Originally posted by stereologist1. Our DNA is changing

That's a big claim, are you suggesting evolution isn't happening anymore?

I know you are talking about the triple helix claims, but I couldn't resist biting at that one

Originally posted by stereologistWhat I see is:
1. OP makes a post saying X will happen without evidence
2. A post is made to contest the claims of X
3. No evidence is ever offered to support X
4. Overwhelming evidence is offered against X
5. People continue to believe in X and attack the skeptics as being agents of fictional groups

The CIA aren't a fictional group, but I accept your point

My point is that it happens both ways.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254It is a fact that the Long Count does not end or repeat on December 21, 2012......Yet this claim has become the core of all 2012 claims.

Not all of them, only the negative end of the world type claims. The positive ideas are all about entering into a new cycle/new era/positive changes occurring on the earth. The idea of a new cycle is supported by the Mayan calendar whether or not the Mayans specifically said anything about what would happen - since the cycle ends and a new one starts.

Originally posted by GLontra
You can call it the way you want to call.


But you can't deny the record high temperatures for the month of March in cities like Chicago or Toronto. In wich year? Well, the year is 2012...

Whenever I see these "wow weird weather" posts I know one of two things is going on in the mind of the poster. He is either new to the {2012} meme or new to forums. Or both.

Having participated in Usenet and pre-Usenet mailing lists back in the 80s, every year there is a new wave of "weirder and weirder weather" proclamations. By now, we should be rising with the moon in Sahara desert heat and calling it a day when the flood comes.

Every day, weirder and weirder.

Ostension is back in full force in the 2012 forum as people make all sorts of claims about a Planet X again.

It's back with the show Ancient Aliens, wacky claims from ZetaTalk, animal die offs, and the ever present talk about quakes and volcanoes increasing in amazing frequency.

One of the more interesting notions is that somehow Nancy Lieder is more correct because of her 2003 failure. Ostension is seen as people rally behind ZetaTalk as a place for scientific information.

I'm sorry stereologist but if you want to debunk something as complex as the 2012 drama you will have to step up your game just a tad. You can't just write a couple of lines as you did here and expect everyone to change their minds. The problem is that you are writing from the point of view of "I know this whole thing is a scam and it's so obvious I shouldn't have to go very deep for the rest to understand it". If you want to fight the good fight then create a well thought out thread in which you go into detail about all the points you are trying to raise. Such as: if you think the number of earthquakes is not greater than it was before, then quote different sources to show you are right. Same with animal die offs, weather change and whatever you want to debunk.

Also, ostension is not "believing false data". In general, it's used to convey a message by an example (giving you a pack of cigarettes instead of asking you if you want a smoke), and in folklore is used when the legend itself somehow affects people's lifes. For instance when a crime is commited echoing a crime from an urban legend or when a person modifies his/her sexual behaviour because of some HIV tale they once heard. Quasi-ostension is used when someone interprets an event for which they have not complete knowledge as something supernatural, and pseudo-ostension is used when someone replicates an action from an urban legend knowing full well what they're doing.

I don't believe in all this 2012 hype but as someone who enjoys listening to Terence McKenna I sometimes lurk this forum, and it's interesting to me seing you in just about every single thread in this subforum trying to debunk it. And everytime I read your posts you seem somehow (sorry if this sounds rude as it's not the intention) extremely close-minded and your debunking efforts usually come across as extremely flaky because they are more about the way you choose to express yourself instead of what you are actually trying to say.

My point is that there are several ways to present information, and if you are trying to change anyone's mind or at least make them think (and I'm assuming you do based on your insistive posting on the 2012 forum) you should try to make something a little more academic and actually explain your points with sources and extensive investigation instead of just assuming you're right and as such you don't need to go into great detail.