Re: Classic "Slick Nancy"

Jeff Root wrote:

> Thomas McDonald replied to Jeff Root:
>  
> [Jeff Root replied to "FunkyMunky"]
>>>>> In general, how much grief and anxiety is caused by the
>>>>> assertion of demonstrably incorrect facts as being true?
>>>>> Quite a lot, no doubt about it.  How much grief and anxiety
>>>>> is caused by Nancy's particular assertions of demonstrably
>>>>> incorrect facts?  Probably very little.  What she says is
>>>>> too absurd to be believed by any but the most credulous.
>  
> [Bill Nelson replied to Jeff Root]
>>>> Very little? We have people selling all they own to move to a
>>>> claimed "safe" place. We have families breaking up because one
>>>> spouse believes the claims but the other doesn't. We have people
>>>> who cannot afford to move, so are grieving that they are going
>>>> to die in less than a year.
>>>> 
>>>> And you say - "Probably very little". You certainly are perceptive.
>>>> 
>>>> Just because it is "absurd" doesn't mean that there are not
>>>> thousands of people that will fit into the "most credulous" class
>>>> that you mention.
>  
> [Jeff Root replied to Bill Nelson]
>>> I wrote that under the assumption that the total number of
>>> people affected as strikingly as you describe is much closer
>>> to ten than it is to "thousands".  This is partly based on
>>> the fact that this newsgroup and web pages referenced here
>>> are the only places I have ever heard of ZetaTalk; the total
>>> number of posters here supportive of ZetaTalk that I have seen
>>> is less than ten; and I've seen no evidence that those people
>>> (aside from Nancy herself) have been affected in the way you
>>> describe.
>>> 
>>> I wrote under the additional assumption that things like drug
>>> addiction, AIDS, malaria, obesety, hunger, homelessness, race
>>> intolerance, religious bigotry, illiteracy, unhealthful working
>>> conditions, drunk driving, earthquakes, hurricanes, pollution,
>>> and smoking -- each of which adversely affect millions, tens of
>>> millions, or hundreds of millions of people every year -- cause
>>> "much" grief and anxiety.
>>> 
>>> If your primary concern is to prevent grief and anxiety,
>>> address one of those problems or any of hundreds of others,
>>> and forget about Nancy.
>  
> [Thomas McDonald replied to Jeff Root:]
>> You have no way of knowing what other posters here do to
>> address some of the problems you mention.  It is possible
>> to make substantial contributions towards dealing with the
>> problems you mention, and also express concern for people
>> who might be harmed by Nancy.
>  
> Of course you are absolutely right.  I'm sorry that I implied
> that what you say isn't the case.
>  
> What I meant was that, if Bill's primary concern is to prevent
> grief and anxiety, then his talents and resources would be put
> to better use someplace where they are needed more desperately.
> Here we have three or four debunkers for every bunker, when
> three or four debunkers in toto would probably suffice.
>  
> I suspect that Bill's primary reason for *being* here has
> something to do with an interest in astronomy, rather than a
> concern to prevent grief and anxiety in Nancy-followers.  His
> primary reason for *posting* in these threads may be a concern
> to prevent grief and anxiety, but I suspect that it is instead
> that, like me, he gets riled up when he sees someone assert
> blatant untruths in a subject area dear to his heart, and
> feels compelled to correct them.
>  
>> In fact, ISTM that the same compassion that
>> motivates individuals to help others in the usual
>> ways can be (and in my case is) a major motivation
>> to answer Nancy's bad science on this NG.
>> 
>> One also has to consider the harm that might be
>> done (and has been done, if some posters are to be
>> believed when they tell us that they planned, or
>> actually did, make life changes to their detriment
>> by believing Nancy's fantasies.)
>> 
>> While Nancy and her pals deny it, people who
>> believe her when she says that the world will end
>> for billions of humans in mid-May of 2003 will
>> suffer psychological harm, and may decide to avoid
>> the mind-numbing disasters entirely by committing
>> suicide (and perhaps homicide of their loved
>> ones.)  This is not only idle speculation; it is
>> one not-uncommon response to extreme psychological
>> stress--grief and anxiety.
>  
> That is one reason why I have argued, in the last couple of
> posts, that it is not good to say that Nancy and "ABC" are
> wrong to try to help people.  Continue to show why there is
> no planet X and why there will be no "pole shift", but not
> to say that it is wrong to try to save people because the
> situation is hopeless.  Obviously you don't *need* to say
> that in addition to your other arguments.
>  
> I haven't yet read the string of posts where Bill Nelson
> and others tried to show "ABC" that a "pole shift" would melt
> the surface of the Earth.  Perhaps they give a convincing
> argument there that it would.  As of this moment, I am very
> skeptical of that assertion.
>  
>> If Nancy is to be believed about the pole shift, and
>> those capable of modeling and calculating the real
>> effects of such a shift are to be believed about their
>> calculations, then suicide and mercy homicide would be
>> reasonable actions for many people.  If one is certain
>> to die anyway, and possibly in great pain and extended
>> suffering, do you not think that many would kill
>> themselves and loved ones?
>  
> Yes.  The problem is, a few of the statements made here
> by debunkers can be interpreted as advocating this action.
> You seem to be saying: If this disaster really *is* coming
> (although we are certain it is not), then the situation is
> hopeless and it is better that everyone dies in ignorance.
> I profoundly disagree with that assertion, and it wouldn't
> surprise me at all if everyone here who has expressed it
> disagrees just as strongly as I do.  I think they just
> didn't realize what they were saying.
>  
>> Even if Nancy is to be believed, and the other folk are
>> to be discounted entirely, then there is no certainty of
>> survival through the pole shift. (Depending on the
>> statement of Nancy's one chooses to use, 4 billion people
>> or 90% of humankind, will die in great turmoil during the
>> shift.  Whichever number one chooses, the raw chances of
>> survival, even in safe areas and with TT's suggested
>> precautions, is not good.)
>  
> A fantasy situation which has great appeal for 11-year-old
> boys and men with 11-year-old minds.  (Survivalists.)  Watch
> any TV recently?
>  
>> Further, even if one survived without being
>> 'lifted' (which seems a chancy business, according
>> to Nancy), life would be so difficult that many
>> would dispair just thinking about it.
>> 
>> Finally, if one _is_ lifted (and there seems to be no
>> way to be sure that one will be offered that option),
>> life after the pole shift would be grim, and even harder
>> than simple individual survival.  Those 'lifted' could
>> look forward to extremely hard work, total self-sacrifice,
>> and not a lot of thanks.
>  
> Okay.  I have a 16-year-old mind.  This scenario doesn't
> much appeal to me.
>  
>> So, Jeff, how large a group of people is large
>> enough to be concerned about?
>  
> Oh, no!  Not *this* question again!  I was faced with this
> question more than 30 years ago.  I think that if you ask
> this question, you're asking the wrong question.
>  
>> If some of the posts on this NG help one person stay alive
>> and sane, and those posters are willing to spend the time
>> doing so, is that meaningless?  If ten people are helped to
>> make rational decisions that keep them from making terrible
>> mistakes, is that too small a group to be concerned about?
>  
> Your question is based on two assertions I made: That probably
> very few people are or will be seriously hurt by ZetaTalk, and
> that if Bill's primary concern is to prevent grief and anxiety,
> his talents would be far more useful elsewhere.  I stand by
> both of those assertions.  They do not imply that I don't think
> that every individual is important.
>  
> At any given time there are maybe three active Zetaposters and
> ten active debunkers.  If Bill and I were to devote the time we
> spend writing these messages to, say, amateur telescope making,
> counselling families with depressed, antisocial, or withdrawn
> teenagers, and working out a Theory of Everything, you guys
> would still be able to handle the Zetaposters just fine.
>  
> It's an allocation of resources thing, not a question of
> whether ten or five or one person is worth caring about.
> But it's also a question of what interests you.
>  
> We have more than the very small resources needed to handle
> Zetaposters adequately.  We don't have the vast resources
> needed to adequately handle a staggering number of vastly
> larger and more difficult problems.  So Bill chooses to dink
> around with an easy problem that is at least tangentially
> related to something he is interested in and knowledgeable
> about.  So do I.  So do you.
>  
>> You seem to be a compassionate guy.  You also seem
>> to know that, absent real evidence to the
>> contrary, people who follow Nancy's advice are
>> likely to regret doing so, probably greatly.  So I
>> don't think you really mean to suggest that the
>> grief and anxiety of a few is meaningless.
>> 
>> You do raise an interesting question.  I wonder if
>> anyone has any idea how many people are really involved
>> with Zetatalk and Troubled Times, in a serious way?
>> Nancy makes a big deal about her world-wide fame; but
>> AFAIK, there aren't scads of people who follow her.
>> Anyone have an idea?
>> Nancy?  ABC?  Jan?
>  
> I'd like to see a number.  My WAG is that fewer than ten
> people actually contribute time, money, energy or talent to
> ZetaTalk/TT at any one time, and fewer than 2,000 have *ever*
> bought anything from or contributed anything to them.
>  
>   -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
>  

But how many people believe zetatalk? That's the real question, not how 
many people contribute something to Nancy or zetatalk. I really couldn't 
care less about how much money she makes or anything of that nature, just 
the content itself.

Another thing to remember is that there is no application online to become 
one of zetatalk's slaves or whatever the accurate word is. a zetadrone? 
Where does one go to become one of these mythical creatures? So maybe the 
number of people actively involved with zetatalk is less than it might be 
if there were a "become a zetadrone" link on her main page, ya know?

ABC