All our forum members should read this.

[TheTraveler]

Hi All!

So, this post is directed at everyone on these forums.

I generally do not comment on the inter-relations of people on here, but in this case an exception is in order.

The problem with Nancy and for that matter a lot of you is that you all spend too much time taking offense, and often times respond in ways that are critical and at times rude and insulting instead of in a productive and constructive manner.

It is ok to question someone's work, and even motives and attitude. But if you do it in "attack mode" what do you expect them to do. If you tell someone their work, or personality suck or are a lie, or any of the things that all of you have said from time to time, how do you expect them to react?

I'm sorry if I offend anyone here, but often you all sound like a bunch of children fighting in the room, except that mom and dad are not there to talk to you all about how to treat people with respect and understanding. I mean, good grief, maybe if we could all spend a little more time getting along, we might just learn something important and help each other to become more successful as a group.

I once said this to Linda when I agreed to manage her forums.

There is so much valuable information on this forum that people outside our group could read and contribute to. The problem is that any decent scientist or researcher that came here would give up after the first ten posts and conclude that a bunch of wacko's were the only ones here and therefore condemn this site as useless.

So, my feeling is that none of us (myself included) are doing anything other than contributing to the group of people that wish to discredit Townsend Brown and his life work.

That is not why I came here!


P.S. I moved this
from another post, edited for spelling errors.

[FM No Static At All]

Yes, I agree that we have all at times become wrapped up in personalities rather than in accomplishments or at least, attempts to prove or debunk claims by others. I do think that posting you comment in "Cutting Through the BS" is appropriate as it does attempt to move us all in the right direction!

[LuisP]

Yes, I agree that we have all at times become wrapped up in personalities rather than in accomplishments or at least, attempts to prove or debunk claims by others. I do think that posting you comment in "Cutting Through the BS" is appropriate as it does attempt to move us all in the right direction!

Concur.

Thing is,
What is the "right direction" ?

Some insist on re-walking paths already walked.
Insistently.

From my "vantage point", what I see is a confluence of paths.
To simply look, and "insist" on looking, at one, is .... an oversimplification.

Plus - I haven't seen one single effort at "discredit(ing) Townsend Brown and his life work".
Not one.

Quite the contrary, really.
From elsewhere, a constant claim of sistematic and paranoid repeats regarding "attempts" to derail, subdue, dismiss and annul that man's work, while at EXACTLY the same time - from the EXACT same plaintiff - a permanent, constant and unchanging resolution not to disclose a SINGLE real information, but an ever unending flow of innnuendo towards something that MAY exist but is NEVER disclosed.

Meaning, BS.

From here, a professed will to "discover" and "understand" the man's work ... but when presented by an opportunity to - at least - grasp a bit of his knowledge as was used by an other, the end result is nothing more than sneering or ego-driven objections.

Then again, we all are now at ease.

For we can speak, as if we had done SOMETHING !
Which, obviously, we haven't.

Except "taking offense".

[FM No Static At All]

The 'right direction' is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, but you already knew that. Your comments are obviously directed at a particular person who has yet to publish information regarding experiments conducted and their results. Most of us do not have knowledge to conduct such experiments (or we would be doing them!) and yet you have the audacity to critique others for keeping their cards close to the vest.

Those who are engaged in serious experimental activities are employing their time and money to do so. These are not publicly funded ventures that universities love to 'brag' about. These are serious people who do not want others to reap the rewards without making any significant contributions to the work. That is both in funding and in the information they may provide to the experimenter.

I see many who are quick to judge others but have little else to contribute. And that is why those performing due diligence toward the science are reluctant to share.

And just what is your 'vantage point'? Sitting in the bleachers cheering or jeering?

And why do you think effort to discredit the work of anyone is an object here? Or are you just trolling for a fish to bite at your empty rhetoric?

Regarding from elsewhere, and the unnamed 'plaintiff' you claim '"attempts" to derail, subdue, dismiss and annul that man's work, while at EXACTLY the same time - from the EXACT same plaintiff - a permanent, constant and unchanging resolution not to disclose a SINGLE real information, but an ever unending flow of innnuendo towards something that MAY exist but is NEVER disclosed.'

It seems you have quite a collection of innuendos to fling at others without having any foundation on which you stand. If you are referring to Mikado, it would seem that your complaints are unwarranted. Methinks you object too much about nothing. Guess you just want to make posts to improve your forum rank.

[Mikado14]

Well then, what should be the topic and why isn't anyone doing so?

Also, I am not too sure how to interpret what has been said. Are you saying those that have done experiments etc should be discussing their work?

Mikado

[Mikado14]

<snip>
Regarding from elsewhere, and the unnamed 'plaintiff' you claim '"attempts" to derail, subdue, dismiss and annul that man's work, while at EXACTLY the same time - from the EXACT same plaintiff - a permanent, constant and unchanging resolution not to disclose a SINGLE real information, but an ever unending flow of innnuendo towards something that MAY exist but is NEVER disclosed.'

It seems you have quite a collection of innuendos to fling at others without having any foundation on which you stand. If you are referring to Mikado, it would seem that your complaints are unwarranted. Methinks you object too much about nothing. Guess you just want to make posts to improve your forum rank.

I took the unnamed party to be from another site. Am I wrong?

Mikado

[FM No Static At All]

Mr. Mikado,

I was addressing Mr. LuisP, as it seems that HE was the one who was flinging dung in YOUR general direction. And I was 'defending' both you and John Hutchinson for your experimentation which some (LuisP) feels must be publicly shared to give it credibility.

As I stated, unless someone is supporting your work through funding or information (data/algorithms) that will aid your endeavors, they have no claim to your results. They are yours and yours alone, and discussions about the work is entirely at your discretion.

I do not follow the other sites, so I based my comments on what seemed to be a dig against both you and Nancy H on this site. If I am wrong, then I apologize for commenting without all of the information.

[Soloma]

<snip>
Regarding from elsewhere, and the unnamed 'plaintiff' you claim '"attempts" to derail, subdue, dismiss and annul that man's work, while at EXACTLY the same time - from the EXACT same plaintiff - a permanent, constant and unchanging resolution not to disclose a SINGLE real information, but an ever unending flow of innnuendo towards something that MAY exist but is NEVER disclosed.'

It seems you have quite a collection of innuendos to fling at others without having any foundation on which you stand. If you are referring to Mikado, it would seem that your complaints are unwarranted. Methinks you object too much about nothing. Guess you just want to make posts to improve your forum rank.

I took the unnamed party to be from another site. Am I wrong?

Mikado

I believe you are quite correct.

I have been meaning to apologize to you as well, having labeled you the antagonist in the past. I now fully realize how mistaken I was and thought that it would be proper to apologize in public.

Thanks for presenting us with the opportunity to interact here, I wish Nancy would take you up on the offer to host a Hutchison thread or even sub forum. Now is the time we should all be communicating, such as me stating that I have deployed the Hutchison tech.

I wish I was in position to do more, such as testing. However this past week I have dropped over $500 alone for tests for myself and my cat. I much rather would have spent that on a detector and gotten to the business of testing this tech, is it actually working as intended?

Much to talk about and I think once folks understand Luis`s writing style and why he is here, you will see that he is very in tune with what is going on.

[LuisP]

Well Fred, thanks from me for sharing that. I have been – and will always be – of the opinion that one should speak clearly among us so as to avoid misunderstandings, and up to each one to then take it as he/she will.

And that is why I have to tell you that audacity has nothing wrong about it and is not something one should avoid to pursue. Quite the contrary, really.

Except, that is, if one is wrong.

Then, thoughtful moderation prior to any initiative – such as making a post – is very commendable for by doing it one may be spared the embarrassment of being – not audacious – but simply …. Rash. And rashness is, yes, to be avoided.

All this to say that my comments about “unpublished information but just innuendoes over its existence”, were NOT – much less “obviously” – directed at Mikado. I’d even say, obviously not.

So, if this the Stone upon which you built your Critique about my previous post, well then, enough said about it. It was Rash, and done with rashness.

But other facts from it remain, which are, so to speak, “independent” of that fault. So I will address them :

1 - My vantage point is simply that of the “uninitiated”, of someone who is neither from here or there, but simply from “the crowd”. No more than that. Or, better said, nothing more than that. But with a simple nuance – I will not be silent, for I have made a Decision and a Choice, regardless of it being accepted as “mainstream” inside these here “fringestream” proceedings.
If that puts me in a “sitting” position, so be it, your way of looking at it. But it is not, I can assure you, with a “cheering or jeering” frame of intent. Just a curious and avid one.
2 – I have not seen a single effort to discredit TTB’s work. That was precisely my point, given the insistent and loudly proclaimed accusations or innuendoes to the contrary. You interpreting it the other way round, is interesting, I have to say, but a mistake.
3 - If, on the other hand, you were using that point I made towards TTB by extrapolating it towards JH and his wife, well then, yes, I do think you got it partially right. And just partially because I don’t think it was done with that malevolous intent in mind but mostly driven by ego bruises and misdirected ignorance, the kind that wants to squelch what it cannot understand, or does not fit inside “small squares” of already understood knowledge.
But I was under the impression that – exactly this notion – you were of a same opinion. So, if done at all, why condemn a view that you yourself share ?
4 – I troll nothing. If my writing sounds like “rhetoric” looking for a fish to bite into, I’d appreciate you clarifying exactly what do you mean by it.
5 – What is a “forum rank” ? You lost me there. You mean the “grade” under a poster name ? …. Are you serious ?
Truth be said, I cannot even believe you really think that I (or any other of the present posters here) would be as shallow as to pursue “forum rank” ! I, for one, couldn’t care less what “rank” is given to a poster ! And, all truth be said, it should not even exist, that ranking stuff, because it gives ground to the kind of infantile accusations such as the one you made towards me …. if done at all with a sincere suspicion, that is, and not just as your example of what constitutes empty rhetoric aimed at biting some kind of fish, in which case, if with that intent, I would have to say I deem it a good example of.

That is all.

If you have any other “methinks” about myself you’d like to share, I will do my best to answer them.

Hope it does not distract you from keeping up with - I am not shy from saying - your very good contributions on other, much more interesting, subjects.

[TheTraveler]

Hey All, and LuisP in particular.

You misunderstand my comment in regards to discrediting Dr. Brown. What I was referring to was the impression we on these forums leave when the only things that someone coming to this (and other) sites sees is the constant bickering, fighting and sometimes nonsensical comments that are made.

By discredit, I refer to the impression we leave with people that come here looking to verify some part of his life or work. If you take the time to look at all the forum posts over the last four or five years, you can find a lot of useful information and even some insight into some of his research, but you have to wade through so much....... well ... crap that it is hard to see what is relevant and what is not. Worse, even the more serious topics most often get off track in the first page or two because people start talking about things not even related to the original intent. That just drives me crazy.... well, already crazy so it just make me a bit dizzy I suppose

I always tell people that work for me that the one golden rule that they should remember is that perception equals truth, and always tends to flow around everything attached to that perception. Since this site was created to talk about Browns life and work by his daughter, once someone develops the perception that this site is not a creditable source, by default it will flow into their perception about Townsend Brown and his work as well.

It's just human nature.

P.S. Edited to fix stupid spelling errors.