RE: [Vo]:I confess
I didn't even know that it comes through. I don't see anything on my side and did not know that it was even Comic Sans MS. This is now Tahoma, but if I switch to say Verdana there is no change on my side. So, I didn't even know that I was in Comic Sans MS. I will leave it on Verdana and see how you guys like it. Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:56:54 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess From: Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:55:38 PM James, Somehow the article doesn't grab me. How's that for philosophy. (:-) Roger Is there any chance you could drop the 24-point Comic Sans ? It's like a car-full of clowns screaming.
RE: [Vo]:I confess
So, my idea is still viable? (:-) Roger Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:38:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Hi Roger, There may be transition range well below c but still very very fast by everyday experience which gives rise to the condition you imagine. I too have wonder if there is some connection between coulombic forces and speed...and frequency. Harry On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: Disappointing, Joe. 5% is just a little on the slow side, relativity speaking. (:-) I would not call 5% a data point. Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:24:42 -0700 From: jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess Actually, Rutherford's gold foil experiment used alpha particles, generated by Radon radioactive decay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment According to http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.html and http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alpha_decay alpha particles typically have an energy around 5 MeV which works out to be a velocity of 5% that of light. - Joe On 6/4/2013 6:12 PM, leaking pen wrote: I do know that beta particles, used in the famous gold foil experiments, are .75 c in vacuum, but often faster than c in other materials. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: I confess to being an ignoramus. I confess to having only a B.A. in psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology. I am, however, a philosophical savant. I have a question that I have asked several times but have never gotten an answer. By what means do conventional physicist probe and understand the innards of the atom? What is the minimum speed of the particles that they shoot into the atom to see what is there? Do they ever use some version of light to understand the innards of the atom? If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot into the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not there be some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown to us, that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from how they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower. For example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front of it as it flew through the aether? If every single particle that was used to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of light, then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and one aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the Coulomb Barrier. Is this all possible? Or am I off base? Roger Bird Colorado
RE: [Vo]:I confess
I do like to see what I am typing. I am 67, and this dumb-ass Outlook has size 12 and 16 and nothing in between. (:-) Roger Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:31:33 +1200 Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess From: berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Well that didn't last long.Comic Sans must be your default. Also your font is still a bit large. Not that there is anything wrong with that. John On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: So, my idea is still viable? (:-) Roger Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:38:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess From: hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
Steven, I meant that UFOs are merely a fascination or distraction for the rest of us. I am sure that psychology therapy was probably necessary for those who experienced it directly, especially the closer encounters. Roger From: orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 07:54:20 -0500 From Roger B: No, LENR and UFOs are not in the same category. LENR has lots of physical evidence. The so-called physical evidence for UFOs is very weak if not non-existent. I disagree. They are very much in the same category. In many cases trying to produce a LENR phenomenon has been damned near impossible to accomplish, even by experienced LENR researchers. Granted, lately some seem to be getting better at reproducing the LENR effect. Unfortunately, UFO investigators have had less luck. No doubt the fact that it's impossible to sequester UFO phenomenon within the confines of a laboratory has something to do with the problem. ;-) UFO phenomenon happens when it happens. The phenomenon NEVER occurs under any kind of a laboratory condition. For some to use the premise that the evidence is weak or non-existent because there is no official documented evidence is a blatant cop out. They just don’t want to deal with the issue nor the potential ramifications. See the following commissioned painting I did for an individual who had an unexpected encounter of his own back in the mid 1980s: http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/MayEncounters_m.htm How does one prove it happened. Or that it even existed. The observer certainly knows. But for the rest of us. Ah he just has a vivid imagination, or he was drinking. Blah blah blah. BTW, surely you don't think the military hasn't had a chance to accumulate some interesting gun camera footage over the past 50 years? I bet there is plenty of evidence. And those who have accumulated the best evidence aren't talking. [LENRs will help people. UFOs are just a distraction from worry about paying one's bills.] I disagree. I realizes you are probably saying this in jest, but IMO UFOs are not a distraction. Many had no choice in what it was they saw. It just happened to them – randomly so. What does that have to do with becoming a distraction from paying the bills. The so-called physical evidence for UFOs are completely out of our control. There is no way to predict when a UFO sighting will happen next. The physical evidence for LENRs is in our control, mostly. We can generally know when LENRs are going to happen. Indeed. But the fact is that both UFOs and LENR strike many as unproved phenomenon. The only thing that LENRs and UFOs have in common is that they are edgy, unexplained, out-of-the-mainstream. The UFO sighting phenomena is a legitimate arena of scientific study, but scientists are too gutless to try. Indeed, I agree with that conclusion. Regards,Steven Vincent Johnsonsvjart.OrionWorks.comwww.zazzle.com/orionworkstech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
What the font is going on here!! Do you think that I am some kind of pathofont, or scripto-path. I think that it is a conspiracy of fontical correctness. Do font companies hire you guys to try to promote their fonts. You guys are all font deniers. I believe in FREEDOM OF FONTNESS. (:-) Roger Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 06:37:19 -0700 Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: mgi...@gibbs.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Teh Google knows all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_Sans And see: http://bancomicsans.com/main/ [mg] On Tuesday, June 4, 2013, Rich Murray wrote: uh, what is Comic Sans ? clueless in Imperial Beach, CA, Rich On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Mark Gibbs mgi...@gibbs.com wrote: Might I suggest using a smaller point size and any typeface other than Comic Sans (it's a typeface that give us type nerds bad dreams). I think Comic Sans is a perfect typeface for this list, since it scares away anyone who has no stomach for fringe science. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
I can't do block and shadowed fonts. Perhaps I should switch to my other email client and see if it has those features. Roger Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 09:59:31 -0700 From: a...@well.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 9:54:52 AM What the f o n t is going on here!! Much better ... but I know that you jest. Otherwise you would have included block and shadowed fonts.
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
There must be a reason, Jed, even if we don't know what it is. The only thing that I can think of is that cold fusion is a threat in some sense to people. If a BigFoot flying a saucer should land on the White House lawn and say (in broken English), Howdy, it would cause a lot of excitement, but there would be no paradigms and no funds threatened. LENR threatens paradigms, reputations and funding. And ruined reputations threaten funding. And when people start to oppose something by making pronouncements against it, they put their reputations more at risk, so it snowballs. Compare the resistance to say juicing for health and juicing to heal cancer (Gerson Therapy). No one bothers trying to prove that juicing for health is useless. But if people say that Gerson therapy heals CANCER, which is mostly and basically just juicing, the opposition goes absolutely, positively ballistic and even tries to put people in jail. All of the Gerson therapists have to practice in Mexico. (Of course, it is as easy as banana cream pie to learn how to do it from the Internet and do it at home.) This virulent opposition is because of reputations and money. If you go to some health forum you will see skeptopaths trying to oppose just about everything, including juicing. But the opposition are not real scientists, the skeptopaths are few and far between. But if Dr. Oz did a segment about how great Gerson Therapy is and how it works, well, imagine a huge pile of human excrement being dropped on a gigantic and very powerful fan that was facing up, once every hour for a week. Dr. Oz would be off the air and removed from his profession. Billions and billions of dollars are at stake with cancer therapy, and billions and billions of dollars are at stake with fusion. There is a difference. Medical doctors are more practiced at protecting their turf; fusionists are new at the game. With Respect, Roger Bird Colorado Springs Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:35:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Here is what I don't get about these people. Suppose cold fusion is a mistake, or fraud. It is inconsequential. The worst that can happen is that a few retired professors waste their time and Rossi steals some money. I can understand why people get worked up about other scientific controversies which have large consequences, such as the fights over global warming or vaccinations. But I cannot understand why anyone who thinks that cold fusion is wrong would spend any time fretting about it or discussing it, or trying to prevent research. Science is full of mistakes, dead ends and wacky theories. But you never see Nature magazine calling for mockery and vituperation in opposition to these things. They only reacted this way to cold fusion. I will never understand why. - Jed
[Vo]:gmail
I am unable to subscribe using gmail. I send the subscription address and gmail I think keeps telling me that I have to have real address. And anyway, WYSIWYG did not work for me. I got the same font no matter which one I selected. Roger
[Vo]:unsubscribe
“I am Life Eternal. I was Krishna, I was Buddha, I was Jesus and now I am Meher Baba.” Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 22:49:04 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Johannes Kepler's 4th Law of Planetary Motion From: cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com I like it. I will add that in addition, in order to conform to my new quantum theory of gravity, those planets will actually have black brane cores and magnetic fields strings and will be streaming energetic and massive quantum particles and strings within the gravitational wind between the planetary bodies, warping and bending spacetime in a not quite so smooth way as Einstein imagined. These high energy quantum particles and closed strings will decay over time and create electromagnetic and thermodynamic disturbances around the planets which, if they are on planet Earth, will recognize as their weather and auroras. Stewartdarkmattersalot.com On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 10:36 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Wed, 5 Jun 2013 20:57:45 -0500: Hi Steven, [snip] Special case 2: This includes the unique circumstance where there exists zero angular momentum, (where the orbital eccentricity is 1). What happens in this case is that the satellite drops directly towards the central mass and makes virtual contact with the center in 1/2 of the orbital period. If the satellite were to magically bounce back at 100%, it would return to the exact same original position in another 1/2 of an orbital period. I had been wondering about this on and off for years, but never got around to working it out. Thanks! :) (I kind of suspected as much,because a sine wave is the axial shadow of a circular orbit, and a simple oscillator is described by a sine wave - however, this assumes a constant k, which is not true of gravitational or electric fields, where it depends on the radius, leading to a quadratic rather than a linear function. Hope I got that right ;) [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
[Vo]:Newbie
I have been a lurker for a short while, but I figured if skeptopaths are allowed here, I should also be accepted. I think a simple way to deal with skeptopaths is to make a rule that no one may be here who does not accept the reality of LENR. There are plenty of forums where disbelievers in LENR are welcomed. This would leave the rest of us to discuss LENR and LENR+ and Rossi et. al. in peace and good sense. Roger
RE: [Vo]:Newbie
That is a description, not a rule. If it were a rule, we could enforce it. I know all about freedom of speech and openness and all that. But I really don't think that it applies here in a world were everyone can say anything anywhere. LENR is a FACT. We should be trying to deal with LENR+, not skeptopaths. 10 years ago I was in a lot of health forums. I learned the hard way that there really are skeptopaths; it really is an illness. I hope to avoid them here. Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:59:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Newbie From: hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: I have been a lurker for a short while, but I figured if skeptopaths are allowed here, I should also be accepted. I think a simple way to deal with skeptopaths is to make a rule that no one may be here who does not accept the reality of LENR. There are plenty of forums where disbelievers in LENR are welcomed. This would leave the rest of us to discuss LENR and LENR+ and Rossi et. al. in peace and good sense. Welcome. This is kinda covered in rule 2: Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully having some tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in disgust.
[Vo]:I confess
I confess to being an ignoramus. I confess to having only a B.A. in psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology. I am, however, a philosophical savant. I have a question that I have asked several times but have never gotten an answer. By what means do conventional physicist probe and understand the innards of the atom? What is the minimum speed of the particles that they shoot into the atom to see what is there? Do they ever use some version of light to understand the innards of the atom? If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot into the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not there be some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown to us, that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from how they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower. For example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front of it as it flew through the aether? If every single particle that was used to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of light, then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and one aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the Coulomb Barrier. Is this all possible? Or am I off base? Roger Bird Colorado
RE: [Vo]:I confess
I didn't say that I was a speed reader. Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:41:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If you are, as you say, a philosophical savant interested in the speed of light, then I suggest you read ON THE OCCURRENCE OF SOME FAMILIAR PROCESSES REVERSED IN TIME. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: I confess to being an ignoramus. I confess to having only a B.A. in psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology. I am, however, a philosophical savant. I have a question that I have asked several times but have never gotten an answer. By what means do conventional physicist probe and understand the innards of the atom? What is the minimum speed of the particles that they shoot into the atom to see what is there? Do they ever use some version of light to understand the innards of the atom? If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot into the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not there be some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown to us, that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from how they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower. For example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front of it as it flew through the aether? If every single particle that was used to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of light, then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and one aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the Coulomb Barrier. Is this all possible? Or am I off base? Roger Bird Colorado
RE: [Vo]:I confess
James, Somehow the article doesn't grab me. How's that for philosophy. (:-) Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:41:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess From: jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com If you are, as you say, a philosophical savant interested in the speed of light, then I suggest you read ON THE OCCURRENCE OF SOME FAMILIAR PROCESSES REVERSED IN TIME. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: I confess to being an ignoramus. I confess to having only a B.A. in psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology. I am, however, a philosophical savant. I have a question that I have asked several times but have never gotten an answer. By what means do conventional physicist probe and understand the innards of the atom? What is the minimum speed of the particles that they shoot into the atom to see what is there? Do they ever use some version of light to understand the innards of the atom? If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot into the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not there be some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown to us, that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from how they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower. For example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front of it as it flew through the aether? If every single particle that was used to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of light, then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and one aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the Coulomb Barrier. Is this all possible? Or am I off base? Roger Bird Colorado
RE: [Vo]:I confess
Disappointing, Joe. 5% is just a little on the slow side, relativity speaking. (:-) I would not call 5% a data point. Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:24:42 -0700 From: jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:I confess Actually, Rutherford's gold foil experiment used alpha particles, generated by Radon radioactive decay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment According to http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.html and http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alpha_decay alpha particles typically have an energy around 5 MeV which works out to be a velocity of 5% that of light. - Joe On 6/4/2013 6:12 PM, leaking pen wrote: I do know that beta particles, used in the famous gold foil experiments, are .75 c in vacuum, but often faster than c in other materials. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Roger B rogerbi...@hotmail.com wrote: I confess to being an ignoramus. I confess to having only a B.A. in psychology, a B.A. in philosophy, and an A.S. in electronics technology. I am, however, a philosophical savant. I have a question that I have asked several times but have never gotten an answer. By what means do conventional physicist probe and understand the innards of the atom? What is the minimum speed of the particles that they shoot into the atom to see what is there? Do they ever use some version of light to understand the innards of the atom? If, as I suppose, and I could be wrong, all of the particles shot into the atom are traveling close to the speed of light, then could not there be some unknown characteristic at this speed, perhaps as yet unknown to us, that causes things inside the atom to behave differently than from how they would behave if the probing particle were going much slower. For example, what if the almost light speed particle had a bow wave in front of it as it flew through the aether? If every single particle that was used to probe the inside of the atom were traveling at .99 the speed of light, then this distortion would be the same in every experiment, and one aspect of this limited view inside the atom we might call the Coulomb Barrier. Is this all possible? Or am I off base? Roger Bird Colorado
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
Did you just say this: skeptopaths need to tear everyone else down so that they can feel superior. Or: skeptopaths are afraid of anything outside of the box, so they try to get you to come back in. Or: skeptopaths hate anything that might offer hope. Or: one skeptopath I know has severe trust issues, and does not even trust himself, and won't even look at the evidence because he does not trust himself. All of the above. Roger From: orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 21:24:58 -0500 Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world others of the fact that their conclusions opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder. Such irony! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
That description gave me quite a start there for a second. I was afraid that you were talking about me. (:-) Roger From: cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700 Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of pseudosceptics have an interest in magic. Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP Fictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column. Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars. Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific terms. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world others of the fact that their conclusions opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder. Such irony! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
But, seriously, that was an excellent description. Can you supply a link to it? Roger From: cr...@overunity.co To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:59:40 -0700 Often pseudosceptics have a high opinion of themselves, see themselves as elite. It is interesting that a disproportionately high number of pseudosceptics have an interest in magic. Most however, appear to suffer from Imagination Deficiency Personality IDP Fictional miss-identification: Often an IDP will react to fictional representations as though they are real. For example, they may complain about how a popular fictional TV programs portrays the paranormal, or get irate if a book they are reading invokes a ghost or spirit, or has a character convert to a spiritual outlook. Some write letters of complaint to newspapers that, for example, carry an astrology column. Once again all subjects were positive on this measure with one (Subject 5) even refusing to fly on an airline whose travel magazine included an astrology column. Delusions of superiority: In many cases the IDP will believe that they have special traits or talents not shared by other people. Usually these are confined to a narrow range of human abilities, and tend to center around issues of intelligence or education. In the mildly IDP this may simply come off as immaturity, arrogance or elitism. Subject 3, however, consistently referred to others as “delusional” or made references to “Elevator[s] not going to the top floor,” and subjects 7, 8 and 9 dedicated substantial time to denigrating the works of some obscure scholars. Hyper-realistic representation: This is a tendency on the part of the imagination deficient to expect a realistic or rational representation in all aspects of life. For example, the IDP may engage in nit picking about plot lines in TV programs or books, or complain about contemporary linguistic usage which conflicts with a technical term. Eight of the 10 subjects scored positive on this measure. Subjects 8 and 9 wrote books substantially about correct usage of scientific terms. Original Message Subject: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net Date: Wed, June 05, 2013 12:24 pm To: vortex-l@eskimo.com A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world others of the fact that their conclusions opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder. Such irony! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
RE: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk?
No, LENR and UFOs are not in the same category. LENR has lots of physical evidence. The so-called physical evidence for UFOs is very weak if not non-existent. [LENRs will help people. UFOs are just a distraction from worry about paying one's bills.] The so-called physical evidence for UFOs are completely out of our control. There is no way to predict when a UFO sighting will happen next. The physical evidence for LENRs is in our control, mostly. We can generally know when LENRs are going to happen. The only thing that LENRs and UFOs have in common is that they are edgy, unexplained, out-of-the-mainstream. The UFO sighting phenomena is a legitimate arena of scientific study, but scientists are too gutless to try. Roger Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 22:06:35 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Why are pseudoskeptics so relentless in their mission to debunk? From: gsantost...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Are UFO and LENR in the same category?Giovanni On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 9:24 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: A question that hasn't been asked is WHY many pseudoskeptics seem to pursue rabid vendettas against issues like UFOs, or CF LENR, relentlessly so. I suspect they do so because they have ironically misplaced the specific audience they are actually trying to convince. Pseudoskeptics think they are trying to convince a vast world others of the fact that their conclusions opinions are incorrect. This approach will invariably fail because they refuse to admit the possibility that the person they are really trying to convince is no one other than themselves. Unfortunately, they are incapable of admitting this because they have invested too much of their EGO in a house of cards that they must continue to support. It also helps explains why their posting predilections are often obsessively relentless. Constantly focusing all of their energy on trying to tear apart the opinions of others will obviously never address their own unrealized doubts. Therefore, the only option they feel they have left at their own disposal is to try harder. Such irony! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex
