Truly clutching at straws now. UFOs/UAPs to my mind come under the paranormal umbrella. Which is what I stated there. None of your later editions that post alter that. I think you should apologize for persistent misrepresentation. Fat chance.
Q-reeus's feedback (original title "Intellectual humility")
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
I chose to correct your lie by making references to your own previous words.
The one you owe me for calling me a raving hypocrite when I accurately recorded what you believe about UFOs. Of course, you can't see over your own monstrous ego far enough to actually act like a decent human being. Not so far, anyway.
Not your kind. Not the kind you believe fly "UAPs". Well, they might be, I suppose.
Also, please define "poltergeist" for me.
As you're aware, I made no blunder.
Now, see if you can bring yourself to do the decent thing.
Here's one, posted by Q-reeus on 11 February, 2021:
"Bunkum. I said quote specific passages, in full context. Since you claim just about every post of mine exhibits arrogance, that should be a quick and easy thing to do. So do it."
Are you?
Yes. You said you believe they are most likely poltergeists, or similar (see quotes from you, above).
A quick search online produces the following definition of "poltergeist":
a ghost or other supernatural being supposedly responsible for physical disturbances such as making loud noises and throwing objects about.
And in post #59 you helpfully told us all that:
"Ghosts are ostensibly the spirits/souls of deceased humans."
It follows that you think the part of the paranormal umbrella (a device consisting of a circular canopy of cloth on a folding metal frame supported by a central rod, used as protection against rain) that your UAPs/UFOs come under is the part with the spirits or souls of deceased human beings. Which makes my description of your belief in something "like ghosts from a different 'paranormal' dimension" completely accurate in all relevant particulars.
Now, you cannot honestly claim that I have misrepresented your beliefs about UAPs/UFOs. Not after I have quoted your own words and definitions. So I owe you no apology regarding that.
You, however, went into a red-faced hissy fit, telling me to "Rave on hypocrite", because you didn't like something about my accurate reporting of your views.
Now what are you going to do?
Q-reeus doesn't think regular space aliens are up to the job.
He prefers to believe in ghosts.
I provisionally leave the field to you (anything too outrageous from you I may need to answer). Far too much of my precious time taken up responding to a malevolent hypocrite. Quote me on that anytime you like. Bye.
So generous of you, O Great One!
A smart move, too, seeing as I've really left you no wriggle room at this point. It's inconvenient to have your own words quoted back at you when you're telling lies, isn't it?
Just this once, maybe.
You're not going to do the decent thing and apologise, then? I'm not surprised. I have come to expect no better from you. (I wonder if you'll ever surprise me.)
OK since you persist in misrepresentation and far worse. You have cherry picked often this thread, definition of ghost no exception. Try this and attempt to learn from it:
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-ghost-and-vs-poltergeist/
It has always been you needing to apologize. But then I have labelled you as a malevolent hypocrite, a position I stand by. Malevolent hypocrites essentially by definition never apologize but invert the true situation to claim their opponents are in the wrong. Soviet ideology and tactics continued under another guise.
Back so soon, Q-reeus? What happened to leaving the field? Oh, that was only "provisional". I get it. Wink wink.
But UAPs/UFOs are not invisible, so how could they be poltergeists?
Maybe you're not saying they are poltergeists, but rather that they are like poltergeists. But then I would argue that poltergeists are like ghosts. I could ask you why you're so keen to split hairs on this particular matter, but I already know why. It's because you're unwilling to do the decent thing and apologise to me like you should, so you're casting about for some other way to try to establish my supposed "hypocrisy" and/or "raving".
Keep digging that hole, Q-reeus!
Tut tut! Don't tell lies, Q-reeus. It is clear I have not misrepresented you. I have quoted your own words. Helpfully, I have reproduced some of them in posts, above, for easy retrieval.
That says that poltergeists are "not linked with a dead person or animal but are rather invisible force or energy that manifests itself in the form of destructive acts and sounds it makes."
But UAPs/UFOs are not invisible, so how could they be poltergeists?
Maybe you're not saying they are poltergeists, but rather that they are like poltergeists. But then I would argue that poltergeists are like ghosts. I could ask you why you're so keen to split hairs on this particular matter, but I already know why. It's because you're unwilling to do the decent thing and apologise to me like you should, so you're casting about for some other way to try to establish my supposed "hypocrisy" and/or "raving".
Keep digging that hole, Q-reeus!
Grow up, Q-reeus. If you can't overcome your ego, at least try acting like an adult.
As I showed, your labelling of me that way has no basis other than your petty hatred.
You already tried running that line. It won't work any better second time around. You ought to own your appalling behaviour and apologise to me. Or crawl back under your rock.
Firstly, I note you fail to acknowledge that article undermines your cherry picked 'ghosts are poltergeists'. But your MO is to always absolve yourself of any wrong or error.
Secondly, where have I ever stated poltergeist (as commonly defined) are UFOs/UAPs? My clearly and oft repeated position is that intelligent entities masquerade as both poltergeist and UFOs/UAPs. And ghosts and elves etc. You know that but choose to persistently misrepresent. When a malevolent liar is in charge, the going is very hard for honest types unafraid to challenge lies and misrepresentations.
No you dig your own hole. From your #50:
"See, I'm fairly sure that you've said you don't believe they are your regular run-of-the-mill guys from another planet, but that you think it is far more likely that they are like ghosts from a different "paranormal" dimension, or similar."
I NEVER inferred ghosts (manifested souls of departed humans) = UFOs. YOU keep projecting that out of your malevolence. See my above response. So go ahead and invert the meaning of my words once more. Anything else would be out of character.
I leave out responding to your particularly provocative overtures toward the end of your lying/baiting post.
Lmao! Your username will be listed in my “research notes.”I think this thread is a verbal Rorschach Test. You could write a paper about the various personalities here from the response. (I think Wegs may be writing her Ph.D. thesis as we speak)
Q-reeus:
You're still going?
Don't tell lies, Q-reeus!
Anyway, all this is stupid. Clearly, I did not represent your views. I correctly described how you believe that UFOs are like paranormal ghosts. You are now merely confirming, over and over, that nothing about that statement is incorrect.
You ought to apologise for calling me a raving hypocrite, but you're a man with no moral fibre.
Crawl back under your rock.
You're still going?
So what? You cherry picked that article to suit your preferred definition. There are hundreds of other articles and definitions that say poltergeists are a kind of ghost, along with lots of your "paranormal investigation" mates. I quoted a different definition from yours in a previous post, as you know. There's no need for me to kowtow to you and accept your preferred definition. You need to get over your assumption that you're special and that your opinion is the only one which ever matters.
No. In fact, if you read this entire thread, you'll see that I have written quite extensively on that matter.
Don't tell lies, Q-reeus!
Oh, I get it. Behind the facade of poltergeists and UFOs, there are mysterious "intelligent entities", which can play dress ups. Do they also dress up as ghostly people, or not? And how do you know?
Anyway, all this is stupid. Clearly, I did not represent your views. I correctly described how you believe that UFOs are like paranormal ghosts. You are now merely confirming, over and over, that nothing about that statement is incorrect.
I was correct. Ghosts are "intelligent entities", according to you. So are poltergeists. So are UFOs. All are paranormal. You have said that all exist in some other dimension. All are "alike", which is all I said. I represented your views accurately.
You ought to apologise for calling me a raving hypocrite, but you're a man with no moral fibre.
Crawl back under your rock.
I don't know for sure. Every time I made statements on this kind of thing (never specifically re ghosts iirc) over in the UFO sub-forum, it was qualified with 'imo' or 'likely' etc. Owing to the angst levels here, just once, I failed to insert an 'imo' in the above quote. How awful of me. But that's a very minor point. Your malevolence is not. You intentionally omitted the next sentence: "And ghosts and elves etc."
Thus to then ask the above signals either carelessness or extreme forgetfulness or malevolence. I'll opt for the latter as best explanation.
BS. In #66 you make the fool claim:
"Q-reeus doesn't think regular space aliens are up to the job. He prefers to believe in ghosts."
Liar. No I don't - not as in 'manifest souls of departed persons' as per that linked article in #69. I can't claim 100% certainty there but logical considerations make it very unlikely imo.
And this is not the first time I have expressed an opinion on the matter, e.g.:
http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3659425/
But since you have made the claim - quote me as ever having stated I believe in ghosts. Your only real options are to ignore or obfuscate as usual.
Poltergeist, UFO, UAP, these are convenient labels. I'm convinced non-material intelligent beings are behind all such. But you keep caricaturing to create utter distortions. And do it methodically and relentlessly out of spite and malevolence.
That last line exemplifies why you are utterly unfit to hold any position of responsibility here. But such is SF. Superficially, raving hypocrite aptly describes your replies. But you are likely not actually insane, just an ego-driven malevolent liar. So in retrospect I should have wrote malevolent lying hypocrite rather than raving hypocrite. How's that for a concession.[/QUOTE]
Q-reeus:
You're still at this?
At this point, you're way off topic, trying to defend the indefensible.
Clearly you have no place in any thread about intellectual humility. If you insist on continuing to split hairs over your silly beliefs, I will move this pointless "debate" to a different thread. You're just cluttering up this one, to no useful purpose.
You had only one aim in starting to post in this thread in the first place. Clearly, you were never here to discuss the topic. You only came to troll.
You said you don't believe UFOs are space aliens. Instead, you have told us you believe they are paranormal manifestations of "intelligent entities" that "masquerade" as UFOs, ghosts, poltergeists and elves, apparently according to their whims.
I'm not sure what your dislike of space aliens is about. I guess every woo peddlar has his own particular favorites. It's not like woo has to make any actual sense, or to be self-consistent. You people typically have a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance, combined with overactive imaginations.
You're now telling me now, for the first time, that you believe that ghosts are actually just one "disguise" for these unspecified paranormal "intelligent entities" that you believe in for unspecified reasons unconnected to any actual evidence, rather than being the "manifest souls of departed persons", which would be the traditional view of ghosts, and a standard assumed meaning attached to the word "ghost".
So, you're splitting hairs.
"Oh, I don't believe in ghosts at all! I only believe in intelligent entities that can appear in forms that are indistinguishable from the forms in which ghosts are said to appear, whenever they feel the urge! That's not the same thing at all!"
Out of interest alone, I must ask: what other forms do your unspecified "intelligent entities" take, Q-reeus? Are they universal place-fillers for every bit of woo you believe in? So far, you've told us you believe they "masquerade" as ghosts, elves, UFOs and poltergeists. What other woo do you believe in? Can they masquerade as bigfoot, the yeti, demons, pixies, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, pyramid power, gremlins, crystal energy, midichlorians? Anything I've missed?
Questions for another thread, really, but we could dig into what direct evidence you think you have for the existence of these unspecified "intelligent entities" or yours. We could also investigate how you uncovered these elaborate masquerades. It sound like you may have made a world-first breakthrough there! Is there a woo prize you can apply for?
In practice, the only practically relevant belief you have is that you think that "ghostly" manifestations are real. I don't care one jot for whether you think the cause is traditional ghosts or something that can act indistinguishably from a traditional ghost, since you have no objective evidence which would permit anybody to distinguish between those two options.
You're still at this?
At this point, you're way off topic, trying to defend the indefensible.
Clearly you have no place in any thread about intellectual humility. If you insist on continuing to split hairs over your silly beliefs, I will move this pointless "debate" to a different thread. You're just cluttering up this one, to no useful purpose.
It's a complete non-issue. It is to be assumed, by default, that the opinions you express are your own, unless you are clearly quoting somebody else, and even then it can usually be assumed you agree with the person quoted unless something else in your post suggests otherwise.
It's not malevolent of me (or anybody else) not to quote your post in full when replying. Get over yourself.
You guessed wrong. It was carelessness. Haven't you cottoned on that I have a very low level of care about your attempts to split hairs about your silly beliefs about aliens and ghosts and elves, by now? Your whole spiel here is just an excuse for you to try to excuse your ongoing rudeness and your baseless accusations.
You had only one aim in starting to post in this thread in the first place. Clearly, you were never here to discuss the topic. You only came to troll.
Again, a completely accurate representation of your opinions.
You said you don't believe UFOs are space aliens. Instead, you have told us you believe they are paranormal manifestations of "intelligent entities" that "masquerade" as UFOs, ghosts, poltergeists and elves, apparently according to their whims.
I'm not sure what your dislike of space aliens is about. I guess every woo peddlar has his own particular favorites. It's not like woo has to make any actual sense, or to be self-consistent. You people typically have a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance, combined with overactive imaginations.
I could hardly lie about something you've never told me before, could I?
You're now telling me now, for the first time, that you believe that ghosts are actually just one "disguise" for these unspecified paranormal "intelligent entities" that you believe in for unspecified reasons unconnected to any actual evidence, rather than being the "manifest souls of departed persons", which would be the traditional view of ghosts, and a standard assumed meaning attached to the word "ghost".
So, you're splitting hairs.
"Oh, I don't believe in ghosts at all! I only believe in intelligent entities that can appear in forms that are indistinguishable from the forms in which ghosts are said to appear, whenever they feel the urge! That's not the same thing at all!"
Out of interest alone, I must ask: what other forms do your unspecified "intelligent entities" take, Q-reeus? Are they universal place-fillers for every bit of woo you believe in? So far, you've told us you believe they "masquerade" as ghosts, elves, UFOs and poltergeists. What other woo do you believe in? Can they masquerade as bigfoot, the yeti, demons, pixies, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, pyramid power, gremlins, crystal energy, midichlorians? Anything I've missed?
Questions for another thread, really, but we could dig into what direct evidence you think you have for the existence of these unspecified "intelligent entities" or yours. We could also investigate how you uncovered these elaborate masquerades. It sound like you may have made a world-first breakthrough there! Is there a woo prize you can apply for?
Pointless. It doesn't matter to me at all whether you believe in ghosts or whether you believe in intelligent entities that masquerade as ghosts and are indistinguishable from ghosts (when masquerading as them) by anybody except yourself.
In practice, the only practically relevant belief you have is that you think that "ghostly" manifestations are real. I don't care one jot for whether you think the cause is traditional ghosts or something that can act indistinguishably from a traditional ghost, since you have no objective evidence which would permit anybody to distinguish between those two options.
I will bear in mind in future that you believe that all woo has essentially one cause. I will also, of course, bear in mind that this is "just an opinion" you have, and that you're not "100% sure". And I'll bear in mind that all of that is irrelevant to any objective examination of ghosts, UFOs or any of the other "woo" phenomena that are alleged to exist.
There's a whole can of worms there, begging to be opened. You should start a separate thread, explaining exactly what it was that convinced you of that. Really, I urge you to do that. It could be fun.
No. I keep quoting your precise words at you, and reading them as if they have commonly-accepted English meanings. You can't abide that, for some reason.
Respect is earned, Q-reeus. You give none, so why would you expect any in return? You only crawled out from under your rock to try to have a go at me. In the process, you made the mistake of telling some lies and being caught out in a number of false allegations. Now you've worked yourself up into more of a lather than your habitual level of narky crybabiness usually demands. You're not bright enough to know when to stop digging a hole for yourself, and you apparently lack the social education to know what good manners entail.
You've provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about to wegs in an earlier post in this thread. Just by my choosing to engage with you, readers might well assume I'm willing to descend to the level at which you like to operate. When I'm done with you, some of the unsavory residue of you risks remaining stuck to me, like the lingering smell of excrement that clings if one spends time in a sewer. I probably shouldn't give you my time, but unfortunately I just find your kind of arrogant lack of consideration for other people irritating, like an itch I can't help scratching.
Something about projection goes here. Ironic, no?
If you had any moral decency, you would have apologised to me, or - better - never tried to troll me in the first place. At least you come out of this, once again, revealed as the petty little man you are. Job done, I'd say.
Yet another reinforcement of my judgement of you last post. You chose to bring in UFOs as discussion topic in #50. In #53 I urged you to stop it. Ignored.
Next time you berate anyone for derailing a thread like that, expect me to embarrass you by pointing to your tactic here!
Easy to imply 'both petty and equally to blame'. Considerably harder to justify objectively.
Like I said, the stench clings.
You can't get away with telling lies when the record is there for all to see, Q-reeus. You ought to stop that.
I mentioned your opinions on little green men, in passing, in my post #46, in which I was discussing your tetchiness with wegs, in response to a question she had asked me. Then, in post #46, you falsely accused me of misrepresenting your position, which I corrected succinctly in post #50. In response, in post #53, you were so enraged that the most you could do was to call names.
But you were in the thread long before that. You entered the thread with post #21. Your opening line was "James R loves to write such noble treatises. So full of wisdom and righteousness. Too bad he often flagrantly violates his own professed standards." Then, you proceeded to rant and rave about a 3 year old thread that you apparently still have a chip on your shoulder about.
Now, you're just generally foaming at the mouth, telling a bunch of lies in the process.
Correct. Instead, in post #57, I provided evidence of the falsity of your claim I was being hypocritical or "raving", consisting of your own words, quoted from a previous thread. I also tried to teach you how some basic manners, pointing out that you should apologise to me for making a false accusation. It didn't take, of course.
First and foremost, this thread was derailed by you. It was your purpose in posting your post #21.
You'd be embarrassed if you had an ounce of decency in you.