Talk:Michael E. Tymn/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


I created this page, I request it to be deleted, there has been a lot of trouble with it, the same with Michael Prescott. Forests (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, you gave up all of your rights to this page the minute you hit the save button -- it's not yours now, it's ours. Sorry. Inspiration Move me brightly. 02:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hes saying that he is getting is lawyer involved and going to sue me for making it. And theres also a troll who has pretended to be me and posted abuse on his blog. It would be better for me if it was deleted. Forests (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
That sucks. You should be more careful next time. Inspiration Move me brightly. 02:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to sue someone over a rationalwiki page? And secondly everything on the page is factual about him, so I don't see the exact problem. Forests (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
You might want to direct the guy to RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover. Peter mqzp 03:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Too confusing to go into detail but a person called MU who has an abusive internet history has been posting as me and others on the blog of Tymn and posting abuse to him on other websites under my username and as Jon Donnis and others. See here Talk:Mind-Energy_forum/Off_Topic that has not helped. I would rather the page was deleted, but the user above you says no. Forests (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it would be good policy to bow to hearsay threats of lawsuits on proxies. If you're in the US, then excellent, you should be fine. (If you're not in the US or country with similar free speech laws, then I suggest you work on that.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
From what I've skimmed it looks like Tymn is threatening to engage in a bit of "libel tourism," which is a bit of a dick move in the circumstances. Does he have any specific complaints, Forests? Peter mqzp 06:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
His complaint is that the word "dishonest" was in the article. I removed it. There is nothing offensive in the article, so I am not sure what his exact problem is (I think it might be his photo), or he could just be trolling. I removed his photograph. Forests (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think he should be contacting Forests anyway - he does not "own" the article. It's "owned" by RW. What Michael E. Tymn should do is either post his problems here or contact whoever would be responsible for legal matters at RW.--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally delete this article.[edit]

Look, I know you have issues with this guy, but there is no clear consensus to delete, and the Weasel, a guy who's been here forever, has noted that he thinks it should stay. Start a formal vote on this talk page if you want, but it's not your article to delete. Inspiration Move me brightly. 15:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I will start a formal vote but deleting the article will not create any red links, not a single article on rationalwiki links to Michael. E Tymn apart from one on the parapsychology article. Forests (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

There are at least 8 mainspace articles that link here, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that there are procedures for deleting articles, especially when there's an ongoing discussion about said articles, and you can't just decide to kill it on your own. Inspiration Move me brightly. 15:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
The only page that linked to Tymn was the parapsychology article (search Michael E. Tymn in the searchbox). Another user has now been adding Tymn to multiple articles. This is a bit unfair considering we have not yet agreed to keep the article and there needs to be a consensus vote on this which has not yet happened. Either way the article is unsourced and if it is kept will basically be a stub, there are no references for him. Forests (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
If the problem with the article is that you failed to add sources originally and that it is an orphan then the solution is to add sources and de-orphan it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Can the Tymn article be deleted[edit]

Can anyone give their input on the current events regarding Michael E. Tymn. Forests (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what is he threatening to sue you for? I'm no lawyer, but it seems like the most appropriate course of action would be to communicate with his lawyer and find out exactly what his position is (note that his lawyer will be a lot more reasonable than he is). Try to keep as much in writing as possible, and clarify that you were not the same person who was posting on his website. While it's important to take legal issues seriously, there's no point getting scared over empty threats, especially since he may not have a leg to stand on. There have certainly been others at a certain wiki who have pulled legal jargon out of their ass to try to intimidate others, only for others to point out that they're talking shit.RyanC (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
A guy who calls himself MU has pretended to be me as documented here Talk:Mind-Energy_forum/Off_Topic so I really don't know what it is all about. Apparently Tymn wants to sue the creator of the rationalwiki article about him for using the word "dishonest" in his article. I find it hard to take him seriously but a user called MU has been leaving him abuse under my username and others on multiple websites so it is probably related to that. The whole thing is very annoying. Forests (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Seconding RyanC's main point. If somebody actually hires a lawyer, somebody you can see really exists and has an office at an actual law firm, it's time to call the lawyer. It is very possible, though not certain, that you can make the whole thing go away with a phone call by being a reasonable person, asking what their client wants and explaining what's really going on. OTOH If you just receive electronic missives claiming to be from a lawyer, insist on verifiable contact details at their law firm so that you can make a telephone call. A real lawyer will be no more than a little annoyed at the extra hassle (after all, they're getting paid) whereas magical "Internet lawyers" concocted by angry loudmouths tend to disappear or switch to making ridiculous threats rather than admit to their incorporeality.
Once real lawyers are involved, it's also time to abandon any pretence that you know the law. You should either be prepared to do whatever their lawyer asks, or to hire your own lawyer to advise you on what your options are. The third option (refuse to do what's asked and stand firm intending to represent yourself in court if necessary) is very, very dangerous. You can end up simultaneously personally humiliated and bankrupt, and most people aren't going to have any sympathy because duh, you should have hired a lawyer. This even applies to real lawyers themselves. Tialaramex (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I have spoken to him over email, hes not sueing anyone. It seems it was more of a threat. He sent me a polite response in his email requesting for his page to be deleted. He says he is not anti-science and the article makes it sound that he is and that he is upset over it. Could we come to any agreement here and have the article deleted? It it is causing him a lot of mental stress apparently and he has requested for it to be deleted, is there any chance we can come to some kind of consensus here and have it deleted? No other articles link to to him, so there wouldn;t be any clear up red links etc. Forests (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
So what is his position on science? I see the article has no citations, it's just a load of claims about him. SophieWilder 22:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
He's not somebody I've ever heard of & probably most readers haven't either, so on that level not much would actually be lost by deleting it. But on the other hand we shouldn't delete mission-relevant content just because somebody has asked us to or threatened legal action (where there are probably no reasonable grounds for suit). Others (Seán Manchester, Mohamed El Naschie) have also made threats against RW without us bowing to their demands. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If these books he's published are actual things and not (snobbery alert) kindlewank, then he probably is worth an article. SophieWilder 22:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

<-- If he's not anti-science then surely the article can be adjusted to reflect this. But if he reached his conclusion through following proper scientific method, I'm fairly confident that we would have a very different view towards spirituality.

Just remember there are a number of homeopaths and Scientologists who genuinely believe what they preach, but this doesn't mean that their views and actions shouldn't be reported.

If this Michael Tymn receives public funding, makes profits off books or speaking gigs then he deserves an article. If some poor sods read his material and as a result spend lots of money on more material or make lifestyle choices, then it's good for information to be available that offers an alternative perspective.

That said, a Google search suggests that he isn't that well known. In fact most results are simply articles that he has submitted to non-peer reviewed journals. So perhaps he isn't notable enough for an article. At the very least, it does need to be referenced and some more in depth analysis of his work would be good. What was your initial motivation for writing the article, and has that changed aside from the threats he has made? RyanC (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Tymn is not well known but is known in Spiritualism if you understand. I agree theres hardly anything about him on the internet but he is a popular author in the field of Spiritualism and has been described as a leading figure on research in mediumship. Everything he writes in his books is false in a nutshell, he believes all 19th century mediums were genuine and not frauds. Perhaps he is not notable enough to be on rationalwiki. Last year I created over 20 articles related to Spiritualism, it is not a loss if we delete the Tymn article. I have spoken to him and he has requested that his page be deleted becuase it is causing him much mental stress, it is also bothering me. As I said before no other articles link to his article. I would rather it was deleted. I already tried to delete it but someone reverted me and asked me to get a consenus discussion. Forests (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
From what you're telling us here, I see more reason not to delete it than to do so. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I see that on his self-description on his blog he states
Mike is convinced that the hedonism, turmoil, and chaos we see in the world today are primarily the result of religious and scientific fundamentalism. While religious leaders have rejected modern revelation and have been unable to offer its faithful anything more than a very humdrum heaven, science has arrogantly dismissed all religion as superstition.
So seems like an appropriate person to me. We should probably ensure that the article is particularly well sourced though. Perhaps Forests will be adding more of the sources he used to create the article and eliminating anything which he just assumed.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There are no sources for his article. I have decided to delete it. Hopefully users here will agree with this. Forests (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not your decision. And if you have no source for your statements why did you write them?
As an aside - shouldn't we cut this to the article talk page?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I created over 20 articles relating to Spiritualism last year, most of them were very well sourced but I agree this one was not. The fact that there are no sources is a good reason to have the article deleted. No skeptic in any book or journal has attempted to debunk the claims of Tymn, most likely becuase he is not notable enough. Forests (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Try reading his blog. It's full of weird stuff.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read his blog many times, he believes mediums like Helen Duncan and Eusapia Palladino were genuine. The problem is, there is no sources for his claims outside of his blog. Forests (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
You can use his blog as evidence to support claims about his beliefs. That should be obvious. Inspiration Move me brightly. 22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. If he personally writes it in his blog then pretty evidently he believes it - or says he believes it at least. In point of fact, quoting him directly about his beliefs is self-evidently better than quoting what somebody else says about him. Furthermore, he shouldn't have much grounds to complaint about anything scrupulously sourced to his blog and referenced back to it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus vote[edit]

Please vote if you believe this article to be deleted. Forests (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Keep





Voting has certainly become the RW way. I don't recall one from my very early days. But it ought to be said that it's a poor way of gaining consensus if nobody's compelled to give their analysis. WP has votes too, but the decisions seem to be made by the people who actually participate in a discussion. Just saying'. It's "consensus." It's not very compelling consensus.

I don't see anyone noting that they've analyzed whether anything in the article is potentially defamatory. Sure, we don't immediately bow to demands that an article be removed, but good judgment dictates that we ought to do a little more analysis than speculating about Forest's own legal situation. Forest is just some random person on the Internet. The RWF is who gets sued. Forest, did this person tell you what his concerns are? If so, ... Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok I see that this person is in the US so I have a little better context. Would you please shoot me an email Forests? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Nutty Roux. He has only sent me an email and it did not mention anything about sueing anyone so I don't think it is worth me sending it to you. He said that he is not anti-scientific and that he bets that Helen Duncan was a genuine medium and that his rationalarticle contains incorrect statements about him on science. It was more of a rant against skeptics and he said the debunkers of spiritualism are randi crackpots. I would rather the article was deleted, he is not notable and there are no references for him apart from his blog, but as you can see above, two users have objected. Forests (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Please let us know what his specific suggestions are and send me his email. Trust me, I'm a doctor. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Further up this page you said more than once that Tymm did threaten to sue you, but seems to have dropped the threat. Since you created this article & obviously put some time & research into it, you must have felt that it was a worthwhile subject, so insisting now that it be deleted as non-notable doesn't really seem consistent. If the threat of legal action has been dropped, & editors have taken out the potentially defamatory remarks, I don't see why the article should have to be scrapped. Tymm's mental stress is neither here nor there; anybody who publishes books, especially on a subject as controversial & subjective as paranormal phenomena, can reasonably expect a certain amount of criticism from skeptics. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Boom. This is why the Weas is my boy. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
And by "my boy" I don't mean "go shine my shoes," but "I'd buy that swank cunt a pint and pinch his ass (I'm really drunk so none of this may make good sense tomorrow but all good will and kisses). Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 06:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Er, thanks I guess. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Weaseloid is pretty much on the nail. I don't see anything currently in the article that could be construed as defamatory. Although Tymn says he's not anti-science, well so do many creationists or other woo-mongers. It's just that they believe weird stuff or "extra science" that is not supported by the 99.999% and blatantly disregard the scientific consensus when it goes against them. Redchuck.gif ГенгисmutatingModerator 07:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that deleting an article simply the subject of the article is not particularly happy about it would be an incredibly bad precedent. I do not believe that RW has a notability requirement. Furthermore, if RW is the only skeptical site to have an article on something that's a good thing isn't it? So there is no basis for deletion and every basis for keeping.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So - what did he tell you?[edit]

Forests, I'm confused. Up above when you began this saga you wrote:

  • Hes saying that he is getting is lawyer involved and going to sue me for making it.

Then later you wrote:

  • I have spoken to him over email, hes not sueing anyone. It seems it was more of a threat.

When asked to send the mails you have been exchanging for legal consideration you wrote:

  • He has only sent me an email and it did not mention anything about sueing anyone so I don't think it is worth me sending it to you.

Perhaps you could clarify this chain of events as it seems, frankly, contradictory. Exactly how many emails have you exchanged and did he, in fact, use the word "sue"? If he did not use that word then why did you say "He's going to sue me" in the first one?--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • The sue comments appear on his blog after MU created some fake accounts of me and another person:
Tymn wrote "Of course, I made a copy of it for my libel file. It is only a matter of time before Forests realizes how expensive defense lawyers are in England." [1] but as I said after email exchange he did not mention sueing anyone and said he just wants the page deleted. Forests (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
So was the comment made in respect of this article or in respect of what you wrote on his blog? There is frankly too much on that page to work through.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
In point of fact was his comment in respect of this thread at another place entirely?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi weirdstuff, I deleted the comments on the Jon Donnis forum about Tymn, I am not sure if he had even read that thread. His complaint was with the rationalwiki article (he was upset that he was described as not scientific), but I have cut off contact with Tymn, I sent him my last email the other day, I have tried to be nice to him, but he is a true believer in Spiritualism and thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong. He is not sueing me or anyone, it was more of a threat. His last email to be was accusing skeptics of mediumship of being crackpots. Well Tymn is the man who believes rubber dolls are real spirits, I am not worried about this anymore. His article can stay up and people can realise that he is clearly not scientific but any original research has been deleted on the article, and there are certainly no attacks against him on there. Forests (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Here is what I truly love about Forests; his ability to point out the deep faults of others such as "he thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong". Oh, the how Forests teaches me through the irony. eveshi (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Potentially defamatory statements[edit]

The article looks to be reasonably well sourced, except for the following paragraph and a bit:

He is not a scientist nor has he formally studied science though he uses this term to sell more copies of his books. He ignores the scientific data which has debunked many of the early mediums as cheating and using fraud, and he chooses to ignores the psychological evidence that the so called "spirits" invoked in trance sessions can be explained by multiple personality. Tymn also uses selective studies and ignoring data contrary to his beliefs.

Not only is there no real evidence cited to support these statements, they are statements of fact, not opinion; "He is not a scientist, nor has he formally studied science", "He chooses to ignore [evidence]", "[He] uses selective studies...". I am happy for these statements to remain, provided they are true AND there is something cited to back them up. Since the guy isn't happy about it, lets make sure we dot our eyes and cross our tees. Forest, I believe you were the principle author, perhaps you can assist here. DamoHi 09:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there really psychological evidence that spirits can be explained by multiple personality disorder? It's an extremely rare condition & this seems rather a far fetched explanation. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I see Forests has removed this paragraph already. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
There is psychological evidence that in some cases of trance mediumship the "spirit" controls are alternate or multiple personalities from the mediums subconscious. Scientific papers have been published on the topic [2] but spiritualists such as Tymn reject this evidence for the spirit hypothesis. Forests (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, 'some' cases of trance mediumship, Forests, and since I follow your advanced scientific thinking (Forests is a scientist FYI by his own admission) then ALL trance mediums are fakes. Which means ALL mediums are fakes and it flows as you have often pointed out in dozens of Comments all over the Internet that if ALL mediums are fakes then ALL ectoplasms are cheesecloths. Once again, you have debunked ALL mediumship and for that I thank and adore you. eveshi (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • As for this statement "nor has he formally studied science though he uses this term to sell more copies of his books" well perhaps that was a "defamatory statement" but his book Resurrecting Leonora Piper: How Science Discovered the Afterlife has science in the title. Of course you only need to spend 5 minutes online to see Leonora Piper did not scientifically prove the afterlife. According to Martin Gardner and James Randi Piper was nothing more than a cold reader. Forests (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Michael Tymn sue you? LOLOLOLOLOLOL Forests, you make all of us laugh with your wit and bravado. Sue you? For what? To collect your Mum's and Dad's weekly allowance? Forests, once again you have bested the best!!! What a joke they are matched up against you!!!! eveshi (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody cares[edit]

Just how many sockpuppets are there on each side ranting here? - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no sockpuppets. Forests created the article but has since left, he asked me to add some material on it. Eveshi is a mock/troll account who believes ectoplasm and mediumship is genuine so has been a vandal to the article. I believe the article should be locked/protected. Apparition (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Forests hasn't left. He only put a message on his user page and illicitly wipes his talk page from time to time. He still edits.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Eveshi could be associated with Michael E. Tymn, he probably sent him over here to troll around on the articles. MU and Tymn are both friends in real life. Both live near Hawaii and have claimed to have met each other according to a post I read. Ecologist (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Why, Forests, why are you lying and lashing out at me when I was the one who supported your move to New Zealand for rehabilitation. Why? Now look what you have brought down crashing on our heads!

Forests Debunked

We have shared many emails where you have thought how cute, how funny it was to "fool the morons of RW by my many sock puppets" (Apparition, Ecologist, and so many more)...

Many More Forests Sock Puppets

I repudiate you now, Forests, I find nothing left to admire, to honour or to do much of anything except projectile vomit. Eveshi (talk)

All those "Forests" sockpuppets were you MU on the Mind-Energy and all over the internet. You have pretended to be Forests all over the internet under the usernames "Quake", "DinoCrisis", "J@mes", James Cunningham etc in an attempt to blacklist his name, like you have been doing to countless other people since 2001 on the Google usenet forums such as Frank Camper. You have managed to dupe a handful of people, but most people now know about your disgusting impersonation accounts, identity theft and fraudulent behavior. All of your sockpuppet impersonation accounts have been banned on the Mind-Energy forum and every other blog or forum you touch, you are a hazard. Your rationalwiki account is even a fake impersonation account of the real Eveshi. There isn't a moral or nice bone in your body. Your life is stirring up lies on the internet and harassing people for no reason.
MU!! has been trolling numerous websites and newgroups, Usenet in particular, for over a decade. Do a Google search on names like "Ari Silverstein", "Frank Camper", or "wilburn" (preferably in combination with "Usenet", e. g. ["Ari Silverstein" Usenet], ["Frank Camper" Usenet], [wilburn Usenet]) to see the full dimension of his trolling.
You have been pretending to be Forests on the City Data website under the username of "SWFLLover". Well Google search that name and we get a porn website where you have been posting disgusting images of your tiny penis to both men and women (you are obviously homosexual and not straight). [3] According to your profile (before you deleted it a few weeks ago), you are a Male 36 y/o from Lehigh Acres, Florida, United States. Well you are from Florida alright, but your age is a lie. You are older than that, and your account on the Mind-Energy forum lists you as 61 years old. What we can work out from this is that you are a sexual deviant and pervert who has nothing better to do then live a disgusting life over the internet as real life rejected you. Michael E. Tymn, Warren Taylor, Jim Warwood, George Moss, Michael Prescott have all banned you from their websites and know about your impersonations of Forests, Eveshi and Jon Donnis, Mac and others from the internet. You have not fooled anyone, everyone knows about your cyber bullying and identity theft. [4]
You have also been using the name "The Od" on various spiritualist websites before you were banned, where you posted nonsensical stuff about ethereal beings on the abovetopsecret forums on countless sockpuppets such as Eveshi, MUMUMU, MUness and TheOd seen here [5]. I have myself already "outed" you on the abovetopsecret forums on your fraudulent Forests account and you were banned. Sort yourself out my friend. I don't know what bad thing happened to you in real life, but your filthy internet abuse is well documented and your cyber bullying is not a pleasant thing, how do you sleep at night? No conscience at all. You use the internet as a "vent" to unload your anger, this is cowardly behavior because you would not do these crimes in real life. You claim to be a spiritualist, well you are not, you are a fake MU. If you were really spiritual you would not be sending people vile pornography or making fake accounts and emails of people on the internet and leaving people sexual abuse. I have been told you are quite an old guy, so why not admit your sins and try and do good for the small time you have left. Regards. Murgatroid (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)