|
Edited on Thu Dec-09-04 02:33 PM by FizzFuzz
****disclaimer I suspect I sound snarky in this response. Sorry that's just my way of writing. I just like to make my points and explain them as well as I can, but I'm not purposely trying to be snarky.********
synchronicity =coincidence I didn't say otherwise. And when the perfect coincidence happens, I enjoy it. I don't sit around berating myself for thinking it was pretty cool, or even for getting a sense of comfort. Randi just comes off to me as having that attitude of condescension towards any kind of appreciation for that which is not scientifically proven.
A powerful experience of inexplicable coincidence I had, for example: my Dad's death, which was frought with odd, inexplicable, coincidences which were meaningful and comforting. One particular one, (if you'll humor me): a silver frog charm he gave me, which I had lost in Western NY some ten years ago. When we arrived in NJ at the hospital after driving at breakneck speed all night, we learned that we were too late. We pulled into Dad's driveway, and I opened the car door. I looked down as my feet touched the ground and there, between my feet, was a silver frog charm. The same one? I dunno. But it looked identical. Weird, huh?
I also do not disagree that charlatans make a killing claiming they can produce paranormal results at will, and I'd be pissed too if I fell for a scam. Perhaps that's where the line of demarcation lies: appreciating them when they happen, as opposed to seeking them out as if they were an effect that occurs as a result of some measurable repeatable cause?
Charlatans should definitely be publicly outed, I have no argument there. And yes, vigilance is important because its so easy to despiccably scam people with this kind of stuff. On the other hand, I've actually been helped--significantly so-- on several occaisions by the intuitions, if you will, of a woman whom I spoke to on the phone but never met. I won't bother going into long explanations here, but every conversation was specific, in depth and accurate, giving me information which I was actually able to verify and use. I was able to protect myself from someone dangerous that I didn't know about prior to our conversation. She even told me this person's diagnosis, which I learned of later. She was correct. Very weird.
Anyhow, about this remark of yours: "What does too strident mean? I usually hear the term applied to Helen Caldicott, and other activist females."--I was disappointed to see you seemingly harbor that sexist prejudice, that women who speak forcefully about the institutionalized biases against women are to be negatively labeled "strident", so that any observations or research or hypotheses they put forth may easily be ignored. (yes, I saw you say that Nader was labeled strident. Still, you did say you yourself usually hear the term reserved for feminists. That sounds as if you accept that connotation. After all, why would my using the term be particularly deserving of comment, as if it were strange that I was applying it to a man. Hope I'm wrong about that)
ON EDIT--please examine the interesting difference between the connotation of STRIDENT vs CURMUDGEON. Strident is typically applied negatively to women as mentioned above, but Curmudgeon is reserved for men. Funny, eccentric, intelligent older men who are loveable and cuddly in spite of their pricklyness. Please take note of this interesting choice of words you demonstrate!
I did explain why I saw him as strident; it was the continuous arch sarcasm he employs. The Flying Pig Awards was what particularly got my attention--winners will be notified telepathically, and all that. Which was actually pretty funny. But every article has that same mocking tone to it, and THAT is what I'm saying appears strident. Also, that's what I was calling de facto. I mean, it looks as if he uses his cutting tone itself as proof that his refutations are genuine. The more ridiculously you paint your opponent, the more clearly authentic your opinion is? Though I'm sure he provides actual proof deeper into the articles, the tabloid like headers have this tone.
|