UFO Conjectures

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Try to remain objective and less self-absorbed

When I post things to this blog (and others), I’m opening the blog to a discussion or discussions relevant to the posting.

I’m attacking ideas. Not people or their character.

I try to follow academic procedure for scrutinizing and challenging ideas that are grist for debate.

Paul Kimball was offended by this from me about him and Nick Redfern, in a comment:

That you and Paul Kimball place so much stock in synchronicity goes to the neurotic, mild form of hubris.

The context was about persons thinking that the gods or the “other” supposedly interacting with humans, and I was suggesting that Nick and Paul were being egocentric in assuming that the outside entity or thing was so enraptured by them that the thing made it a point, to the exclusion of other activity and concerns, to pay attention to their daily lives, providing synchronistic events to wake them up to another reality.

Nick answered my academic accusation graciously and thoughtfully, as usual.

Paul, on the other hand, was defensive, writing that he didn’t put “much stock” in synchronicity and I was mischaracterizing his position about the matter.

Maybe I was, but Paul did, admittedly, provide commentary about synchronicity at his blog, on Facebook, and in a few radio broadcasts.

That may not be “much stock” to him but it is to me.

However, if he wants to dilute my mistaken impression, that’s okay with me. It’s a small matter, a matter of interpretation.

It’s got nothing to do with Paul’s ethics or intelligence or anything to do with him personally.

It was an observation about something he noted, (only?) a few times, nothing more.

His pique seemed unwarranted, to me but, hey, that’s his prerogative: to go after my misperceptions.

I’d rather he would attack the gist of my postings rather than my asides, but the choice is his.

Then we got a note from Bruce Duensing telling us he was out of the campfire circle.

This because I suggested he stay within topic and try to be cogent, succinct in his comments.

Often, I and others have no idea what Bruce is saying or thinking. He’s avidly abstruse, out of brilliance I noted, but he took my suggestion as a personal affront to his cogitation and ideas.

I was merely trying to tell him to be less abstruse.

His clotted prose is often beyond me (and others), over my head perhaps, but not understood regardless.

He shouldn’t take my “editing” proclivities personally.

I merely want an understandable flow of ideas here – without grandstanding or defensive comments because someone is trying to protect their public persona.

This is our, my blog. It’s a minor effort in the great scheme of things, but should be what I want it to be, not what others would like it to be. (They can have or have already their own outlets and blogs.)

More importantly, visitors here can go outside the discussion, but only so far.

This isn’t a free-for-all.

So comment away, attack my stupidities if you need to, but don’t take my petty broadsides personally.

This is a forum for debates about UFOs and attendant matters.

It’s not UFO UpDates where personalities take precedence over ideas.



  • If you can't take a little hit once in awhile, you shouldn't be playing the game. Where did I learn that from?

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • I can only answer the myself. I opted out of that written dialog for a simple reason. If no one can understand what I am conveying, why continue? When I said "enough" it was recognizing that if I am not contributing in a cogent manner, then I am adding babble.
    I took what you said at face value, and it's your blog.
    If the tables were turned, and you made comments I did not understand repeatedly, while you thought they were cogent..well, you could chose to go on, ignoring what I said, but that is a selfish sort of thing to do, in my book.
    Opting out was agreement. I should have fleshed that comment out more, (in hindsight )as you assumed I was offended. For me as for you, offense and defense are not the gist of a dialog. Adding babble to a difficult subject was not my intention, and if I cannot reinvent myself to accommodate what you are looking for, it's better to withdraw.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • Frank:

    You are hockey nut...er, fan.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • Bruce:

    Your insights are invaluable, but they do tend to be obscure, and not just to me.

    However, some who visit here are smart enough to discern your thought processes, and they'd miss you if you were to withdraw only because I'm too dumb to fathom your convoluted thinking.

    Commenters here shouldn't be offended by my, sometimes, snarky retorts.

    They are only the product of a moment, without any personal animus whatsoever.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • I feel your pain, RRR. Who could predict such personal reactions from a post entitled, "The Accursed ET/Other Theology of My Friends" which simply goes on to diagnose the myriad emotional/psychological shortcomings of said friends?

    Really, they should have stayed on topic. Which was more pots and kettles - "What's this?!?!? People i have chosen to be in my enlightened circle of acquaintances actually have the sheer impudence to differ in their intellectual opinions from moi?!?!?! The Noive!!"

    All snark and good-natured ribbing aside, i'm curious what you expected to happen? And i like Bruce a lot and wish he would do more podcasts - he has a very engaging speaking style. steph

    By Blogger tinyjunco, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • Hahahaha Steph...

    You nail my self-importance and offended ego.

    I like the rough-and-tumble back-and-forth.

    But I do wish that responders here would stay on topic, and try to make sense, even when I don't.

    Is that too much to ask of supposed smart folks and friends?


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • Tinyjunco

    LOL. I can only go when invited and my obtuse nature does not invite or necessarily welcome invitations but thanks none the less.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • Hi RRR! glad you got a laugh.

    in answer to your query: no, it's not too much to ask.

    ".....even when I don't." eh - actually it is. it's only fair, human nature, etc.

    Happy Saturday! steph

    By Blogger tinyjunco, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

  • Well then, the best way for you to get what you say you're looking for is to just stick with the UFO stuff, and not talk at all about what individuals think about it. If, on the other hand, you continue to talk about the views of various individuals, it's incumbent on you to represent them accurately. If you fail to do so, and get called on it, then that's on you.

    Is it important? I suppose not, in the grand scheme of things. But I've seen my point of view consistently misrepresented by others, and that kind of thing, if left unchallenged, has a tendency to stick at times.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, January 07, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home