BTW, SPRINGER--A MALFUNCTION OF SORTS . . .
when I add a star to someone's post--then--if I REFRESH the page--I get the error msg on black screen that I "can't rate that post"
Must get out of that page to del err
edit 2 add this
reply to post by Damocles
what if we were lucky enough to get that ONE guy or gal out there with a ground breaking story to tell who just didnt have the skill or ability to
tell a story in a well presented manner? or had JUST experienced it and were still too rattled to relay all the details? would we want to run the risk
or losing the rest of this story?
now as ive said im a big fan of just throwing the cards on the table in one shot but that may not always happen.
I think these are very key points.
Most folks . . . are a jumble of feelings and memories about
emotional experience. All the more so a very super strange, mysterious, conflicted, 'other worldly' etc. paranormal sort of experience.
Professional interviews and interrogations repeatedly visit key points and aspects because awareness, memory, insight etc.
TEND TO COME IN WAVES OR LAYERS OF AN ONION sort of uncovering phenomenon.
Many folks are quite anxious about sharing anything--even behind a pseudonym.
They NEED to feel in a VERY SAFE place to be able to even think clearly or to articulate clearl TO THEMSELVES, much more so strangers.
Virtually NO ONE tells a story flawlessly. IF THEY DID, that would be evidence in itself of fakery.
IN TRUE, GENUINE STORIES, THERE ARE VIRTUALLY ALWAYS INCONSITENCIES because we are human and remember things in a somewhat jumbled way according to
all kinds of preconditioning experiences as well as idiosyncratic memory factors.
Just describing a picture puzzle after 3 minutes of prept time looking at it . . . 12 people would have 12 very different narratives and virtually all
of them would have inconsistencies. And that's a VERY SIMPLE TASK with a VERY CLEAR AND SIMPLE stimulus that's in clear light on a stable table and
not moving; complex actions, lights, shadows etc. And, if one were to focus on small parts of each of the 12 narratives, it would be easy to ASSUME
that they were not even talking about the same puzzle or event--the SEEMING INCONSISTENCIES would be so HUGE--SEEMINGLY.
Yet, if we pounce on every microscopic shred of an inconsistency as though it were proof positive that the OP was a troll, stupid, lying, hoaxer,
ignorant, not worth bothering with . . . beneath our contempt etc.
how will that help us or him or ATS or the whole field of UFOLOGY???
When one throws in the issues of fear, insecurities--which can be super huge and intense even in "average" people's lives . . . the "high
strangeness" factor . . .
THEN it can be super difficult for folks--even folks used to verbal narratives--particularly folks NOT used to sharing narratives about their personal
lives--it can be SUPER DIFFICULT to just simply
GET IT ALL OUT remotely clearly, coherently, believably--even to themselves. It's a convoluted, fractured, tortured process for most average people.
THEY NEED SAFE SUPPORTIVE FEELINGS to do it remotely well.
ASSAULTIVE ATTACKS on every microscopic detail--particularly INSTANTLY or until they've done their supported more or less best--such attacks really
are super counter productive and work against the goals of ATS wholesale.
BESIDES ALL THAT--WE ALL NEED GRACE. None of us are perfect at much of anything--especially remembering and relating complex stories . . . often in
the night . . . groggy . . . . emotionally conflicted etc.
So often, too many here on relate to the OP as though the OP has a video taken from 5 different vantage points including satellite . . . with a
transcript of all the sounds and a commentary from 7 experts on various aspects of the experience . . . and with all this at their fingertips, they
are typing out their narrative on ATS.
That's just NOT reality, folks. Quit pretending it is. It's destructive to the OP and to our goals here.
IT IS NORMAL to have insight, awareness, memory grow as one tells and retells an experience. And some memories will conflict with earlier ones--just
because one is human. AVOID POUNCING ON THAT as evidence of a deliberate desire to lie. It's JUST HUMAN.
IF one is patient and supportively draws a person out . . . even repeatedly . . . kindly, tenderly . . . eventually, it will be obvious even to the OP
what is a silly and obviously absurd contradiction. No one will NEED to call anyone a liar.
I have begun to think that a LOT OF THE LIAR! LIAR! LIAR! phenomena on ATS has a LOT MORE to do with the accusers--their insecurities; needs to put
other people down; be in control; be seen as some lofty expert etc. than it has anything to do with the flaws of the OP or the OP's narrative.
That's deplorable. Get your emotional/psychological stuff tended to elsewhere and otherwise than at experiencers expense.
AT LEAST keep such compulsive urges in check.
Springer, I hope there's some appreciation for the above on the part of at least SOME of the senior better mods and the 3 amigos. It too often
appears that such psychological . . . weaknesses run rampant hereon and rough-shod all over lots of people routinely without the slightest caution,
check, demerits being applied. And, sadly, many times, folks are quite right
SOME OF THE MODS ARE SOME OF THE WORST OFFENDERS.
And when such begin to ROUTINELY ASSAULT EVERY new story, OP . . . then I think it's time for some much more careful senior monitoring.
I realize no amount of mod ranks etc. will stop anything bad if the membership itself turns a blind eye. That's a challenge. The rank and file are .
1. often loathe to speak up sufficiently even when it's called for. Some just don't like to make waves and some just don't like to bother.
2. often too insecure about their perceptions to trust them even when they are spot on.
3. have seen too much evidence that their perspectives will be ignored, shot down, useless, counter productive AND get them a black badge of disfavor
for ever daring to speak up at all.
I'm sure there are other factors but those are problematic enough. I think all those 3 factors are challenging to impact toward improvment. But who
said all this would be easy. Goes with the territory. The effort must still be made. Persistent, lasting effort must still be made, imho.
I wonder . . . Springer . . . Could there be designated . . . . 3, 5 or even 7 senior super mods in a tiered sort of way . . .
not just mods who've been around a long time with lots of acclaim for their biases or some such . . .
but mods who are
1. HUMBLE, NOT ALL FUSSED UP OVER THEIR OWN EGOS AND WHO'S IS LONGER etc.
2. Who TRULY ARE FAIR-MINDED over a very wide range of issues, topics, values . . .
3. HAVE TO UNCOMMON GREAT DEGREES--A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE AND A SENSE OF HUMOR.
4. An above average capacity, set of skills at conceptualizing and sorting through very convoluted, complex interpersonal exchanges.
5. Capable of telling it like it is without ego-hooks being involved. . . . letting the chips fall where they will without a need to skewer the
dagger in a little deeper for personal vendetta sorts of reasons.
6. Could communicate graciously where practical and at least with some detached non-personally hooked tones--a summary of what had been going on and
how it was to be resolved.
IF some . . . . frankly . . . saintly sorts . . . . could be identified in a kind of tiered NOTIFY, APPEAL, CALL IN to a situation kind of set-up . .
. it might shorten the time when such would be addressed and it would likely improve the respect for how complex messes were cleaned up; prevented
from getting worse etc.
Even a panel of 3 such could be a big improvement, imho
[edit on 24/8/2007 by BO XIAN]