Pickled Dragon Hoax

[Beau]

Isn't it strange that an 'organisation' (for that is what it is!) that lures people into its extensive literature, website, and discussion board, based on 'channeling' and 'lizzies' (warm 'fuzzy' term for hyper-dimensional reptilian beings!) should get the vapours over a picture of a 'foetal' lizzie!

Your reading of the situation is completely off. That should be the real eye-opener for you...

 

[Joe]

Isn't it strange that an 'organisation' (for that is what it is!) that lures people into its extensive literature, website, and discussion board, based on 'channeling' and 'lizzies' (warm 'fuzzy' term for hyper-dimensional reptilian beings!) should get the vapours over a picture of a 'foetal' lizzie!

Like Ruth ... in another post ... this has been a real 'eye-opener' for me.

It should be for all of you!

StevieX

You again miss the point. We do not "lure" anyone, we put a certain type of information out there for those who resonate with it to then discuss it further. Some people project things onto our work that are not there. When they do so we point out the mistake, but very often they insist that what they believe is true and that we should recognise it as such. That's fair enough, but we won't tolerate such subjective delusions being foisted on other forum members who come here in good faith and open-mindedness.

This discussion board is not based on "channeling and lizzies", it is based on the serious and sincere search for objective truth, not subjective truth. So you are again mistaken.

As for us getting "the vapours" over a picture of a "fetal lizzie", you are yet again mistaken. We simply banned a new forum member who obviously came here to push his theories about a story that had been exposed as a hoax. When he met with disagreement from moderators he began to slander the forum and its owners and cast aspersions on our integrity in an attempt to have his opinion upheld. Now tell me, if someone came to your forum with such an attitude, what would you do? If you say that you would allow him all the airtime he wanted then I suggest that you go ahead and create your own forum for such interactions, because clearly the rules of this forum, as established by its owners, is not in sync with your way of operating.

You do accept the right of every individual to choose their own way of doing things without being condemned by others, don't you? After all, we afford that right to you and all others.

Joe

 

[John G]

Isn't it strange that an 'organisation' (for that is what it is!) that lures people into its extensive literature, website, and discussion board, based on 'channeling' and 'lizzies' (warm 'fuzzy' term for hyper-dimensional reptilian beings!) should get the vapours over a picture of a 'foetal' lizzie!

Like Ruth ... in another post ... this has been a real 'eye-opener' for me.

It should be for all of you!

Just a clarification to readers following this thread: StevieX posted a response to my question that contained a lengthy excerpt of 'cassiopaea cult' nonsense, written by one Colleen Johnston (an associate of Vinny Bridges). This excerpt consisted of the usual lies and slanders that have been repeated by psychological deviants, and that have all been covered and fully debunked on this forum and the associated web pages.

Me thinks that like Kieran, you are in danger of going to the dark side (unless you've both been there all along). Even if you suspend rational thought and just believe all of Kieran's ideas, baiting the moderators is not a good thing to do on any forum.

The Cs don't want their words to be accepted without checking and they are well aware most people are not going to accept them just based on their words. Most people are actually correct to do this.

 

[baffledking]

I read through Kieran's posts (the ones I could find) and I found most of them to be reasonable - even his more obnoxious opinions seemed more or less innocuous. I guess the point I'm trying to iterate is that individuals have the right to disseminate information and people have the right to hear it and believe it, or toss in the dust bin. The sensibility of the information usually speaks for itself. Banning members whose opinions are at ends with the moderator's (unless they are unduly vulgar and abusive) just sends the wrong message. I deeply appreciate all the work Laura and all the rest of the SOTT team has done and made available to the public, including this forum, and I have been courteous enough to refrain from posting about any of the accusatory material I've read on the web out of respect for SOTT - one does not sh*t where one eats. It is also, after all, SOTT's forum, and as the forum's creators they have the right to set any rules they want. But still, banning anyone but the most vitriolic of members smacks of insecurity, if not totalitarianism.

 

[ArdVan]

I guess the point I'm trying to iterate is that individuals have the right to disseminate information and people have the right to hear it and believe it, or toss in the dust bin.
...
Banning members whose opinions are at ends with the moderator's (unless they are unduly vulgar and abusive) just sends the wrong message.
...
But still, banning anyone but the most vitriolic of members smacks of insecurity, if not totalitarianism.

You seem to forget about "decent education". Many are not educated. They may be adults in age but are not in behavior. You seem to confound the pointing out of non adult behavior or say "education" of children with totalitarianism.

Moderated Forum talking about A

a A a (a)2 a a

This may for example be a group talking about mathematics.

Unmoderated Forum talking about A

nkfja ory i3rAsgdf jhqgrt uq234g5rj(a)2gdflhkjga sjdfgaj gr8c723rt 8qfagfjhasgdf gsdkfjgrehg jgfhrht erghsudfgh ghsdfhgjsdhf ieryi3th fguhth34uthewughsg sgh

Now try to find the same information in such an unmoderated group with such noise, if everybody has the "right" to say anything in a forum made for talking about 'A'? Do you talk about football in a math class? Not if you want to learn math.

The is no "right" to disseminate "noise" here. There should be a mutual agreement about the rules of this forum. Everyone who wants to be here, is like a invited guest at the house of someones home. He has to behave. "Kids" don't like this, so they are free to go somewhere else.

 

[John G]

Banning members whose opinions are at ends with the moderator's (unless they are unduly vulgar and abusive) just sends the wrong message.

Well if someone gets warned and responds that they are just going to keep calling things as they see them, then when they do that you kind of have to ban that person else the warning loses credibility. I was amazed Kieran wasn't banned earlier. He did a lot of things like mocking the moderators and insisting on being allowed to link to known bad sources. This actually is not a debate forum, it's supposed to be a colinear research forum. One can have some fun (we certainly need to) but this isn't fun it's sad, this place would be a disaster if everyone posted the way Kieran did. I'll miss Kieran's good posts too, Laura wrote a note to try to keep Kieran from spiraling out of this forum and his response was the "keep calling things as I see them" in addition to some nice words.

 

[domi]

I read through Kieran's posts (the ones I could find) and I found most of them to be reasonable - even his more obnoxious opinions seemed more or less innocuous. I guess the point I'm trying to iterate is that individuals have the right to disseminate information and people have the right to hear it and believe it, or toss in the dust bin. The sensibility of the information usually speaks for itself. Banning members whose opinions are at ends with the moderator's (unless they are unduly vulgar and abusive) just sends the wrong message. I deeply appreciate all the work Laura and all the rest of the SOTT team has done and made available to the public, including this forum, and I have been courteous enough to refrain from posting about any of the accusatory material I've read on the web out of respect for SOTT - one does not sh*t where one eats. It is also, after all, SOTT's forum, and as the forum's creators they have the right to set any rules they want. But still, banning anyone but the most vitriolic of members smacks of insecurity, if not totalitarianism.

It would be helpful for you to read the forum rules again (see link in navigation bar) and then compare that mission statement with the issues that have been raised with Kieran.

 

[anart]

baffledking, please understand that several of kieran's posts were deleted - you did not read them - so you are making a judgment while lacking all the data. You did not read them because they were so verbally abusive as to warrant removal - they were 'unduly vulgar and aggressive', to use your 'criteria'.

I'm sorry that you don't agree with this decision, but please understand that not only is it not your decision to make, but you are lacking the necessary data to even consider it.

Keiran's behavior was not a 'one time' thing but was evidenced, strongly, throughout his communication here, culminating with a frontal attack through StevieX - yet you think it was totalitarian to remove him?

As Joe suggested to StevieX, perhaps you should start your own forum to get some perspective on exactly what keeping a forum clean and free from noise entails and exactly how often and how consistently we do err on the side of flexibility and 'giving another chance'.

 

[Joe]

I read through Kieran's posts (the ones I could find) and I found most of them to be reasonable - even his more obnoxious opinions seemed more or less innocuous. I guess the point I'm trying to iterate is that individuals have the right to disseminate information and people have the right to hear it and believe it, or toss in the dust bin. The sensibility of the information usually speaks for itself.

This may be true for you, that you can spot BS at first glance, but it is not necessarily true for others or newer members of the forum. It is our responsibility to provide a forum where the signal to noise ratio is high, i.e. the level of BS or disinfo or soap-boxing is kept to a minimum. It is not your responsibility to do this, and in fact you may prefer a forum where people are allowed to say what they like uncontested. If so, then this forum is not for you.

Banning members whose opinions are at ends with the moderator's (unless they are unduly vulgar and abusive) just sends the wrong message. But still, banning anyone but the most vitriolic of members smacks of insecurity, if not totalitarianism.

It is not about security or insecurity or totalitarianism, it is about considering other members of the forum other than just yourself. It is about resonating with this information and with this type of forum and as a result lending ones efforts to push it forward. If you do not agree with the rules or methods of this forum then you are free to seek a forum that is more inline with your own style.

As for Kieran, I would merely cite his comments from this thread:

Well, my last post here has a mysterious ‘broken link’ …

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs … 778#p51778

… It was about the VATICAN, with pictures, … hmmm.

How far will we get with this one?

This is from a source that, sadly, must remain anonymous.

I know what I must be ready to receive falling on my head here.

Let him (or her) who has ears to hear ….

And … umm … any info on my last post here .. with the mysterious ‘broken link’ …

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs … 778#p51778

… It was about the VATICAN, with pictures, … hmmm.

… can we not tell the truth about the VATICAN here?

Can we not tell the truth here?

Since your BS and or disinfo meter is so in tune, how can you not see from his comments that he was clearly denigrating this forum and it's owners? What's the point in someone being on a forum that he/she believes censors information?

Joe

 

[baffledking]

Alright, fair enough. It's your forum and we are here as guests. In the words of Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction "You don't go to your buddy's house and start telling him what's what."

And if Kieran's posts were indeed abusive and he was given due warning to clean up his act then I see why banning him would be unavoidable. I was just surprised to see someone given the boot for posting about Pickled Dragons given the nature of the many "paranormal" topics discussed on SOTT. But anyway, it's your call. *Passes the conch shell to the next person*

 

[Beau]

But still, banning anyone but the most vitriolic of members smacks of insecurity, if not totalitarianism.

Have you read this thread?

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7222&p=1

The vitriol and flaming from Kieran in that thread is readily apparent.

 

[mudrabbit]

Alright, fair enough. It's your forum and we are here as guests. In the words of Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction "You don't go to your buddy's house and start telling him what's what."

And if Kieran's posts were indeed abusive and he was given due warning to clean up his act then I see why banning him would be unavoidable. I was just surprised to see someone given the boot for posting about Pickled Dragons given the nature of the many "paranormal" topics discussed on SOTT. But anyway, it's your call. *Passes the conch shell to the next person*

Hi BK,

It wasn't about pickled dragons or the black pope. It was about his attitude. Even after he was POLITELY directed to research, where and how, he still came back with insults. And like you said, when you go to someone else's house, you certainly do not tell the owner what is what. After being warned more than a couple of times by more than one moderator, he continued with the attitude that eventually got him banned. Would you allow someone who insulted you, and pushed his way around, rearranged the furniture and insult your other guests to stay in your home?

He had more than enough time to make the assessment and adjust his attitude.

Peg

 

[Russ]

Its hard enough to keep the signal-noise ratio low even with the bans, after all we are all still learning. Its just that these people who are banned showed a clear sign that they weren't even prepared to learn, so as long as they are around they will only hinder those that really want to learn. I think the mods give more than enough chances to people and really more forums should be run this way, imo.

 

[Laura]

The problem is actually all of the above and more; it's about what Lobaczewski calls "ponerization." Maybe some of the following quotes will ring a bell.

Schizoidia: Schizoidia, or schizoidal psychopathy, was isolated by the very first of the famous creators of modern psychiatry. From the beginning, it was treated as a lighter form of the same hereditary taint which is the cause of susceptibility to schizophrenia. However, this latter connection could neither be confirmed nor denied with the help of statistical analysis, and no biological test was then found which would have been able to solve this dilemma. For practical reasons, we shall herein discuss schizoidia with no further reference to this relationship rather motivated by tradition.

Literature provides us with descriptions of several varieties of this anomaly, whose existence can be attributed either to changes in the genetic factor or to differences in other individual characteristics of a non-pathological nature. Let us thus sketch these sub-species’ common features. Carriers of this anomaly are hypersensitive and distrustful, but they pay little attention to the feelings of others, tend to assume extreme positions, and are eager to retaliate for minor offenses. Sometimes they are eccentric and odd. Their poor sense of psychological situation and reality leads them to superimpose erroneous, pejorative interpretations upon other people’s intentions. They easy become involved in activities which are ostensibly moral, but which actually inflict damage upon themselves and others. Their impoverished psychological worldview makes them typically pessimistic regarding human nature. We frequently find expressions of their characteristic attitudes in their statements and writings: “Human nature is so bad that order in human society can only be maintained by a strong power created by highly qualified individuals in the name of some higher idea.” Let us call this typical expression the “schizoid declaration”.

Human nature does in fact tend to be naughty, whenever the schizoids embitter other people’s lives, that is. When they become wrapped up in situations of serious stress, however, the schizoid’s failings cause them to collapse easily. The capacity for thought is thereupon characteristically stifled, and frequently the schizoids fall into reactive psychotic states so similar in appearance to schizophrenia that they lead to misdiagnoses.

The common factor in the varieties of this anomaly is a dull pallor of emotions and a feeling for the psychological realities of this essential factor in basic intelligence. This can be attributed to the incomplete quality of the instinctive substratum, which is working as though on sand. Low emotional pressure enables them to develop proper speculative reasoning, which is useful in non-humanistic spheres of activity. Because of their one-sidedness, they tend to consider themselves intellectually superior to “ordinary” people.

The quantitative frequency of this anomaly varies among races and nations: low among Blacks, the highest among Jews. Estimates of this frequency range from negligible up to 3 %. In Poland it may be estimated as 0.7 % of population. My observations suggest this anomaly is autosomally hereditary.

A schizoid’s ponerological activity should be evaluated in two aspects. On the small scale, such people cause their families trouble, easily turn into tools of intrigue in the hands of clever individuals, and generally do a poor job of raising the younger generation. Their tendency to see human reality in the doctrinaire and simplistic manner they consider “proper”, transforms their frequently good intentions into bad results. However, their ponerogenic role can take on macro-social proportions if their attitude toward human reality and their tendency to invent great doctrines are put to paper and duplicated in large editions.

In spite of their typical deficits, or even an openly schizoidal declaration, their readers do not realize what the authors’ characters are like; they interpret such works in a manner corresponding to their own nature. The minds of normal people tend toward corrective interpretation thanks to the participation of their own richer, psychological world-view. However, many readers critically reject such works with moral disgust but without being aware of the specific cause. An analysis of the role played by Karl Marx’s works easily reveals all the above-mentioned types of apperception and the social reactions which engendered separations among people.

In reading any of those disturbingly divisive works, let us ponder whether they contain any of these characteristic deficits, or even an openly formulated schizoid declaration. That will enable us to gain a proper critical distance from the contents and make it easier to dig the valuable elements out of the doctrinaire material. If this is done by two people who represent greatly divergent interpretations, their methods of perception will come closer together, and the causes of dissent will die down. Let us make this attempt as a psychological experiment and for purposes of proper mental hygiene. [...]

Who plays the first crucial role in this process of the origin of pathocracy, schizoids or characteropaths? It appears to be the former; therefore, let us delineate their role first.

During stable times which are ostensibly happy, albeit marked by injury to individuals and nations, doctrinaire people believe they have found a simple solution to fix such a world. Such a historical period is always characterized by an impoverished psychological world-view, a schizoidally impoverished psychological world-view thus does not stand out during such times and is accepted as legal tender. These doctrinaire individuals characteristically manifest a certain contempt with regard to moralists then preaching the need to rediscover lost human values and to develop a richer, more appropriate psychological world-view.

Schizoid characters aim to impose their own conceptual world upon other people or social groups, using relatively controlled pathological egotism and the exceptional tenacity derived from their persistent nature. They are thus eventually able to overpower another individual’s personality, which causes the latter’s behavior to turn desperately illogical. They may also exert a similar influence upon the group of people they have joined. They are psychological loners who feel better in some human organization, wherein they become zealots for some ideology, religious bigots, materialists, or adherents of an ideology with satanic features. If their activities consist of direct contact on a small social scale, their acquaintances easily perceive them to be eccentric, which limits their ponerogenic role. However, if they manage to hide their own personality behind the written word, their influence may poison the minds of society in a wide scale and for a long time. [...]

In spite of the fact that the writings of schizoidal authors contain the above described deficiency, or even an openly formulated schizoidal declaration which constitutes sufficient warning to specialists, the average reader accepts them not as a view of reality warped by this anomaly, but rather as an idea to which he should assume an attitude based on his convictions and his reason. That is the first mistake. The oversimplified pattern, devoid of psychological color and based on easily available data, exerts an intense influence upon individuals who are insufficiently critical, frequently frustrated as result of downward social adjustment, culturally neglected, or characterized by some psychological deficiencies. Others are provoked to criticism based on their healthy common sense, also they fail to grasp this essential cause of the error.

Societal interpretation of such activities is broken down into the main trifurcations, engendering divisiveness and conflict. The first branch is the path of aversion, based on rejection of the contents of the work due to personal motivations, differing convictions, or moral revulsion. This already contains the component of a moralizing interpretation of pathological phenomena.

We can distinguish two distinctly different apperception types among those persons who accept the contents of such works: the critically-corrective and the pathological. People whose feel for psychological reality is normal tend to incorporate chiefly the more valuable elements of the work. They trivialize the obvious errors and complement the schizoid deficiencies by means of their own richer world-view. This gives rise to a more sensible, measured, and thus creative interpretation, but is not free from the influence of the error frequently adduced above.

Pathological acceptance is manifested by individuals with diversiform deviations, whether inherited or acquired, as well as by many people bearing personality malformations or who have been injured by social injustice. That explains why this scope is wider than the circle drawn by direct action of pathological factors. This apperception often brutalizes the authors’ concepts and leads to acceptance of forceful methods and revolutionary means.
The passage of time and bitter experiences has unfortunately not prevented this characteristic misunderstanding born of schizoid nineteenth-century creativity, with Marx’s works at the fore, from affecting people and depriving them of their common sense.

If only for purposes of the above-mentioned psychological experiment, let us develop awareness of this pathological factor by searching the works of K. Marx for several statements with these characteristic deficits. When conducted by several people with varied world-views, this experiment will show how a clear picture of reality thereupon returns, and it becomes easier to find a common language. Schizoidia has thus played an essential role as one of the factors in the genesis of the evil threatening our contemporary world. Practicing psychotherapy upon the world will therefore demand that the results of such evil be eliminated as skillfully as possible. [...]

One phenomenon all ponerogenic groups and associations have in common is the fact that their members lose (or have already lost) the capacity to perceive pathological individuals as such, interpreting their behavior in a fascinated, heroic, or melodramatic way. The opinions, ideas, and judgments of people carrying various psychological deficits are endowed with an importance at least equal to that of outstanding individuals among normal people. The atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the association in concern as ponerogenic. Let us call this the first criterion of ponerogenesis.[...]

Observation of the ponerization processes of various human unions throughout history easily leads to the conclusion that the initial step is a moral warping of the group’s ideational contents. The contamination of ideology can be analyzed by means of its infiltration by more earthly foreign contents, thereby depriving it of healthy support in trust for and understanding of human nature. This opens the way for invasion by pathological factors and the ponerogenic role of their carriers.[...]

For centuries, individuals betraying various experiential anomalies have had the tendency to participate in the activities of human unions. This is made possible on the one hand by such group’s prior weaknesses; on the other hand, it deepens moral failings and stifles the possibilities of utilizing healthy common sense and understanding matters objectively. In spite of the resulting tragedies and unhappiness, humanity has shown a certain progress, especially in the cognitive area; therefore, a ponerologist may be cautiously optimistic. After all, by detecting and describing these aspects of the ponerization process of human groups, which could not be understood until recently, we shall be able to counteract such processes earlier and more effectively.

Any human group affected by the process described herein is characterized by its increasing regression as regards natural common sense and the ability to perceive psychological reality. Someone treating this in traditional categories could consider it an instance of “turning into half-wittedness” or the growing of intellectual deficiencies and moral failings. A ponerological analysis of this process, however, indicates that pressure is applied upon the more normal part of the association by pathological factors in the person of their carriers.

Thus, whenever we observe some group member being treated with no critical distance, although he betrays one of the psychological anomalies familiar to us, and his opinions being treated as at least equal to those of normal people, although they are based on a characteristically different view of human matters, we must derive the conclusion that this human group is affected by ponerogenic process. We shall treat this in accordance with the above described first criterion of ponerology, which retains its validity regardless of the qualitative and quantitative features of such a union.

Such a state of affairs simultaneously consists as a liminal (watershed) situation, whereupon further damage to people’s healthy common sense and critical moral faculties becomes ever easier. Once a group has inhaled a sufficient dose of pathological material to give birth to the conviction that these not-quite-normal people are unique geniuses, it starts subjecting its more normal members to pressure characterized by corresponding paralogical and paramoral elements, as expected. For many people, such collective opinion takes on attributes of a moral criterion; for others, it represents a kind of psychological terror ever more difficult to endure. The phenomenon of counter-selection thus occurs in this phase of ponerization: individuals with a more normal sense of psychological reality leave after entering into conflict with the newly modified group; simultaneously, individuals with various psychological anomalies join the group and easily find a way of life there. The former feel “pushed into counter-revolutionary positions”, and the latter can afford to remove their masks of sanity ever more often. [...]

It should be noted that certain of these exclusionary steps taken by a group in the process of ponerization, should have been taken against deviants by the ideological group in the beginning. [...]

If any group seeks to avoid ponerization, it will want to exclude individuals with any psychological dependence on subjective beliefs, rites, rituals, drugs, and certainly those individuals that are incapable of objectively analyzing their own inner psychological content or who reject the process of Positive disintegration. [...]

Observing the appropriate state corresponding to the first ponerological criterion requires skillful psychology and specific factual knowledge; the second, more stable phase can be perceived both by a person of average reason and by public opinion in most societies. The interpretation imposed, however, is unilaterally moralistic or sociological, simultaneously undergoing the characteristic feeling of deficiency as regards the possibility of both understanding the phenomenon and counteracting the spread of said evil.