell that to the vast vast majority of people who start threads in the Paranormal forum looking for opinions on paranormal events. Just look at the current Paranormal forum. Most of the threads are in the forum "I heard/saw something about this, what do people think..."

Really you should start moving any original post that asks a question about people opinions on a paranormal phenomona or event out of the paranormal forum.

But then I would imagine that the forum would be largely empty.

As Zillah has pointed out a (good) number of times, if someone has a question about paranormal events they post in the paranormal forum, including questions on the validity of the events. It just makes sense. They aren't going to go to the skeptic forum. Ignoring that fact is simply focusing on what you want the paranormal forum to be, not what it actually is.

psi wrote:

But hold on, the skeptic just put forward an opinion that suggests that all ghosts are just aspects of the mind. Thats just the skeptics opinon, it doesn't cover all cases ever.

It doesn't matter if it is just his opinion, opinion is exactly what is being asked for in the first place.

If someone replied "I believe in ghosts, I believe my grand father is still around" that is only an opinion, there is absolutely no scientific basis behind that. Is that not valid answer either?

psi wrote:

In any case, ISS is there. Whats the HUGE reluctance to post there, its a great forum.

I don't know, maybe you should ask the 99% of people who choose to ask questions and seek opinions about paranormal events in the paranormal forum.

psi wrote:

I haven't banned anyone yet.

And I hope you won't ...

Zillah

Hobart wrote:

Is your nose really that much out of joint because you did'nt get to mod the board?

I would have loved to mod the board yes, but that is neither here nor there. My objections stand regardless. And this all began when Psi was originally mod quite some time ago.

That consturctive enough for you?

No, it doesn't take pretty much anything myself and Wicknight have been saying into account.

Zombrex

Gordon wrote:

We're talking about the paranormal forum here. It's for talk of paranormal topics.

I accept that, but in reality the vast amount of posts started on the Paranormal forum are people asking for opinions on a certain paranormal event.

I have no problem with a mod removing a debunking post from someone if they are just jumping into a discussion on something like ghosts.

But if someone asks "whats the deal with this.. does it really happen", it seems to rather betray the OP's original curiosity to restrict answers to only those which say "yes it does".

Psi's position is ignoring the fact the most people seem to be coming to the Paranormal forum in two minds over something, not already "true believers"

Gordon wrote:

I get the feeling that there are a good few people wanting to post on Paranormal but don't because they will get ridiculed by skeptics.

As I said, if someone is ridiculing or bullying someone with on the Paranormal forum, ban them. Simple as that. If someone posts a skeptical answer to a question that wasn't asked, ban them.

GuanYin

By where, I meant where have the mods ignored this? The action I took was based on the charter at the time. The fact you didn't read it or notice that it had changed, is your responsability.

Wicknight wrote:

btw when the f**k did that happen. That certainly wasn't what was suggested during the charter discussion thread.

Says when on the charter, which it seems you didn't bother reading before you posted. Which may explain the problem.

If someone asks for opinions should the mod censor all opinions they don't agree with??

I do agree with your opinions. My viewpoint on the paranormal is probably very similar to yours. In this sense I empathise.

I would *love* to dazzle you all with my wide and powerful scientific knowledge. Likewise I'd love to troll the vast multitude of PI poster I think vunerable to natural selection and ya know, most of the posters whose opinion I respect post in politics and humanities, not science, so I'd love to post a load of science posts in those forums to get their view.

Unfortunately forums have topics/themes and charters for a reason and we all have to follow the charters and adhere to the theme of the forums. Its not a whole lot to ask really.
With this in mind, my "opinion" on your views or opinions is not the point. The forum is for believers in the paranormal to discuss the paranormal. There are guidelines in place for this. Simple as that really.

What is the point of allowing the question to be asked in the first place then? If you continue your logic all questions on paranormal events should be removed because the answers can only be one sided and therefore pointless.

I don't see how, perhaps by your interpretation of things, but not by the reality of the situation.

I say again, your constructing your argument on a sample size of one. The reasons for your post removal were quite plainly laid out.

It would be like someone asking what other people like for dinner and a mod removing an reply that doesn't say "Chicken"

No it really wouldn't.

So stating a skeptical view is a less valid opinion how exactly??

I never said it was less valid, I just said it is not appropriate for the forum.

And saying "My cousin saw a ghost last year" does answer the question???

No, I don't believe so.

Thats great Psi but you might want to tell that to the vast vast majority of people who start threads in the Paranormal forum looking for opinions on paranormal events. Just look at the current Paranormal forum. Most of the threads are in the forum "I heard/saw something about this, what do people think..."

If you wish to discuss these on ISS, there is an option to have the post copied there.

The fact that they posted in paranormal doesn't affect your ability to discuss it in ISS.

Really you should start moving any original post that asks a question about people opinions on a paranormal phenomona or event out of the paranormal forum.

I'll take that suggestion under advisement thanks.

But then I would imagine that the forum would be largely empty.

*yawn* Are you still bitching snidely then?

As Zillah has pointed out a (good) number of times, if someone has a question about paranormal events they post in the paranormal forum, including questions on the validity of the events. It just makes sense.

Maybe because they don't want the response there.

Its quite simple.

What the forum is and what is appropriate is i the charter. The charter should be read before posting. The charter even mentions ISS.

Should someone post in paranomal, it should be assumed (and is from a modding PoV) that they know the nature of the forum. If they want to post in a sceptical environment, the charter links ISS.

Thats what really makes me laugh. Its not that you can't post or discuss the topics you want on boards. Its purely that all the *juicy* posts by the people who want to post about "the ghost their cousin saw last year" are in paranormal so maybe you want to show them the error of their way of thinking? Maybe you don't want to discuss the supernatural or paranormal in the way that they do, maybe you just want to be able to post about all the rational explanations to the people who don't know them or don't want to know them?

You could discuss them in ISS, but perhaps its not the discussion you want, its the audience.

The funny think is, you have the option for that. The ISS move option will allow posts to be moved to ISS for discussion. If the OP is actually interested in it, they too will follow across. So you'll get your audience....

SO whats the problem.... unless its the ones who don't want to be dazzled with science that you want to debate with??? In which case... well, I have very firm opinions on what that might imply....

Otherwise, its all about "getting your way" - which frankly isn't going to happen, at least not right now.

They aren't going to go to the skeptic forum. Ignoring that fact is simply focusing on what you want the paranormal forum to be, not what it actually is.

Actually there are a sum total of 4 posters who post regularly in the manner you are championing. From what I can see, their posts are either largely ignored, picked up by one of the other 3 or lead to flaming.

I don't think your opinion is that of the community as a whole. When I get a critical mass of feedback saying otherwise, I'll review the situation.

It doesn't matter if it is just his opinion, opinion is exactly what is being asked for in the first place.

The example you gave didn't seem to give an indication that it was opinion.

If someone replied "I believe in ghosts, I believe my grand father is still around" that is only an opinion, there is absolutely no scientific basis behind that. Is that not valid answer either?

No that is "belief" there is a subtle, and in the case of the forum, very important difference.

This isn't a science forum.

I don't know, maybe you should ask the 99% of people who choose to ask questions and seek opinions about paranormal events in the paranormal forum.

or I could just see how thinks pan out. I see no other complaints but yours and zillahs.

And I hope you won't ...

So long as people follow the rules I won't.

I've a very low ban rate on boards in general.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

But if someone asks "whats the deal with this.. does it really happen", it seems to rather betray the OP's original curiosity to restrict answers to only those which say "yes it does".

No, there is scope for elaboration there is scope for discussion, there is even scope for debate.

However, there are guidelines to this. For instance, a condescending repetitive post that, whether intentionally or not, dismisses all paranormal as irrational thinking, however well argued, is contrary to those guidelines.

In any case wicknight. Can you show me examples of censorship other than your own post?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

You could discuss them in ISS, but perhaps its not the discussion you want, its the audience.

How do I move a thread to ISS without the OP permission so I can actually answer the OP's question without getting banned?

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

How do I move a thread to ISS without the OP permission so I can actually answer the OP's question without getting banned?

You could start by reading the paranormal charter.

and the stickys in the forum.

For goodness sake, how can you bloody complain about what is and isn't allowed if you don't even actually know?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

You could start by reading the paranormal charter.

and the stickys in the forum.

For goodness sake, how can you bloody complain about what is and isn't allowed if you don't even actually know?

Oh don't worry I read it (though i do notice it was changed an hour ago, wonder what that was...)

The point is if I want to answer the OP I can't move the threat, a mod has to, which is like saying why would I need a phone when I can use my neighbours ....

Are you honestly telling me threads will be moved if requested. Hand on your heart?

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

wonder what that was..

bugs poor spelling.

Wicknight wrote:

Are you honestly telling me threads will be moved if requested. Hand on your heart?

No, in all honesty, I put the thread there, contacted the ISS mods and referenced it 5-6 times for the fun of it - actually, specifically to annoy you.

I enjoyed the thought of saying I'd do it and then not doing it and seeing how many feedback threads it could generate.

My ambition is to have a whole 1st page of feedback threads all about me. Well that and to really piss you off.

I also notice you're only really noticing it now, after ohhhh 2 pages of mindless tripe.

Oh and seriously, no threads won't be moved - it doesn't say anywhere that they'll be moved. - oh maybe *I* said that here, "copied" is the word in the thread and charter I think - hrmm the title said move but post said "copied" thanks for pointing that out.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Oh don't worry I read it (though i do notice it was changed an hour ago, wonder what that was...)

Actually, I elaborated on the ISS part too.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

No, in all honesty, I put the thread there, contacted the ISS mods and referenced it 5-6 times for the fun of it -

Funny because where I am sitting it looks like a completely hollow guesture in an attempt to avoid tackling the issues and problems with the Paranormal forum.

But that could just be me, we will see.

You could start by moving the discussion on Orbs, after you get the OP's permission of course, and re-inserting my original comments on rational reasons for photographic paranormal phenomona.