CHAT Is Now A Private Area For Members (& Members' Eyes) Only

[Dinobot]

I'm being judicious.

Thou art a merciful and compassionate Mod.

Of course Stu is...

 

[stu neville]

Of course Stu is...

Only at weekends.

 

[Cochise]

I may be embarking on dangerous territory, but I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. Such things may be off the grid but I don't see the connection to Forteana, which should be (as I understand it) about events that are incompatible with mainstream science. There is nothing about the outer regions of human sexuality that is Fortean, however much it may be outside our individual understanding of sexuality.

 

[stu neville]

I may be embarking on dangerous territory, but I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. sexuality.

Both regularly make the mag, which is the guide we follow in this kind of thing (though obvs we have no connection with the mag these days at all in any way whatsoever. No no no).

 

[ChasFink]

I may be embarking on dangerous territory, but I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. Such things may be off the grid but I don't see the connection to Forteana, which should be (as I understand it) about events that are incompatible with mainstream science. There is nothing about the outer regions of human sexuality that is Fortean, however much it may be outside our individual understanding of sexuality.

Both regularly make the mag, which is the guide we follow in this kind of thing (though obvs we have no connection with the mag these days at all in any way whatsoever. No no no).

You took the words out of my mouth (well, fingers), Stu, and managed to use fewer of them than I would have. Another example is Fortean Headlines, which are often not about Fortean things, but are more akin to FT's EXTRA! EXTRA! section: headlines that are odd on their own.

I think that both FT and this forum embrace the idea that "Fortean" - or at least "things of interest to those who call themselves Forteans" - includes not just the paranormal or supernatural, but pretty much anything odd, out of place, or unusual. We probably all agree that cryptozoology is Fortean, but I have seen it argued that zoology and cryptozoology are the same thing - cryptozoologists just concentrate their efforts on the legendary, the disputed, and the odd.

Personally, I would miss Weird Sex and Rectal Insertions if they were gone.

 

[escargot]

Personally, I would miss Weird Sex and Rectal Insertions if they were gone.

There's nothing much to do around here either.

 

[Nemo]

There's nothing much to do around here either.

Unless you count a wet weekend in Cromer?

 

[EnolaGaia]

You took the words out of my mouth (well, fingers), Stu, and managed to use fewer of them than I would have. Another example is Fortean Headlines, which are often not about Fortean things, but are more akin to FT's EXTRA! EXTRA! section: headlines that are odd on their own.

As I've always understood it, from both this forum and The Magazine That Must Be Disavowed), that's exactly right ... "Fortean Headlines" are headlines that are bizarre (or can readily be parsed as bizarre ... ) at face value. The article or news item they title need not be canonically "Fortean" (whatever one thinks that means ... ).

 

[Cochise]

You took the words out of my mouth (well, fingers), Stu, and managed to use fewer of them than I would have. Another example is Fortean Headlines, which are often not about Fortean things, but are more akin to FT's EXTRA! EXTRA! section: headlines that are odd on their own.

I think that both FT and this forum embrace the idea that "Fortean" - or at least "things of interest to those who call themselves Forteans" - includes not just the paranormal or supernatural, but pretty much anything odd, out of place, or unusual. We probably all agree that cryptozoology is Fortean, but I have seen it argued that zoology and cryptozoology are the same thing - cryptozoologists just concentrate their efforts on the legendary, the disputed, and the odd.

Personally, I would miss Weird Sex and Rectal Insertions if they were gone.

I can accept that. I tend to be a bit rigid in categorising. Comes of my career.

but if we are going to be accepting of the weird then we have to be accepting of some of the persons who have turned up here from time to time who are definitely coming from a 'different', point of view.

 

[Swifty]

Unless you count a wet weekend in Cromer?

It's not that mods haven't got a sense of humour here. They have. Sometimes .. but the constant Cromer bombs are slowing the forum down lolX .. I'm actually on their side on this one, it's getting older than your Gran's pubes everyone. Because there's new jokes we can all be rocking instead.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... I can't see anything Fortean about 'Weird Sex' or 'odd and ill advised rectal insertions'. Such things may be off the grid but I don't see the connection to Forteana, which should be (as I understand it) about events that are incompatible with mainstream science. ...

I think that both FT and this forum embrace the idea that "Fortean" - or at least "things of interest to those who call themselves Forteans" - includes not just the paranormal or supernatural, but pretty much anything odd, out of place, or unusual. ...

I understand both these viewpoints, and I think these two comments illustrate the murky boundary condition(s) demarcating what is, may be, or is not claimed to be "Fortean."

Here's how I see it ....

I don't think Fort was dogmatically anti-science, even though the mainstream hard sciences of his era were his favorite straw men / punching bags. IMHO Fort's point was that the hard sciences had gotten too big for their britches, and they'd become arrogant enough to suggest they'd eventually explain everything.

Fort reported others' observations and experiences that conflicted with or contradicted the explanations the sciences of his day provided as if they were holy writ. He would then (however sarcastically or puckishly) introduce alternative explanations / interpretations which he would then dare "scientists" to refute.

This, I submit, is the crux of the matter - the distinction between the observation of an incident and the explanation accepted for it. These two aspects of an anomalous report set the stage for negotiating whether an incident seems "Fortean" and whether it should be treated as accommodating - much less supporting or proving - an extraordinary explanation.

On the one hand, there's the observation. There is no Fortean incident that isn't known mostly or wholly on the basis of what someone observed (saw; heard; felt; etc.). Observers can be mistaken / hallucinating / lying / forgetful of details / given to glossing basic facts for the sake of a good story / tricked by perceptual abnormalities / etc., etc.

In other words, there's the basic issue of "whether it happened as reported at all." This possibility is equally pesky for both "Fortean" and "scientific" explanations, and it therefore can't be relied upon to discriminate between the mundane and the paranormal.

On the other hand, there's the explanation(s) ... It's the explanation aspect that is most important in evaluating whether something may be "Fortean" or not.

SIDE NOTE: A lot of the news items I post daily are more akin to the subject matter of Robert Ripley than that of Charles Fort. I don't think "Ripleyan" items are out of bounds, because ...

An incident or event that is reasonably construed as extraordinary isn't necessarily paranormal. Those that are attributed to paranormal agencies or causes are so attributed as alternatives to mundane / "scientific" explanations. It's anybody's choice as to which sort of explanation he / she accepts, and there may be a lot of diversity in opinions.

The battle lines between (reasonable) skeptics and (reasonable) believers in alternative / paranormal phenomena is quite often in the vicinity of the boundary between what I call Ripleyan versus what is Fortean.

A Ripleyan explanation is one that more or less says, "It's an extraordinary occurrence and 'way cool, but within the range or reach of rational explanation" (if only because of proof by irrefutable demonstration).

The more Fortean orientation is one that more or less says, "It's extraordinary, and there's room for one or more explanations that require or accept something beyond what we humans think we know or think is possible."

Observers are humans. The evaluators who choose an particular explanation for an incident are humans. Humans are often involved in the weirdness being debated - commonly as the focal parties of concern. Humans are weird ...

Anything that illustrates the range, variability, or un-reliability of human behavior can affect what's observed, who observed it, how the observer reports it, and how an audience treats it. As such, anything that humans do may be relevant (however peripherally) in the creation and generation of extraordinary situations, events, and reports thereof.

What's Ripleyan to one may be mind-blowingly Fortean to another.

 

[Yithian]

I say simply—and have said before—that from the very start this board has convered both the Fortean and subjects typically of especial interest to Forteans, i.e. subjects outside of mainstream discourse for a variety of reasons.

According to how wide or narrow one wishes to define Fortean, it could encompass on one hand the entirety of existence and on the other a narrow band of liminal subjects and experiences that challenge or potentially challenge traditional assumptions and taxononies.

A stricter definition that we currently apply would see the majority of the Fortean Culture forum disappear in a flash.

My own personal objection is that our Human Condition forum is of inconsistent content and filled with threads that should either reside in General Forteana or Mainstream/News Chat. Its creation was before my tenure; if its size were not so daunting, I'd consider seeking consensus for dismantling it.

 

[stu neville]

My own personal objection is that our Human Condition forum is of inconsistent content and filled with threads that should either reside in General Forteana or Mainstream/News Chat. Its creation was before my tenure; if its size were not so daunting, I'd consider seeking consensus for dismantling it.

It just appeared one day, and the original Notes & Queries vanished. None of the (then) three mods - me included - were consulted particularly, and IIRC it mirrored one of the occasional style-changes in the mag. Even then there was confusion about its precise purpose.

Given the current building works we're undertaking I'd be happy to demolish it and redistribute the contents.

 

[escargot]

I can accept that. I tend to be a bit rigid in categorising. Comes of my career.

but if we are going to be accepting of the weird then we have to be accepting of some of the persons who have turned up here from time to time who are definitely coming from a 'different', point of view.

Hear, hear, if you're on about people who believe in Yetis v. Hollow Earthers v. ghost hunters etc.

 

[Spookdaddy]

From a philosophical point of view, I suspect that most of us here are actually eclectic Forteans, rather than strictly Fortean Forteans. As heretical as it may sound, I suspect that a fundamentalist adherence to a rigidly Fortean aspect would take the life right out of the place (and a rigid adherence to anything strikes me as somehow, well, unFortean).

I find Montaigne's world view much more sympathetic than Fort's (although the former would undoubtedly have embraced the latter, whether the latter liked it or not). Montaigne would have loved this place. We are most of us, I suspect, more in his way than Fort's - and I don't believe that's a bad thing.

 

[stu neville]

As heretical as it may sound, I suspect that a fundamentalist adherence to a rigidly Fortean aspect would take the life right out of the place...

I tend to agree - witness the occasional zealot that washes up on our shores, wails that we aren't Fortean (they of course absolutely are, obvs) and flounces in a puff of righteous indignation. If this were doctrine we are rather more St Francis than Cardinal Ximenez.

 

[PeteS]

I can accept that. I tend to be a bit rigid in categorising. Comes of my career.

but if we are going to be accepting of the weird then we have to be accepting of some of the persons who have turned up here from time to time who are definitely coming from a 'different', point of view.

Equally those that are "different" should expect and accept a balanced different viewpoint from forum members. There have been a handful of instances where the "different" have bombarded a thread with posts and absolutely dismissed any other viewpoint. That is not Fortean either.

 

[stu neville]

There have been a handful of instances where the "different" have bombarded a thread with posts and absolutely dismissed any other viewpoint.

We do our best to work with them, but you're right, some have a mindset that isn't going to change no matter how demonstrably ambiguous or inconsistent it may be. Others have constructed an entire logical, self-verfiying loop in which they operate and in such cases you can't gainsay or challenge them as another part of their loop will validate their own opinion. This is kind of analogous with the mindset of conspiracy theorists and the devoutly religious: it's a zero-sum game which always favours their belief.

 

[escargot]

We do our best to work with them, but you're right, some have a mindset that isn't going to change no matter how demonstrably ambiguous or inconsistent it may be. Others have constructed an entire logical, self-verfiying loop in which they operate and in such cases you can't gainsay or challenge them as another part of their loop will validate their own opinion. This is kind of analogous with the mindset of conspiracy theorists and the devoutly religious: it's a zero-sum game which always favours their belief.

That's easy to deal with if other posters decline to engage with a thread. It'll then die a quiet and dignified death.

 

[PeteByrdie]

We do our best to work with them, but you're right, some have a mindset that isn't going to change no matter how demonstrably ambiguous or inconsistent it may be. Others have constructed an entire logical, self-verfiying loop in which they operate and in such cases you can't gainsay or challenge them as another part of their loop will validate their own opinion. This is kind of analogous with the mindset of conspiracy theorists and the devoutly religious: it's a zero-sum game which always favours their belief.

Having spent much of my early Internet years arguing with science deniers of various shades, I can testify that this forum doesn't have nearly so big a problem with this than many. Which is one of the reasons I like it. I lack the patience for it these days, not to mention the interest in trying to change an unchangeable opinion.

 

[PeteS]

Following on from Chat being made private, I wonder whether mods would consider making the warning and ban posts private to the "offender", perhaps with a generic "post deleted" insertion. We are all adults here and I can't see it serves any useful purpose to publicly out a forum member. Persistent offenders take no notice anyway. Pretty please.

 

[escargot]

Having spent much of my early Internet years arguing with science deniers of various shades, I can testify that this forum doesn't have nearly so big a problem with this than many. Which is one of the reasons I like it. I lack the patience for it these days, not to mention the interest in trying to change an unchangeable opinion.

All excellent points, well put.

Can only add that some people just like to argue as a way of interacting with others. You have to be wary of wasting your time by feeding their urge.

 

[skinny]

I want Perpeturo Mercurio's attitude on this take.

 

[Floyd]

Following on from Chat being made private, I wonder whether mods would consider making the warning and ban posts private to the "offender", perhaps with a generic "post deleted" insertion. We are all adults here and I can't see it serves any useful purpose to publicly out a forum member. Persistent offenders take no notice anyway. Pretty please.

I have certainly wondered if the 'like' button should be disabled for that thread- (I have been guilty of using it myself on there in the past to be honest though). But it serves no purpose. The accused knows what they've done wrong and it doesn't require more people to show that they agree with the mod's decision. It's like kicking a person when they're already down. It's just not cricket old chap.

 

[Min Bannister]

Drop ‘likes’ and just get talking. We’re big enough to do away with likes, yes?

For yourself and any poster who do not like likes and want to remove the notifications, you can do so like this:-

Click on your name at the top of the page
Click on Preferences
Uncheck the "alert" box for "reacts to your message"

You can now remain happily oblivious to whether anyone likes you or not.

 

[PeteByrdie]

For yourself and any poster who do not like likes and want to remove the notifications, you can do so like this:-

Click on your name at the top of the page
Click on Preferences
Uncheck the "alert" box for "reacts to your profile post"

You can now remain happily oblivious to whether anyone likes you or not.

I hated the system of reactions to begin with. I remember when you couldn't even 'like' a post on an Internet forum, let alone laugh, frown or whatever. I've come to appreciate the ability to react to posts without having to create another post. These little elements of social media are useful.

 

[Floyd]

I hated the system of reactions to begin with. I remember when you couldn't even 'like' a post on an Internet forum, let alone laugh, frown or whatever. I've come to appreciate the ability to react to posts without having to create another post. These little elements of social media are useful.

Yes, I see how that could be useful, but I'd rather know why you disagree instead of just giving me an 'angry face'.

I think some people must think I'm a miserable git for never using the laugh/frown etc reactions, but I just use 'like' for everything. If you say something funny and I give you a 'like' it means I'm cracking up laughing. If I don't agree with what you say, for a start I will simply not 'like' your comment and will maybe reply directly to you to actually tell you why. I do think though that some can be useful sometimes, like the 'wink' to show that you are not being serious (as content can be so easily lost in text).

 

[PeteByrdie]

Yes, I see how that could be useful, but I'd rather know why you disagree instead of just giving me an 'angry face'.

Honestly, I don't think I've ever used the angry face to react to something someone has said that I disagree with. I'd generally respond with a post myself or, more often, just back away. I think I've only used the angry face when, for example, someone's posted a news story link about someone doing something horrific.

 

[Floyd]

I think I've only used the angry face when, for example, someone's posted a news story link about someone doing something horrific.

Yes, good point- it's handy for that. I would still just use the 'like' (which I admit may seem odd to a lot of people!)

 

[Min Bannister]

Yes, I see how that could be useful, but I'd rather know why you disagree instead of just giving me an 'angry face'.

The mods removed the angry face on this forum to avoid any misunderstandings that might arise from it!