What happened to Hugh Manatee?

[Burnt Hill]

Ill manners? My op suggests inviting HMW back(something I don't believe will happen, just something to consider-considering he is being mentioned throughout various threads). He has, or is in the process of achieving a status he never had while here. Of course this will elicit different responses from various posters, as long as an eye is kept on the op then all is well. There have been many long expositions of a more personal nature for years on many threads, and never a suggestion of moving them "elsewhere", why here(there is another thread about him nearby), and why now?

[Project Willow]

Ill manners? My op suggests inviting HMW back(something I don't believe will happen, just something to consider-considering he is being mentioned throughout various threads). He has, or is in the process of achieving a status he never had while here. Of course this will elicit different responses from various posters, as long as an eye is kept on the op then all is well. There have been many long expositions of a more personal nature for years on many threads, and never a suggestion of moving them "elsewhere", why here(there is another thread about him nearby), and why now?

There are two threads and that's one too many. If it were I who was the focus of two threads in GD, that are essentially debates over banishment, something I know to have been painful for many folks, I'd be more than a tad uncomfortable. I do not agree there is some change in status, or even a hope of one, it's the same old conversation, the injuries resurrected and reviewed with the same outcome.

[BrandonD]

Everyone is going to have their own definition, and putting aside for a moment, the general definition of New Age fluffy thinking that throws out any logical or even rational analysis I'd say, for me, for this particular forum, "woo" is any cherished and beloved topic that causes someone to suffer duress and regress when it is put under any rigorous examination.

We all have our woo centers and one man's woo can be another man's hard science, but the woo is out there, because its inside all of us. Dosage will vary of course.

Thank you for that well thought-out answer, it is a bit of a relief to read actually. I associate that word with more mainstream debunkers, and it generally refers to anything paranormal or without a conventional scientific explanation. That word woo is specifically intended to shame and silence people who aren't following the mainstream party line, so when I see such a term being repeated I sometimes instinctively ask myself if I'm in the right place.

I've experienced some very strange things, and I give those experiences serious consideration rather than disregard. Which makes me "woo" from the typical perspective. I'm sure many of us here are like that, actually.

So then, where is the line drawn? Absolutely everyone here is woo from the perspective of the evening news anchor. From where I stand, I find it difficult to draw a hard line between exactly what is "woo" and what is not, because that line presupposes that all the facts are in, that right now at this moment in time we know precisely how physics and time and consciousness and all the rest of it works. Which to me is beyond absurd.

Critical examination is a very enjoyable process, my feeling of objection is more directed towards the attitude that creates terms like "woo" in the first place. People who entertain unconventional ideas are not in any way less stable or less intelligent than the general population. It is in fact a mark of intelligence, as well as courage, to intentionally depart from convention.

Those who unintentionally depart from convention, well, they might lie in another category altogether.

[Nordic]

Actually, BrandonD, I think your definition of "woo" is the one being used here. The Manatee hated all "woo" and thought it all to be CIA propaganda. He thought all the UFO phenomena was CIA created, for instance. All of it.

[MayDay]

Hugh was never much more than a sde show here, far as I recall. KWH is probably real, but prolly not in the way he proposed it. Project Mockingbird was prolly real, but not to the extent that he believes it. I'm glad he's gone. Such a headache.

[MayDay]

I mean, I'd have to care about the shallow pop culture references he pointed to in order to fully appreciate/ evaluate his views, right? Not gonna happen. I don't think he could even stomach his own shit. I don't blame him.

[82_28]

Hugh was never much more than a sde show here, far as I recall. KWH is probably real, but prolly not in the way he proposed it. Project Mockingbird was prolly real, but not to the extent that he believes it. I'm glad he's gone. Such a headache.

Yeah. But he brought it up and he owned it. Do you know (of course not) how much meaningless shit I read daily? Pages and pages of shit I do not understand. There was a guy at the bar for example that we called "big foot Steve". I loved fucking around with him, but ultimately I liked his company and what he thought. I think the same courtesy should have been afforded to Hugh.

[MayDay]

I was always cuorteous to Hugh. I was one of the people who tried to reason with him just before he was banned, and he had nothing but kind words for me, as far as I recall. He seemed to consider me an ally. I was definitely swayed by his notions at times. I don't think he was entirely wrong. Just mostly.

[Elihu]

let him stand as an RI monument. the implications of what it would mean to ban the prolific and odious. it's still a good forum. i relished the movie trivia by itself. to be continued...

[LilyPatToo]

Good statement on woo, Brandon. As disappointed as I've been to see genuine paranormal experiences pretty much ignored here recently, I did see Hugh's point in calling some of it W.O.O.--Wonderment Occluding Objectivity--because I've had personal experience with being deliberately led down the alien abduction path in order to conceal completely human predation. And some of us came here from honey pot sites that attracted and monitored other people like me, so discernment was important. Some wonderment is used to manipulate, which in no way invalidates all the true paranormal operating around us. But it sure is a handy way to dismiss anything unusual and to marginalize the people who've witnessed it.

I'm not sure Hugh didn't lump it all into his W.O.O. category, but he did give me a useful term to use as I've struggled to work out what was real and what was calculated lies in my own life. I do miss Hugh, but I definitely do NOT miss his monomania. It became disturbing to read, especially when he dismissed movies with no more than word play on their titles and without bothering to see them. He brought the whole board down in any rational visitor's eyes and I too stopped sending people here when he began popping up on every other thread. But I still think of him now and then and I regret the board's loss of a bright mind. And I hope he's gotten help with his obsession.

LilyPat

[Searcher08]

Everyone is going to have their own definition, and putting aside for a moment, the general definition of New Age fluffy thinking that throws out any logical or even rational analysis I'd say, for me, for this particular forum, "woo" is any cherished and beloved topic that causes someone to suffer duress and regress when it is put under any rigorous examination.

We all have our woo centers and one man's woo can be another man's hard science, but the woo is out there, because its inside all of us. Dosage will vary of course.

Thank you for that well thought-out answer, it is a bit of a relief to read actually. I associate that word with more mainstream debunkers, and it generally refers to anything paranormal or without a conventional scientific explanation. That word woo is specifically intended to shame and silence people who aren't following the mainstream party line, so when I see such a term being repeated I sometimes instinctively ask myself if I'm in the right place.

I've experienced some very strange things, and I give those experiences serious consideration rather than disregard. Which makes me "woo" from the typical perspective. I'm sure many of us here are like that, actually.

So then, where is the line drawn? Absolutely everyone here is woo from the perspective of the evening news anchor. From where I stand, I find it difficult to draw a hard line between exactly what is "woo" and what is not, because that line presupposes that all the facts are in, that right now at this moment in time we know precisely how physics and time and consciousness and all the rest of it works. Which to me is beyond absurd.

Critical examination is a very enjoyable process, my feeling of objection is more directed towards the attitude that creates terms like "woo" in the first place. People who entertain unconventional ideas are not in any way less stable or less intelligent than the general population. It is in fact a mark of intelligence, as well as courage, to intentionally depart from convention.

Those who unintentionally depart from convention, well, they might lie in another category altogether.

Beautifully put.
I also think that each of us changes according to our day-to-day contexts, so that a person may embody 'breaking the set' in their creative / business life, yet have a home life that is within pretty conventional thought boundaries - for example, like Frank Zappa.
Similarly with a person's experience and belief systems. If I think back to consider some things which were on my "List of Screaming WOO" back on first joining RI, something like "Phil Schneider and alien bases" would have been way up there. Many years later, my "List" is a lot smaller. And written in pencil.

[Burnt Hill]

If in fact he is lurking, than HMW is reveling in the attention, other wise these threads are for the current participants. I dont mind at all if the threads are merged. And I like Elihus idea of the Manatee as an RI monument, Jeff should put a manatee in his collage at the top of the page! It seems most of us continue to enjoy the discourse, and maybe there is a lesson to be learned by reflecting on the life and times of HMW.

[coffin_dodger]

RI has always struck me as woo with rigid boundaries, similar to our inalienable 'freedom of speech' - with it's attendant caveats. But then, 'rigorous intuition' is an oxymoron, so it's not making any efforts to cloak it's intention.

I admired Hugh's dedication and vision. He saw it everywhere.

[brekin]

Actually, BrandonD, I think your definition of "woo" is the one being used here. The Manatee hated all "woo" and thought it all to be CIA propaganda. He thought all the UFO phenomena was CIA created, for instance. All of it.

Wow. That is a good point, and it brought an on rush of memories of Hugh having no patience for anything that smacked of speculative "other worldiness" that draws many readers to R.I. For example, I would imagine Hugh would have hated True Detective because it had elements of mysticism and the occult and he would have spent innumerable hours trying to prove (through a variation of the CIA name game, banana banana bo-banana, Rust Cole = Oswald) how it was an orchestrated psyop from beginning to end to redirect attention away from a real similar event. (Which in that case who knows, he may have been right!) But the point is, Hugh saw himself as the anti-Woo crusader, boiling away all the Intuitive fat from Rigorous Intuition because he believed his "system" was completely logical and not speculative at all. While tragically many saw his system as the House of Woo.

brekin » Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:25 pm wrote:Everyone is going to have their own definition, and putting aside for a moment, the general definition of New Age fluffy thinking that throws out any logical or even rational analysis I'd say, for me, for this particular forum, "woo" is any cherished and beloved topic that causes someone to suffer duress and regress when it is put under any rigorous examination. We all have our woo centers and one man's woo can be another man's hard science, but the woo is out there, because its inside all of us. Dosage will vary of course.

BrandonD wrote:
Thank you for that well thought-out answer, it is a bit of a relief to read actually. I associate that word with more mainstream debunkers, and it generally refers to anything paranormal or without a conventional scientific explanation. That word woo is specifically intended to shame and silence people who aren't following the mainstream party line, so when I see such a term being repeated I sometimes instinctively ask myself if I'm in the right place.
I've experienced some very strange things, and I give those experiences serious consideration rather than disregard. Which makes me "woo" from the typical perspective. I'm sure many of us here are like that, actually.

So then, where is the line drawn? Absolutely everyone here is woo from the perspective of the evening news anchor. From where I stand, I find it difficult to draw a hard line between exactly what is "woo" and what is not, because that line presupposes that all the facts are in, that right now at this moment in time we know precisely how physics and time and consciousness and all the rest of it works. Which to me is beyond absurd.
Critical examination is a very enjoyable process, my feeling of objection is more directed towards the attitude that creates terms like "woo" in the first place. People who entertain unconventional ideas are not in any way less stable or less intelligent than the general population. It is in fact a mark of intelligence, as well as courage, to intentionally depart from convention.

Those who unintentionally depart from convention, well, they might lie in another category altogether.

Yes indeed. "Woo" is more of shamey dismissive tag in the mainstream, much like "conspiracy theory". In fact, there probably is a continuum between the two terms when you want to prevent any consideration outside of conventional thinking. Woo is when you think (or want to think) the other person hasn't really examined their conclusions rigorously and Conspiracy Theory is when you think (or want to think) the other person has examined their conclusions, but too rigorously along the wrong track.

I think R.I. has done a good job overall trying to balance the two. And this has been probably one of the main tensions from day one. All you have to do is read most of Jeff's original posts to see a master acrobat at work trying to balance the Rigorous and the Intuitive. It isn't easy. The lines are always shifting here and for everyone. You have to be a obviously open minded to even entertain most of what is posted in the threads here, but if you aren't actively engaging and challenging the material then you basically are filling your boots with every hare brained theory cooked up since the printing press. My sense, and I harken back to Jeff's "founding posts" they were like the straight guy in the horror movie who brushed up against things in the conventional world that require unconventional analysis and solutions but realizes (and never lets go of) that this shit is straight up crazy, and at times, crazy making.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Hugh was considered a self styled anti-Woo crusader and the master of Woo. I think the answer probably lies somewhere in there.

[Twyla LaSarc]

Over the years, I have tried to steer open-minded, mature, thinking people to this site. HMWs was always cited as the reason they felt uncomfortable.