Open Minds Forum

UFOs, Extraterrestrial Contact, Conspiracy, Exopolitics, Geopolitics, Paranormal, Crypto-zoology, Ancient History, Cutting-Edge Science & Special Guests.

Latest topics

» Immaterialism 5
Today at 11:55 am by hobbit

» Disclosure - For U by U
Yesterday at 11:06 am by Aaron

» Montage grokking
Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:54 am by mion

» Livin Your Best Life
Sun Feb 17, 2019 9:09 am by smelly

» 5G phased ray antennae
Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:17 am by hobbit

» The Ron & Joe Disinfo Show
Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:46 am by GrandCru

» Top Harvard Astronomer: Alien Ship May Be Among Us
Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:27 am by 99

» GH introduction
Sun Feb 03, 2019 9:16 am by GH

» Hobbit my little friend
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:03 pm by smelly

Where did all the Open Minds Forum members go?

Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:29 pm by Admin

With Open Minds Forum restored now for almost half a year at it's new location with we can now turn to look at reaching out to OMF's original members who have not yet returned home. OMF's original membership was over 6,000 members strong, prior to the proboards suspension, according to the rolls of the time. We can probably safely assume that some of those accounts were unidentified socks. If we were to assume a reasonable guess of maybe as many as 30% possible sock accounts then that would leave potentially somewhere between 4800 to 4900 possible real members to locate. That is still a substantial number of people.

Who were all these people? Some were average individuals with common interests in ufology, exopolitics, globalism, corruption, earthchanges, science and technology, and a variety of other interests. Some just enjoyed being part of a vibrant and unusually interesting community. Others were representative of various insider groups participating in observation and outreach projects, while still others were bonafide intelligence community personnel. All with stake in the hunt for truth in one fashion or another. Some in support of truth, and communication. Others seeking real disclosure and forms of proof. And others highly skeptical of anything or limited subjects. The smallest division of membership being wholly anti-disclosure oriented.

So where did these members vanish to? They had many options. There are almost innumerable other forums out there on the topics of UFO's or Exopolitics, the Unexplained, and Conspiracy Theory. Did they disappear into the world-wide network of forum inhabitants? Did some go find new homes on chatrooms or individual blogs? Did they participate in ufo conventions or other public events and gatherings? How about those who represented groups in special access? Or IC and military observers? Those with academic affiliations? Where did they all go and what would be the best way to reach out and extend an invitation to return?

And what constitutes a situation deserving of their time and participation? Is the archive enough? How exactly do people within the paradigm most desire to define a community? Is it amenities, humanity or simply population size for exposure? Most of the special guests have been emailed and have expressed that population size for exposure is what most motivates them. But not all. Long-time member Dan Smith has other priorities and values motivating his participation. Should this open opportunities for unattached junior guests who have experience and dialog to contribute to the world? How best to make use of OMF's time, experience and resources?

Many skeptics would like to see the historical guardian of discourse opportunity to just up and disappear; go into permanent stasis. They think that not everyone has a right to speak about their experiences and if there is no proof involved then there can philosophically be no value to discourse. I personally would respectfully disagree with them. Discourse has always been the prelude to meaningful relationships and meaningful mutual relationships have always been the prelude to exchanges of proof. In a contentious social environment with regards to communication vs disclosure how do we best re-establish a haven for those preludes? Is it only the "if we build it they will come" answer? Well considering OMF has been largely fully functional over the last four or five months this line of reasoning is not necessarily true. So what would be the best way re-establish this? Your suggestions are sought. Please comment.

MMR Twitter News

February 2019


Calendar Calendar

The Farce of Phonetics


The Farce of Phonetics

Post by Guest on Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:14 pm

Even more bizarre than the Big Bang, hyperspace, space-time curvature, UFO skepticism, ghost skepticism, race denial, human-nature denial, and falsificationism, if that's possible, is the farce of phonetics.  Certain vowel  sounds are grossly misrepresented in  phonetic transcription: in French it is the short a  (æ) as in the English 'pan' (mostly as the French letter a),  the short i (ɪ ) as in the English 'pin' (mostly as é, -er, and -ez), the short u (ʌ) as in the English 'pun' (the French letter o of many words), and the e (œ)(no English equivalent)(often the final e); in Portuguese it is the short a and  the short i; and in English the long o (ow) as in 'cone' is transcribed as a diphthong which doesn't even exist and isn't even pronounceable. As a rule the short a of French is the a at the beginning or middle of  a word and without a circumflex. In France, however, even the â is pronounced short. The word final a is usually said as /a/ (the medial a, which is erroneously said to be short) or /ə/.

No reason has ever been given for these bizarre transcriptions. And most people follow suit like trained seals or automatons. What makes it so bizarre is not only the bizarreness of the phenomenon itself, but also that there are no dissenters. Only George Mason U. has an IPA chart  for French on its web site which includes the ash (æ). I have contacted 4 linguists on the matter of French and 2 responded but  did not answer the question of why they do it, and 2 did not respond at all. They can't answer because there is no justification for it. Some might claim that the French ones are  dialectal differences, but not at all, they are as universal as the long o is in English. So phoneticists, even though they pronounce the same sounds themselves and in those languages, are apparently unable to tell the difference between  /a/ and /æ/, /e/ and /ɪ /, /ʌ/ and /ɔ/, and /œ/ and /ə/, and are unable to recognize the long o of English!

There are similarly bizarre phonetics in English besides the ignorance of the long o. Trager and Smith in '51, Daniel Jones in '56, and Grimson in '62 transcribed the e of 'set' as /e/ (as in 'sate'!), and Trager and Smith in '51 and Jones in '56 transcibed the u of full as /u/ (as in 'fool'!), and the i of 'sit' as /i/ (as in 'seat'!)(Crystal, An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages, 1987, p. 153). Crystal says they are pronounced the same in both British and American English and the differences in transcription are due to the different aspects of the way the vowels are produced, which is obviously not at all true.  Antilla (Historical and Comparartive Linguistics, 1989, p. 214-15) and the pocket English-French Larousse, from 1981, also transcribe the ɛ as e and the ɪ  as i for English. And the Dictionnaire Français-Anglais English-French by Larousse Chambers transcribes the ɛ as e for English. These transcriptions are fortunately not universal but seem to be widespread.

And Ruhlen (A Guide to the World's Languages, Vol. 1, 1991, p. 47) states  that Grimm, known also for his fairy tales, thought the German word ''Schrift'' contained 8 sounds, when, of course, it contains only 5.  The bizarreness continues.

We can't expect Anglophones to pronounce sounds that don't occur in their language or which are not in the same position in the word, so, for instance, they say the final é like /e/ (which coincides with the usual and bizarrely false transcription or is transcribed purposely to correspond with it) because such a sound (ɪ) in the word-final position does not exist in English, but the short a is as widespread in N. Am. English as it is in French and usually in the same positions in the word. They also say the French ss as z, when it is usually said as an s in English and is always said as an s in French. So these 2 mispronunciations are unexplained. Hence Montréal is mispronounced by Anglophones, but Laval is properly pronounced by Quebec Anglophones. The explanation for this may be that the former dates back to the 17th century  and has a large Anglophone minority and was for  a time majority Anglophone, while the City of Laval was established only in 1965 and was always overwhelmingly Francophone.

I have included a video which includes the pronunciation in actual discourse.  (See also the U. of Picardie web site, which has the correct pronunciation in the audio examples and the flagrantly erroneous transcription as well).

    Current date/time is Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:51 pm