stuneville said:
jefflovestone said:
Again, I think the Direophant is actually a FTMB regular.
(steeples fingers) Really now?
Before, I was a little unsure but since it's been stated that my tin-foil helmet actually amplifies their signals, I'm
utterly convinced.
~
And there's the people!~
Personally, I think the Hierophant made good points but perhaps phrased them badly (I would say that - much of what he said is stuff a few on here, myself included, have been saying for ages in one way or another.)
But as Pietro says, it's done really badly. I'm quite happy to read points of view I don't like or don't agree with when it's done well - or is at least amusing.
Debunking has become a pejorative term for blanket dismissal of anything on no greater grounds than disagreement, whereas in fact it should merely mean the extraction of bunk prior to refinement of the essence that's left.
I don't dispute that at all, even though I'm probably assumed to be in the True Believer camp (although that makes me sound like a Marvel zombie/ fanboy). To me, as suggested in my previous post, it has similarities with sceptics/skeptics: there's debunking and there's
debunking.
I've wanted to start a thread/poll about people's interest in Fortean things as to whether they have an agenda of sorts. Over the years, I've perceived - perhaps wrongly - that there seems to be a shift in attitudes towards 'the strange'. Years ago, most of the people I came into contact with didn't have an agenda or solid stance: people were just attracted to the strange (to paraphrase another journal). They weren't necessarily 'True Believers' (ugh), although they might have believed in some things, and they weren't the Fortean equivalent of mean older brothers bursting part balloons either.
They just seemed happy to watch things unfold and if there was a banal explanation then so be it as perhaps mankind's need to hoax or ability to be fooled by circumstance and external influence was just as 'weird and wonderful' as the initial event. I'd like to think of myself as in this group.
I'm not doubting that there are people who as gullible as the day is long and may believe in the most ridiculous of ideas (and good luck to them as they make my life infinitely more interesting than it would be otherwise) but, at the same, I think I'm seeing more and more people that seem to making the shift to healthy sceptic to pro-active skepticism. I think the rise of any use of debunker as a derogatory term ties in with this.
I think the Hierophant said it because there are a lot of people who are still unaware that the discussion even exists. It needed saying - the way he said it was I agree a trifle unclear.
I can imagine that, having read this month's Direophant, that many are
still unaware that the discussion exists.
Well, believe it or not I'm a Sir Henry fan too (and was ecstatic at the news of the DVD release),
And here's me thinking your avatar was coincidental!
and was somewhat amazed at the review: not that RC Samson doesn't like Viv, because he isn't to all tastes and that's cool, but that it's so.. well, vindictive almost. Which set me to wondering about the other reviews in FTs passim: on this one we can triangulate, because a lot of us will have seen it, but how many other films have been passed over by how many readers based solely on a "this is rubbish, don't bother" review, when it's entirely possible they were undiscovered gems?
Yes, I don't expect to read positive reviews all the time - in fact, some of the best reviews I've ever read have been negative reviews. But again, there's a bad review and there's a
bad review. How was this ever meant to objective? This kinds of brings us full circle.
In the most pathetically brazen and inappropriate plug imaginable, on
my MySpace page there's an instrumental,
A Spot of Tea, about and dedicated to Viv.
