Does Uncle Dale Receive Special Protection Here?

[_marg]

Look Ray the issue here is not you or your research, or whether your mind is open, please spare us from your self flattery and delusions about yourself.

And please spare me your know-it-all attitude. The woman who reads as little as possible, and has all the answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

marg, you're nothing but a pretentious FART.

I see and this by the way, has nothing to do with your recent campaign to get me to stop moderating the Spalding thread?

[_Ray A]

I see and this by the way, has nothing to do with your recent campaign to get me to stop moderating the Spalding thread?

Why would you be worthy to be a moderator when your personal bias is more obvious than a bull in the proverbial China shop?

[_marg]

I see and this by the way, has nothing to do with your recent campaign to get me to stop moderating the Spalding thread?

Why would you be worthy to be a moderator when your personal bias is more obvious than a bull in the proverbial China shop?

Once again Ray there was no special treatment given Dale. Mikwut was not censored in any way, he was asked to refrain from ad homs. If there was a lot of moderating going on you might have an argument.

But instead you conjured up the bias argument, just as you did so in the NDE discussion. It's easier to argue that way isn't Ray. You don't have to do much critical thinking just attack the person instead. Dismiss them when you are unable to respond and want to believe something. There's a pattern with you Ray, you turn nastily on people who don't agree with you. You become vindictive and are quite petty minded.

[_why me]

I must write marg that when I was going through the thread in question, before I saw this thead, I recognized your bias right away. But I also know that it can be difficult to see one's own biasness.

A moderator can not be bias. The problem here on these boards is that the moderator is identified by their post screen name. Usually, they can operate incognito with an alias like on MAD. Now on exmormon boards, there is a considered bias, likewise on LDS boards. But this board is considered to be an exception and neutrality is a must if the board is to be preserved.

But you would have done fine on Postmormon.org or on the recovery board or even the new order Mormon board. These boards would have given you a moderator award. But not here.

[_marg]

I must write marg that when I was going through the thread in question, before I saw this thead, I recognized your bias right away. But I also know that it can be difficult to see one's own biasness.

A moderator can not be bias. The problem here on these boards is that the moderator is identified by their post screen name. Usually, they operate incognito with an alias. Now on exmormon boards, there is a considered bias, likewise on LDS boards. But this board is considered to be an exception and neutrality is a must if the board is to be preserved.

But you would have done fine on Postmormon.org or on the recovery board. Both boards would have given you a moderator award. But not here.

Once again, why me, my note to mikwut was a request to refrain from future ad homs. He was not censored, nothing deleted, nothing moved. That does not indicate undue bias against critics. To be honest I found many of your posts in that thread to be lacking substance and mere opinion based on few facts. You talked as if you had read the Whitsett book and yet you didn't even know it wasn't available in book form. I felt like moving some of your posts because they seemed to take up space and offer little more than just doing that, but I didn't.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The woman who reads as little as possible, and has all the answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

Heh heh.

Takes me back to when I used to attempt to converse with marg, over on the board formerly known as FAIR.

[_Ray A]

You talked as if you had read the Whitsett book and yet you didn't even know it wasn't available in book form. I felt like moving some of your posts because they seemed to take up space and offer little more than just doing that, but I didn't.

But you have to remember, marg. One doesn't have to read everything to form an opinion.

So what to do when I call you on your manifest ignorance of near death studies?

But you're doing here what you always do - apply to other people standards you don't apply to yourself!

[_marg]

The woman who reads as little as possible, and has all the answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

Heh heh.

Takes me back to when I used to attempt to converse with marg, over on the board formerly known as FAIR.

The woman who reads as little as possible, and has all the answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

Heh heh.

Takes me back to when I used to attempt to converse with marg, over on the board formerly known as FAIR.

At least I don't spend 20+ years reading about NDE's and still think they are real manifestations of a real afterlife, despite the fact that NDE's can be induced, by various ways and science explains them physiologically.

One can read garbage and gain nothing, one can read uncritically and gain wrong insights and/or no insights of any consequence. Reading lots is no indication that one thinks well about an issue.
And being well educated and having a PHD, as Lommel (re the NDE discussion) does, does not mean that the person thinks well on all issues put to them. Other scientists have refuted his article. Of course my experience on the Mormon boards taught me this concept well about educated individuals, even PHd's. So intelligence is multifaceted and shows up differently in people.

[_marg]

You talked as if you had read the Whitsett book and yet you didn't even know it wasn't available in book form. I felt like moving some of your posts because they seemed to take up space and offer little more than just doing that, but I didn't.

But you have to remember, marg. One doesn't have to read everything to form an opinion.

Of course, forming an opinion takes no effort, no knowledge on the subject whatsoever.

So what to do when I call you on your manifest ignorance of near death studies?
But you're doing here what you always do - apply to other people standards you don't apply to yourself!

Ray your argument on NDE's boiled down to that you've been reading about them over 20 years. When I brought up scientist who had presented articles with their reasoning critical of Lommel you didn't discuss, you dismissed. For the most part you did not engage in discussion. I started out knowing nothing but after investigation I've come away from it, understanding the issues well.

And frankly if you did read lots, because nothing you said indicated you had, it was not primarily based on your interest but was for your brother's benefit in writing a book on the subject. I'm sure lots of what you read was redundant. Reading lots of anecdotal experiences without the ability to critically assess them doesn't help you understand the issues.

[_Ray A]

One can read garbage and gain nothing, one can read uncritically and gain wrong insights and/or no insights of any consequence.

Does that include Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?

Reading lots is no indication that one thinks well about an issue.

And reading little is no indication that one thinks well about an issue. In fact, less reading is a liability.

And being well educated and having a PHD, as Lommel (re the NDE discussion) does, does not mean that the person thinks well on all issues put to them.

But at least they made an honest effort. What is your Ph.D in, marg?

Other scientists have refuted his article.

Not in The Lancet. On opinionated blogs and other websites. I'll leave you to guess why they weren't game enough to reply to The Lancet.

Of course my experience on the Mormon boards taught me this concept well about educated individuals, even PHd's. So intelligence is multifaceted and shows up differently in people.

But you just didn't bother to get a Ph.D, like Blackmore did in parapsychology. You read less than a dozen articles on near death experiences, and "presto!" you know ALL the answers.

Are you working on a TOE (Theory of Everything)? Paul Davies might be interested to hear what you have to say.