|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 21, 2003 9:51:28 GMT
The problem is simply this. I do not think any even slightly intelligent person with even a smidgeon of reasoning could not at least have some serious doubts about whether the Paul today is the same as before the mid-sixties after viewing the evidence presented here. They are either in extreme denial or deliberately out to cause trouble. In either case, we can't waste time with them. As has always been said, if the overwhelming evidence already presented on this site doesn't challenge their own view of reality even a little bit, we will never persuade them with words. We're not here to persuade stubborn unbelievers in denial; we're here to continue research and continue to develop on what we already know. But there has been an orchestrated campaign to deliberately waste our time which has come in one form or another. This is Faul's way to try to "take care of us". At least some of these trolls must have been assigned to do a job. I simply cannot believe anyone could not come here and remain adamant 100% that Paul is still alive - that is simply not the stand of sane reasoning. The person who says, "You always have to leave room for coincidence as an explanation" is also the most vigilant. Paul Bearer, you claim one needs to be slightly intelligent with a smidgeon of reasoning to think the way you do. Again I will take an extreme example to counter this…. About 5 years ago I was at Speaker’s Corner in London with my mother. Speaker’s Corner is a place where anyone can speak their mind as long as they don’t ‘diss’ the Queen. One of the speakers was Iraqi and the gist of his conversation was that we in the West are infidels, all Western women are whores and should be killed and Saddam was the greatest leader the world has ever seen. He firmly believed it. When challenged about Westerners being infidels he said our society went against the Koran- as you know it’s impossible to argue about a religious text with a religious person. When challenged about his beliefs about Western women he claimed it was the belief of Allah – again the word of ‘God’ is something one can’t argue with when talking with a religious person. When challenged about Saddam he simply raged that we were infidels and the women should be killed thus starting the whole argument again. I’m sure he, too, believed that one only needed to be slightly intelligent with a smidgeon of reasoning to think the way he did. As far as there being an ‘orchestrated campaign’ to waste your time… well, I will probably soon be seen as someone who is part of this campaign if I keep challenging the way you present your arguments. I’m not. Of course, you only have my word for that. I think what you have here is extremely interesting and should be made public. I am simply suggesting that you use ‘grown-up’ argument rather than childish bickering. Quite often an argument here results in the ‘believers’ metaphorically sticking their tongues out and stomping away. How does that look to 99.999% of the population? “Want to see the Virgin Mary on a tortilla? Look long enough.” -William Gibson
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 21, 2003 10:04:31 GMT
Corner is a place where anyone can speak their mind as long as they don’t ‘diss’ the Queen. This forum is a place where anyone can speak their mind as long as they don’t ‘diss’ the Sun King. ;D ;D ;D ;D Sorry, Ocean: What are you saying? ! ? ! God - Allah - Bill Sheppard - what are you saying? How are you?
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 21, 2003 11:58:32 GMT
We try to be very cautious about banning posters but...I simply suspect the motives of some are not sincere and they are trying to diverge our energies off-course - some are blatant flamers, others come across more subtly. Banning someone is a judgement call of course. I wish I could read the minds of posters and see exactly what their motives are but I can't (yet ;D). But, with someone like Ed (for instance) some of us can feel an underlining attitude in his posts that doesn't feel right - that is, he's not actually prepared to listen to what we say regardless and will argue about anything no matter what we say. This is simply not helpful to our cause.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 21, 2003 14:28:33 GMT
OCEANCHILD,
Going back to my response to the now-banished ED, the one you questioned, here is my explanation.
He stated that my relating to you all of what my Dad had said had "no credibility whatsoever" and basically downed the whole idea, as he did everything on here.
So, I decided some 'tough love' was necessary, therefore I reminded him due to his lack of history at the site, and his obvious negative imput everywhere, that HE HIMSELF had no credibility whatsoever.
That mail may have came across heavy....but it merely turned that Troll's own vindictiveness around on himself. -Ian
|
|
|
Post by Elidor on Sept 21, 2003 14:38:33 GMT
I'm sorry, but I'm finding some of this hard to take. It seems to me that many of you are happy to preach to the converted and would rather gloss over anomalies in the "evidence" presented by the 2 sites claiming to prove McCartney is dead, than positively deal with issues that arise from it. I have to say that at times there seem to be hints of religious right wing zeal in reactions and comments aimed at doubters, similar to that found in religious chat rooms, whereby reasoned discourse is dispensed with in favour of towing the party line. "If you're not for us, you're the enemy might work for Bush and Blair, but if there is to be any level of genuine debate, which this site claims is welcome, you can't dismiss doubters as infiltrators or people with a pro-faul "as you wold see it)agenda. As a Beatles fan of some 20 years, I have a vested interest in the outcome of this, and as I have said, I am cynical but remain prepared to be convinced. As yet, nothing I have read or seen image wise here or elsewhere has led me to feel I've been fooled, although I admit the whole thing is hugely stimulating - that's why I'm here after all. There is no reason to react like a Spanish Inquisitor to someone who questions your views, and in my humble opinion, it detracts from your arguments. I have posted my doubts about some of the evidence under "General/Is Paul Dead" and could have gone on longer, but in the meantime I would genuinely welcome comments on these, and if I'm not slated for my views, I am prepared to question more of the "evidence". Boomshanka.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 21, 2003 15:00:22 GMT
What Sun King said is true. We have increased our numbers greatly even over the last few months. Look at IanSingleton, I'mgonnaopenmymind, xpt626(veteran), ReyAnthony, Lucy and many more who weren't here when the board started in April but have joined in since then and added very valuable insights.
What we are trying to convey to you Oceanchild is that the message board and the people on it aren't here to convince others that Paul is dead. The OTHER sites with the physical evidence are for that purpose. To look at all that evidence on Uberkinder's and Sun King's site and come here unconvinced and looking for someone here to convince you is crazy in my opinion. The evidence is there like Paul Bearer said. If that doesn't convince you then I think anything short of a public admission won't either. If you think people like Ed can be convinced then maybe YOU can take the time to convince him. You may find it is a frustrating experience and a massive waste of your time.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 21, 2003 15:03:41 GMT
Still loving Darkhorse's posts...
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 21, 2003 15:05:34 GMT
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D aw shucks
|
|
|
Post by PaulBearer on Sept 21, 2003 15:25:15 GMT
I do agree with Oceanchild, however, that some of our posts are a bit hasty and too judgemental - a kneejerk reaction as it were. Sometimes they do ask some good questions to which we, rather frustratingly, can't always answer at this stage and that can make us quite impatient and rude which is a concern to me - I would like to be able to answer every question confidently but we simply don't know everything right now; however it's a judgement call ultimately whether or not to ban someone, not always for just their content, but their underlining motive which sometimes only begins to become clear after several days and can be quite subtle (like Vandi's was); it gets to a point with someone where we just have to go by gut instinct in the end.
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 21, 2003 19:57:36 GMT
Hmmmmm…. I understand the second statement – the wish for intelligent conversation is probably the desire of most people who come here. Do you, however, equate ‘intelligent’ with ‘believing everything I believe’? Who then is right and who then is wrong if we are only talking about ‘belief’? Then, Ian, you blew it with the first statement. Can you, please, tell me in an intelligent way (for that is the kind of discussion you desire), how exactly that comment is ‘intelligent’? You all know I’m not a troll… but, man, you guys are really starting to rile me. Ed, seems to just have been pounced on from the moment he came here. He’s interested in the subject matter, but he doesn’t think the information you guys have presented is convincing enough. Your job is not to get rid of him so that you can just be surrounded by sycophants, preaching to the converted – your job is to convince the sceptics. Can anyone tell me why this behaviour makes your case more convincing? I couldn't disagree more, Ocean. Ed's posts were pouncing on OUR statements and beliefs. Every 'ED' post was rude and dissing whatever the poster had put forth. I do not equate 'intelligent' with 'believeing all that I believe.' I define intelligence as making a well-founded, logical, or creative statement then being able to bolster or showcase that statement with information, evidence, or at the very least emotional/humanistic/human nature statements which can reinforce the point you are trying to make initially. I don't care who agrees or disagrees with my threads; they are welcome to. But when they jump on this site in a blanketed, mean-spirited search-and-destroy mission, I can give as good as they do. Oui?
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Sept 21, 2003 20:08:55 GMT
this forum is for people that have ALREADY made the decision that the real james paul was replaced in 1966. there is literally nothing else to it!! the taliban connection just showed a Clear lack of intelligence. its not as though we are requiring anyone to come to this site or anything, or discouraging skeptics. its just that when people that come here, try to discourage us, deny all of the evidence and are just rude bastards, i dont see how they are valuable in this online community, do You?
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 21, 2003 20:24:34 GMT
Sorry, Ocean: What are you saying? ! ? ! God - Allah - Bill Sheppard - what are you saying? How are you? I’m good! What I was saying is that sometimes people here argue in the way that a religious person argues- it doesn’t matter what religion. I used the example of the Iraqi at Speaker’s Corner, because I assumed that his beliefs would be outrageous to most, if not all, of the posters here. When you are trying to have a discussion with someone who ‘believes’ something deeply it is very difficult to actually 'discuss' anything. The word of 60IF is taken like religious people take the word of their religious texts – it’s 'irrefutable'. If a religious text is irrefutable then why are there so many different interpretations of the Bible and the Koran and the Torrah? Not only is there fighting among people of different religions, but there is fighting among people of the same religions. Some of you, I’ve gathered from your posts, are religious. Do you believe that unless someone believes in your religion and follows your particular church's interpretation they will be going to hell? Do you realise that every other religious person not of your religion believes that you, too, are going to hell because you don’t believe what they believe? This is the problem with ‘belief’. It is not fact. You do not ‘know’ it, you believe it. ‘Belief’ is “Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something”. ‘Know’ is “To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty”. There is a big difference. To me a lot of people here come across as ‘believers’ rather than people who ‘know’. If there is no uncertainty then why attack detractors? Now most of you feel that the ‘non-believers’ don’t belong here because they only ‘believe’ in the existence of Paul not Faul. You think it’s a waste of your time to engage with them at all because you don’t think you will ever convince them of your side. But neither will they convince you of their side. You are as closed-minded as they are. These non-believers come here for various different reasons. I came because I was intrigued by the pictures on SunKing’s and Uberkinder’s sites and wanted to learn more. I don’t believe. I don’t disbelieve. But then I’m like that about everything, so don’t take it personally! You know for certain that grass is green. If a friend came up to you and said the grass was red would you scream at him and tell him he was an idiot and say you didn't want to talk to him anymore because he offended you so deeply? Or would you say ‘Have you had your eyes checked for colourblindness?’ My guess is that because the grass being green is an irrefutable fact you would do the latter. If, however, a friend said to you that God does/doesn’t exist – the opposite to what you believe- then it would undoubtedly end in a screaming match. Why? It is UNPROVABLE. You are discussing something here which can be proven or disproved. You are presuming to be dealing with facts. If they are facts, then they are PROVABLE. I do feel that you need to convince people who are intrigued enough by the other sites to come here, read all the posts, sign up and engage in conversations. I don’t believe that people go through all of that on a whim. They are genuinely interested, but not yet convinced. You kicking them out does absolutely nothing for your credibility... Speaking of credibility... (ED) stated that my relating to you all of what my Dad had said had "no credibility whatsoever" and basically downed the whole idea, as he did everything on here. This is what Ed said: Comments such as 'my Dad thought' have no credibility whatsoever. If you really want to 'prove' this fallacy, please use witnesses with more credibility than 'my dad' I’m afraid I have to agree with him. My dad more than likely believes that Paul is still alive. Why is your dad saying “that guy didn't look like PAUL McCARTNEY at all” any more credible than my dad saying it does? Why are your dad’s comment more credible evidence than, oh, perhaps anything that’s actually evidence? I’m sure your dad is a really nice guy, but it’s true, he’s not an expert. If you countered Ed’s comment with a ‘I’m simply putting forward circumstantial evidence. My father is a complete outsider and with no prompting at all commented that he thought it didn’t look like Paul McCartney.’ and left it at that the situation would have simmered down. You did, in fact, say that to him but proceeded by this “It's OK my shared observation from my Dad was completely lost on you; went right over your head. Unfortunately, I think you're ignorant and there is no place for you here in the PID symposium.” It just reminds me of the guy on Speakers Corner countering the challenges put forth by his audience about the ‘greatness’ of Saddam with ‘You are all infidels! Your women are whores and should be killed.’ If he could have told us exactly why he thought Saddam was a great leader – then maybe we would have listened. Instead he just came across as a complete idiot... and if he had then screamed that all he wanted was an intellectual discussion, but he couldn’t have it with us because “You are all infidels. Your women are whores and should be killed!”... well, I think you know where I'm headed with that... The way Ed’s challenges were handled just reminds me of a brainwashed fundamentalist Iraqi. Sorry for my long post.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 21, 2003 20:36:07 GMT
...I don’t believe. I don’t disbelieve... You mean: I can see I can't see?
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Sept 21, 2003 20:45:17 GMT
on Today at 16:24:34, OceanChild wrote:...I don’t believe. I don’t disbelieve... now that just does Not make any sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by OceanChild on Sept 21, 2003 21:37:06 GMT
I don't disbelieve because the photo comparisons are amazingly convincing. I don't believe because there are far too many unanswered questions. Just like in a murder trial if a man was seen at the scene of the crime, there was a dead woman who had been stabbed and the man had a knife in his hand - is he guilty of murdering her? Not neccessarily. It looks like it from one's first impression, but one has to look into it further and further to get to the truth. So far at 60IF I've just seen the 'man with the knife in his hand' so to speak. Paul could be dead, he could be alive. Both options are open to me. I am not discounting either one of them. Why doesn't it make sense to you?
|
|
|
Post by TheWatusi on Sept 21, 2003 22:18:00 GMT
it does, it does, i see all your points, and youre right.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 21, 2003 23:27:46 GMT
I don't disbelieve because the photo comparisons are amazingly convincing. I don't believe because there are far too many unanswered questions. Just like in a murder trial if a man was seen at the scene of the crime, there was a dead woman who had been stabbed and the man had a knife in his hand - is he guilty of murdering her? Not neccessarily. It looks like it from one's first impression, but one has to look into it further and further to get to the truth. So far at 60IF I've just seen the 'man with the knife in his hand' so to speak. Paul could be dead, he could be alive. Both options are open to me. I am not discounting either one of them. Why doesn't it make sense to you? Because actually I am OceanChild and you are Sun King.
|
|
|
Post by Revolver on Sept 22, 2003 0:49:04 GMT
Mid summer I saw 'Paul McCartney' on TV and thought to myself 'that is not Paul McCartney'. Several weeks later I found a thread on Godlike pointing to Uberkinders' website and took a good look at the facial comparisons and came away with the feeling that there are reasons to believe that something had happened which resulted in Paul's replacement. Although I am not totally convinced that Paul was kidnapped, murdered, or died in a car crash, 60IF does raise some interesting points based on insider information. I am disinclined to believe that faul agreed to fill in for Paul because faul wanted cosmetic surgery to fix a previous scar. I am more inclined to accept that this faul was groomed to fill in the position and in building a personal fortune of $2 billion there is a lot of clout behind it. But I still cannot figure why someone else has not come forward to leak more info on what must have been a tragic event. Lives must be at stake for keeping shut. More to the situation at hand, Ed seems like someone who stumbled on the website without seemingly having reviewed any of the evidence which lends credibility to the belief Paul had died; neither did he show much respect for the forum, nor offer any reasonable explanation as to why 60IF is not credible. As Oceanchild and others point out, we are not likely to 'convince' others of our viewpoints that conflict with theirs, the most we realistically should expect is an open mind with common courtesy. I can handle a denier, but closemindedness and rudeness seems to go hand in hand and is a distraction for all who have spent their time and efforts here. Ian, your father came to the same conclusion I did before learning about 60IF and seeing the layovers, but as Oceanchild & Sun King would remind me, that doesn't make me your dad...
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 22, 2003 13:15:06 GMT
If you countered Ed’s comment with a ‘I’m simply putting forward circumstantial evidence. My father is a complete outsider and with no prompting at all commented that he thought it didn’t look like Paul McCartney.’ and left it at that the situation would have simmered down. You did, in fact, say that to him but proceeded by this “It's OK my shared observation from my Dad was completely lost on you; went right over your head. Unfortunately, I think you're ignorant and there is no place for you here in the PID symposium.”
So,OCEANCHILD, the gist of your laser-like focus on me is basically that I burned Ed the Bully too effectively, and it's pissed you off? Your above quote seems as though you're telling me what I should have said? AS IF inserting -gasp- MY OWN OPINIONS regards to ED was displeasing to you? And, disappointingly, Oceanchild, you go on and on in LENGTHY post about my post and what you found offensive in it, hypocritically chastizing ME for what I wrote, my own damn opinion, yet your post expresses YOUR opinions clearly.
Seems skewered to me. By the way, this to-and-fro is unfortunate, but I will always express my honest opinions, like it or not. I find it redundant to churn over every little sentence of my initial posting concerning my DAD'S statement. For what it's worth, OTHERS appreciated my written back-hand to ED the TROLL, and several OTHERS agreed with my poor picked-upon Father's comments regarding Faul/Paul. So Give peace a chance. You're in the Minority on this one. If ED was such a noble truth seeker, why was he BANNED from this forum? That is a rhetorical question...we all know why.
|
|
|
Post by Darkhorse on Sept 22, 2003 14:26:30 GMT
Very well said Ian! You are a great asset to this board! Your bully analogy is a good one. It's sorta like the bully at school, picking on everyone.. and when someone comes around and puts him in his place, there will always be someone to defend him and say the person who defended himself went too far when he had no other option. Those on this board defending people like 'Ed' and other 'trolls' , seem to forget that these poeple's posts are rude and attacking and aggressively and effectively defending yourself when you have been attacked is, well, okay in my book.
|
|
|
Post by xpt626 on Sept 22, 2003 16:03:06 GMT
Ian, for what it's worth, I understood your original post about your Dad perfectly, and I think it says something that he noticed the "dis-similarity" with no knowledge of these sites. No one's looked at, say, Bob Denver lately and said "that's not Gilligan" ;D
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 22, 2003 16:16:54 GMT
Exactly, 626, and had I thought the simplicity of his off-handed statement would spawn 4 pages of THIS, I would never have shared it at all.
(Goes into John Lennon circa 1966 beatles apology speech): I said what I said, or thought i said, and if you didn't all think I meant what I said, the you didn't understand what I said, which was taken out of context, and now we have all this...which is because some of you thought i meant what I didn't say, and I guess I should have said differently or draw a line diagram, or let you think you read what I didn't say..." ;D lol the way things are goin' they're gonna crucify me...
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 22, 2003 16:25:36 GMT
;D Very well-said yourself, too, DARKHORSE! I appreciate the back-up, and your kind understanding of what I was doing regards to ED. He was totally, personally rude and posted that way so obviously on purpose. We have built such a very cool exchange of posts, and they really are for the most part high caliber of objective and subjective thinking that I'll be damned to let some rude crude Troll bop on in and slag everything across the board. Give like you get. They either leave, or wake up to the error of their ways when it is turned upon them. I was above all defending what we all have here.
|
|
|
Post by SunKing on Sept 22, 2003 16:29:06 GMT
ED?!?!
"John sez "....and here's a Beatle-wife fixing the tea for one of the Fab-Four-ex-beatles" George interrupts.....'Fab-THREE" John giggles... "Fab-Three, chuckle" George...."I see Beatle-Bill's been making a pig of himself" John...."you see much of The Beatles these days?" George...'I saw Beatle-ED"..... with the imphasis on the changed name ED. John..."How was he?" George...."He's alright, but he was just going off on a tour" John...."Beatle-Ed's not doing so well these days is he. Beatle-George?" George...."He's #5 in Sweden." John...."Sweden, I see" gives the camera a big WINK. "
WHO IS THAT ED POSTING?
|
|
|
Post by IanSingleton777 on Sept 22, 2003 16:41:03 GMT
A-HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I sure see where you're going with this, Sunny. Wouldn't surprise ME.....nothing surprises me anymore. FAB GEAR Moe 1966
|
|