|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2005 : 19:15:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Originally posted by latinijralSince you are not discussing this stuff in the only thread available and opened for doing it , it is not my fault your poor attempt to hijack this thread.
By answering Dude's post, you are confirming it, thereby legitimizing his thread-hijack. You have yourself to blame for that. Don't swallow any and all baits that are tossed your way.
If you are trying to excuse Dude's hijack to this thread ( remember I am not talking about his lack of respect ) in the first reply to this topic , please remember this:
A) I am relative new in this forum.
B) I was not sure if hijacking a thread is allowed and permitted here.
C) Dude did the first reply to my topic. He confessed that was hijacking this thread.
D)Dude's “action” permitted other posters to discuss about his “action”.The thread was hijacked already.
E) I told Dave ( the admisnistrator of this forum ) this: “Dave where are you?( I know you read everything I post) Your “dude” is giving a bad example to your forum.”
F)Dave said to me that I was not in a position to know what is a bad example to his forum .
G) I asked DAVE again : “do you think he did a “good example to your forum ” response to my opening post?Answer please.”
H) Dave ( the admisnitrator of this forum ) refused to answer that simple question.
I expected that Dave
I can assume hijacking a thread here is allowed by the administrator.
I can assume the administrator has some preferences for some dudes he has.
I can assume the administrator was with fear and trapped with my question.
I can assume this forum have some members, in a kind of cult, where people who have different points of view in scepticism are treated with no respect.
But I was also glad to give a lesson to my son Dude. Now he know what to do.
All his fears were only part of his Randi-Carlos paranoid.
I hope he can contribute to the original topic.
A topic of any kind must be discussed right to the point. But ,since I am used of this kind of hijacking and insults from pseudo sKeptics forums , it is my obligation to make them think how wrong they are.
I hope you can contribute to the original topic ,too.
To the rest of members who were on topic :I appreciate your contributions,and you will have my replies soon.
I needed to clarify some things first.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
 |
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 19:17:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Moakley
I believe that James Randi in his book "Flim Flam" did a nice job debunking Uri Geller's so called skills. Not scientifically controlled, but Uri failed spectacularly.
When you wrote “ failed spectacularly”, do you mean that URI then was out of business or never came back with the same fraud or lost popularity to never come back?
Is Uri doing the same fraud now?
Is Uri hided in some remote island or is he doing the same frauds at the same population?
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a completely victory?
I consider a victory if URI is really out and don't doing the same frauds now.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 19:21:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Moakley
I believe that James Randi in his book "Flim Flam" did a nice job debunking Uri Geller's so called skills. Not scientifically controlled, but Uri failed spectacularly.
When you wrote “ failed spectacularly”, do you mean that URI then was out of business or never came back with the same fraud or lost popularity to never come back?
Is Uri doing the same fraud now?
Is Uri hided in some remote island or is he doing the same frauds at the same population?
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a completely victory?
I consider a victory if URI is really out and don't doing the same frauds now.
Ok, I'll bite. How, oh father of New Skepticism, can we discredit Uri so completely that we ruin his career and ensure that he never swindles another penny from another credulous sucker?
I am willing to learn how we can claim a "complete victory." |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/03/2005 19:54:21 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 19:36:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
H) Dave ( the admisnitrator of this forum ) refused to answer that simple question.
You implied that a "real" skeptic would refuse to believe anything without evidence having evidence. Therefore, before I answer your question, I require evidence that you exist. You have not provided any such evidence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 19:48:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Moakley
I believe that James Randi in his book "Flim Flam" did a nice job debunking Uri Geller's so called skills. Not scientifically controlled, but Uri failed spectacularly.
When you wrote “ failed spectacularly”, do you mean that URI then was out of business or never came back with the same fraud or lost popularity to never come back?
Is Uri doing the same fraud now?
Is Uri hided in some remote island or is he doing the same frauds at the same population?
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a completely victory?
I consider a victory if URI is really out and don't doing the same frauds now.
Under the close scruntiny of a trained observer, and fellow magicians, Uri was not able to perform the slight of hand which he attributed (attributes) to his psychic abilities. He failed.
Uri will likely never be out of business due to the number of untrained and gullible observers available for an audience. What an audience believes is no validation of a magician's claim of psychic abilities. Uri's claim verses reality makes him a fraud.
Thinking complete, response ended, on topic, enough said. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 20:28:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
A topic of any kind must be discussed right to the point. But ,since I am used of this kind of hijacking and insults from pseudo sKeptics forums , it is my obligation to make them think how wrong they are.
I feel insulted by your insinuation that Skeptic Friends Network is pseudo-skeptic. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 20:50:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Ok, I'll bite. How, oh father of New Skepticism, can we discredit Uri so completely that we ruin his career and ensure that he never swindles another penny from another credulous sucker?
I am willing to learn how we can claim a "complete victory." .
Dear son :
You concluded and agreed with me that :
URI is not in discredit.
URI is still taking money from credulous suckers.
URI is not hided .
Old skepticism never ruined URI career.
Old skepticism can not claim a complete victory on URI.
Something must be wrong in the old skepticism
You made your first step.
I can teach you to “fish” now .
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a complete victory on URI?
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 21:17:21 [Permalink]
|
Geller will never be out of business for this simple reason:
quote:
Uri will likely never be out of business due to the number of untrained and gullible observers available for an audience. What an audience believes is no validation of a magician's claim of psychic abilities. Uri's claim verses reality makes him a fraud. -- moakley
The same can be said for all of the 'psychic' preformers.
As long as any percentage of the general public fails to think critically, and has a little coin, these scoundrels will surely get their share of that coin.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 21:21:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
URI is not in discredit.
URI is still taking money from credulous suckers.
URI is not hided .
All of the above is true, not because there is something wrong with skepticism as a philosophy, but because not enough people have been taught critical thinking.quote:
Old skepticism never ruined URI career.
It's not the purpose of skepticism to ruin people's career, as much as promote understanding and knowledge of nature, and everything in it.quote:
Old skepticism can not claim a complete victory on URI.
Something must be wrong in the old skepticism
There's nothing wrong with "old skepticism", other than the sad fact that it is not wide-spread and common enough.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2005 : 21:26:33 [Permalink]
|
latinijrel wrote:quote:
I consider a victory if URI is really out and don't doing the same frauds now.
But this is stupid. You're saying that as long as there are hucksters and such, "old skepticism" doesn't work. But this assumes that skepticism's goal is to make sure that 100% of all 6+ billion people on earth reject anything that might remotely be considered paranormal or spiritual.
But this isn't the goal of skepticism. Indeed, it's probably unrealistic to assume that skepticism is a monolithic movement with a singular goal. There is no skeptic authority to whom all skeptics look for answers. Indeed, there is no clear definition as to what makes a skeptic!
So you operate from a false premise. Not to mention an arrogant one. And one that uses ill-defined terms like "old" or "new" skepticism. Please define these and get to the point of your posting this thread. Relax. Son. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 00:10:37 [Permalink]
|
latinijrel wrote: You concluded and agreed with me that :
URI is not in discredit. With everyone? No.
URI is still taking money from credulous suckers.Yes, he is, although far less than he was in his heyday.
URI is not hided. Well, he does keep a lower profile. But no, he isn't hiding.
Old skepticism never ruined URI career.Defined "ruined." Did it injure him pretty badly? Absolutely. Is he far less popluar than he was? Absolutely. Will there always be idiots willing to throw their money at a fraud? Absolutely.
Old skepticism can not claim a complete victory on URI.
Something must be wrong in the old skepticism. Or maybe there is something wrong with non-skeptics. I don't know of any skeptics who still believe that Uri has legitimate powers.
You made your first step.
I can teach you to “fish” now .
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a complete victory on URI? Enough of the rhetorical questions. I asked you plainly to say whatever it is you have to say. I don't want to have to pull teeth. You tell me what YOU think is wrong with "old" skepticism and then I'll tell you what I think of your ideas. Ok? |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/04/2005 00:12:37 |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 06:25:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
URI is still taking money from credulous suckers.
Yes, he is, although far less than he was in his heyday.
Any evidence? Do you have access to URI's money account…before and now?
Do you have the facts so we can compare?
Maybe URI is making more money than in his “heyday”.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Something must be wrong in the old skepticism.
Or maybe there is something wrong with non-skeptics. I don't know of any skeptics who still believe that Uri has legitimate powers.
Are you assuming that some skeptics believed that URI has legitimate powers?
Examples ,please.
Are you assuming that a skeptic can be also a believer? Interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
What do you consider is wrong in the old skepticism that they can not have a complete victory on URI?
Enough of the rhetorical questions.
Dear son ,this URI Topic started with two simple questions.
Your poor answers ( without any evidence) must be clarified .
If you feel you don't have the capacity to answer them ,you can move to another topic and ignore this one.Simple as that.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
belt
New Member
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 06:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps what is wrong with the "old" skepticism is that we're not killing off the people who buy into the fraud? If we had done this, we would have succeeded in what I can only suppose is Latinijrals idea of skepticism's "goal".
Or how about this thought instead:
Latinijral, let's say that I wanted to teach someone that fire can cause pain. To do this, I put thier hand on a hot stove, singeing thier skin. If that same person then continues putting thier hand on a hot stove, should I continue to waste my time in trying to teach them that fire on skin=bad? |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 07:31:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
So you operate from a false premise. Not to mention an arrogant one. And one that uses ill-defined terms like "old" or "new" skepticism. Please define these and get to the point of your posting this thread. Relax. Son.
I've now made numerous requests, latinijral. Please get to the point. Otherwise, just go away. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2005 : 08:20:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by belt.
Perhaps what is wrong with the "old" skepticism is that we're not killing off the people who buy into the fraud? If we had done this, we would have succeeded in what I can only suppose is Latinijrals idea of skepticism's "goal".
You supposed the only thing you are able to suppose.
quote:
Originally posted by belt.
Latinijral, let's say that I wanted to teach someone that fire can cause pain. To do this, I put thier hand on a hot stove, singeing thier skin. If that same person then continues putting thier hand on a hot stove, should I continue to waste my time in trying to teach them that fire on skin=bad?
My dear son :
If that someone is hypothecally your wife and children , you have two choises :
1)keep on “wasting” your time teaching them again and again.
2) Show to them your killer instincts.
5..4…3…2
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
