|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
 Posted - 03/08/2005 : 09:38:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
latinijral:
Kil is the one who should put why he wrote this and if he was acting naive as Dave.
"We are SFN, not the JREF. Hell, they don't even link to us!"
Fine, you need it from me? Okay. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. And in order to do that you really had to ignore the context. What I was saying is that we are not associated in any way the JREF. Not even by a link. And even if they did link to us it would not be evidence that we are in any way associated with them. Link exchanges are a common practice to boost page views and possibly pick up membership for both sites. It does not mean that there are any organizational links of any kind. It's just a tactic to increase traffic. Or, it might be that the administrators at one site feel the information at another site is relevant to whatever message they are promoting.
I would prefer that they do link to us. But again, that is their choice. We have nothing to do with their inner workings.
Dave, Val, Cune and tomk80 all got it right. I would have said something if they hadn't...
Case closed. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 23:26:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Kil is the one who should put why he wrote this and if he was acting naive as Dave.
"We are SFN, not the JREF. Hell, they don't even link to us!"
Fine, you need it from me? Okay. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. And in order to do that you really had to ignore the context. What I was saying is that we are not associated in any way the JREF. Not even by a link. (snip)
I would prefer that they do link to us.
Fine , so the SFN is only “associated” to the JREF in the promotion of their link .
Then you will be completely happy the day they will promote the SFN.
Hmmmm, “almost” the same as I stated in my OP
|
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 - 03/09/2005 : 04:20:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Kil is the one who should put why he wrote this and if he was acting naive as Dave.
"We are SFN, not the JREF. Hell, they don't even link to us!"
Fine, you need it from me? Okay. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. And in order to do that you really had to ignore the context. What I was saying is that we are not associated in any way the JREF. Not even by a link. (snip)
I would prefer that they do link to us.
Fine , so the SFN is only “associated” to the JREF in the promotion of their link .
Then you will be completely happy the day they will promote the SFN.
Hmmmm, “almost” the same as I stated in my OP
Speaking for myself, I think it would be nice if JREF linked to SFN. But the world will not end if they never even acknowledge our existance, thus it becomes of small concern.
The link to them is for the convience of of the members. JREF is a much larger site that goes into detail on many topics, notably the various frauds such as the theraputic magnet idiotcy that seems to persist even though it's been trashed relentlessly by science in general and physicians in particular. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that JREF also busted the Q Bracelet; another persistant fraud that the gullible won't seem to let go. They also won't let go of the faith and thereputic touch healers, and JREF covers these heartless scoundrels well.
And we all had a lot of fun, both there and here, with Miss Cleo, whom I for one, miss. She had a great act.
Do ya want a million bucks, 'Jarl? JREF is the place to get it, if you are skilled in the paranormal beyond flummery.
So you see, JREF is a resource for SFN, not a competitor, and thus, the link.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 08:55:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Kil is the one who should put why he wrote this and if he was acting naive as Dave.
"We are SFN, not the JREF. Hell, they don't even link to us!"
Fine, you need it from me? Okay. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. And in order to do that you really had to ignore the context. What I was saying is that we are not associated in any way the JREF. Not even by a link. (snip)
I would prefer that they do link to us.
Fine , so the SFN is only “associated” to the JREF in the promotion of their link .
Then you will be completely happy the day they will promote the SFN.
Hmmmm, “almost” the same as I stated in my OP
Not even close.
Your OP, in case you forgot it already, was that we knew of some bad skeptics and that because of our dislike of them and since the JREF does not link to SFN, that SFN should stop linking to JREF.
I will grant you the following
1) We have met people claiming to be champions of critical thinking who did not use critical thinking.
2) You think Randi is a fraud.
3) JREF does not link to SFN.
However, we have dealt with the supposed champions of critical thinking here in a manner which was appropriate. We exposed the lack of critical thinking and urged the person to do better. We do not agree that Randi is a fraud. So far the whole Randi think that you have presented consists of innuendo and character assassination devoid of fact. You have established your objections as
1) The JREF dismissed a claim which did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize as it was neither testable nor repeatable. It was a video tape of a TV news program which claimed UFO's around the WTC on 9/11. It was neither a supernatural power nor a positive claim of repeatability.
2) MoeFaux, a JREF intern, recieved a $5,000 scholarship. You have repeatedly attacked her character and made illogical claims of motive. You claim she is a stripper. So fucking what. You claim she drove Randi to TAM2 in Penn's car. She's an intern, your point here? You make a baseless claim that she somehow exchanged sexual favors to Penn for the scholarship. As the claim has no basis and by your quotation of Linda, other interns were given scholarships. I find her stripping and her professional association to JREF to be completely seperate.
3) Some people got pissed off when the scholarships were awarded to interns and quit donating to JREF. Big fat hairy deal.
4) Chris Bidlack got a scholarship. This one has no basis in truth. Your quoting of JREF personnel confirms that Chris Bidlack was an intern, not a scholarship awardee.
Your claim that JREF does not link to SFN is true. We still link to them as a resource for skeptical thinking. They have some excellent articles on such paranormal frauds such as faith healing and psychic surgery. Why should we not continue to link to them as a valuable resource?
Your repeated attempts at playing the game of "let's you and him fight" is getting old and no one here is really buying it. You have no honor, sir. Your arguementation style and premises show it clearly. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 20:36:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Kil is the one who should put why he wrote this and if he was acting naive as Dave.
"We are SFN, not the JREF. Hell, they don't even link to us!"
Fine, you need it from me? Okay. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. And in order to do that you really had to ignore the context. What I was saying is that we are not associated in any way the JREF. Not even by a link. (snip)
I would prefer that they do link to us.
Fine , so the SFN is only “associated” to the JREF in the promotion of their link .
Then you will be completely happy the day they will promote the SFN.
Hmmmm, “almost” the same as I stated in my OP
Not even close.
Your OP, in case you forgot it already, was that we knew of some bad skeptics and that because of our dislike of them and since the JREF does not link to SFN, that SFN should stop linking to JREF.
I will grant you the following
1) We have met people claiming to be champions of critical thinking who did not use critical thinking.
2) You think Randi is a fraud.
3) JREF does not link to SFN.
However, we have dealt with the supposed champions of critical thinking here in a manner which was appropriate. We exposed the lack of critical thinking and urged the person to do better. We do not agree that Randi is a fraud. So far the whole Randi think that you have presented consists of innuendo and character assassination devoid of fact. You have established your objections as
1) The JREF dismissed a claim which did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize as it was neither testable nor repeatable. It was a video tape of a TV news program which claimed UFO's around the WTC on 9/11. It was neither a supernatural power nor a positive claim of repeatability.
2) MoeFaux, a JREF intern, recieved a $5,000 scholarship. You have repeatedly attacked her character and made illogical claims of motive. You claim she is a stripper. So fucking what. You claim she drove Randi to TAM2 in Penn's car. She's an intern, your point here? You make a baseless claim that she somehow exchanged sexual favors to Penn for the scholarship. As the claim has no basis and by your quotation of Linda, other interns were given scholarships. I find her stripping and her professional association to JREF to be completely seperate.
3) Some people got pissed off when the scholarships were awarded to interns and quit donating to JREF. Big fat hairy deal.
4) Chris Bidlack got a scholarship. This one has no basis in truth. Your quoting of JREF personnel confirms that Chris Bidlack was an intern, not a scholarship awardee.
Your claim that JREF does not link to SFN is true. We still link to them as a resource for skeptical thinking. They have some excellent articles on such paranormal frauds such as faith healing and psychic surgery. Why should we not continue to link to them as a valuable resource?
Your repeated attempts at playing the game of "let's you and him fight" is getting old and no one here is really buying it. You have no honor, sir. Your arguementation style and premises show it clearly.
You are realy opening a discussion already closed?
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Just don't forget Chris Bidlack was also the son of the JREF director.
|
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 - 03/10/2005 : 03:36:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You are realy opening a discussion already closed?
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Just don't forget Chris Bidlack was also the son of the JREF director.
And George W. Bush is a son of a bitch. So what? Everybody has to be the offspring of somebody.
You spout statements and provide not even the least of a foundation for them. That, old son, is called bullshitting and is okay when half drunk in a home-port blind pig, but cuts no ice here. If you can come up with no proofs or evidences of fraud, and we've seen none thus far, you are merely libeling Bidlack and JREF.
But no matter. There is another, more important question to consider:
You have debunked the old skepticism, or so you claim. Then what pray, do you have to replace it other than unsupported clap-trap about JREF?
Please answer soonist; the suspense is unbearable.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 06:14:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Just don't forget Chris Bidlack was also the son of the JREF director.
Which, of course, is completely irrelevant as he only worked as an intern. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 08:13:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by KIL
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Kil is the one who should put why he wrote this and if he was acting naive as Dave.
"We are SFN, not the JREF. Hell, they don't even link to us!"
Fine, you need it from me? Okay. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. And in order to do that you really had to ignore the context. What I was saying is that we are not associated in any way the JREF. Not even by a link. (snip)
I would prefer that they do link to us.
Fine , so the SFN is only “associated” to the JREF in the promotion of their link .
Then you will be completely happy the day they will promote the SFN.
Hmmmm, “almost” the same as I stated in my OP
Not even close.
Your OP, in case you forgot it already, was that we knew of some bad skeptics and that because of our dislike of them and since the JREF does not link to SFN, that SFN should stop linking to JREF.
I will grant you the following
1) We have met people claiming to be champions of critical thinking who did not use critical thinking.
2) You think Randi is a fraud.
3) JREF does not link to SFN.
However, we have dealt with the supposed champions of critical thinking here in a manner which was appropriate. We exposed the lack of critical thinking and urged the person to do better. We do not agree that Randi is a fraud. So far the whole Randi think that you have presented consists of innuendo and character assassination devoid of fact. You have established your objections as
1) The JREF dismissed a claim which did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize as it was neither testable nor repeatable. It was a video tape of a TV news program which claimed UFO's around the WTC on 9/11. It was neither a supernatural power nor a positive claim of repeatability.
2) MoeFaux, a JREF intern, recieved a $5,000 scholarship. You have repeatedly attacked her character and made illogical claims of motive. You claim she is a stripper. So fucking what. You claim she drove Randi to TAM2 in Penn's car. She's an intern, your point here? You make a baseless claim that she somehow exchanged sexual favors to Penn for the scholarship. As the claim has no basis and by your quotation of Linda, other interns were given scholarships. I find her stripping and her professional association to JREF to be completely seperate.
3) Some people got pissed off when the scholarships were awarded to interns and quit donating to JREF. Big fat hairy deal.
4) Chris Bidlack got a scholarship. This one has no basis in truth. Your quoting of JREF personnel confirms that Chris Bidlack was an intern, not a scholarship awardee.
Your claim that JREF does not link to SFN is true. We still link to them as a resource for skeptical thinking. They have some excellent articles on such paranormal frauds such as faith healing and psychic surgery. Why should we not continue to link to them as a valuable resource?
Your repeated attempts at playing the game of "let's you and him fight" is getting old and no one here is really buying it. You have no honor, sir. Your arguementation style and premises show it clearly.
You are realy opening a discussion already closed?
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Just don't forget Chris Bidlack was also the son of the JREF director.
And since everyone who applied to be a JREF intern got the position, your point is ..... what? That Chris Bidlack was the son of the JREF director means exactly nothing. This is the kind of innuendo which does nothing to prove your points. JREF is not a large organization by way of personnel. As such, they may have problems getting unpaid interns to volunteer their time. I've had experience with small businesses and organizations. Family members who share the passions of their relatives will often volunteer at the same places or even work for their family member. As long as that family member does not wield undue influence in the organization (a charge which you don't even make), there is nothing improper about Chris Bidlack being an intern for JREF.
Not opening an old discussion, just providing motive for such a blatant "let's you and him fight" game.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2005 : 22:29:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Not opening an old discussion, just providing motive for such a blatant "let's you and him fight" game.
The evidence provided by JREF donators who stopped donating money to the JREF after the $5000 scholarship scandal, just gave me the reason.
MY threads about that JREF scholarship scandal topic was closed TWICE in the SFN.
Yes, you are opening an old discussion.
But you wrote this :
” 1) The JREF dismissed a claim which did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize as it was neither testable nor repeatable. It was a video tape of a TV news program which claimed UFO's around the WTC on 9/11. It was neither a supernatural power nor a positive claim of repeatability.”
Are you speaking in name of the JREF?
Do you have evidence that the JREF dismissed the claim?
Do you have evidence that the JREF stated that the specific claim did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize? Where did you read that?
Answers with evidence , please, not the usual blab blab blab
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
pfretzschner
Skeptic Friend
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 01:07:06 [Permalink]
|
| Okay, Latin, I'll bite--what evidence from the JREF "donators" do you have? I think I'm beginning to dig your New Skepticism, daddy-o: You demand evidence for absolutely everything. So when your mother knocks on the door, do you demand two forms of government ID and a blood sample just to make sure she really is your mother before you let her in? But you feel no need to prove anything you say. Talk about win-win! You are just adorable! |
| Edited by - pfretzschner on 03/11/2005 01:15:35 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 05:05:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Not opening an old discussion, just providing motive for such a blatant "let's you and him fight" game.
The evidence provided by JREF donators who stopped donating money to the JREF after the $5000 scholarship scandal, just gave me the reason.
MY threads about that JREF scholarship scandal topic was closed TWICE in the SFN.
Yes, you are opening an old discussion.
But you wrote this :
” 1) The JREF dismissed a claim which did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize as it was neither testable nor repeatable. It was a video tape of a TV news program which claimed UFO's around the WTC on 9/11. It was neither a supernatural power nor a positive claim of repeatability.”
Are you speaking in name of the JREF?
Do you have evidence that the JREF dismissed the claim?
Do you have evidence that the JREF stated that the specific claim did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize? Where did you read that?
Answers with evidence , please, not the usual blab blab blab
'Jral, all you've shown us thus far is that there were a few pissed-off people at JREF, which signifies only that people get pissed off. This 'New Skepticism' seems to be based mostly upon implication, speculation, and ad hom aimed at Randi. You have produced exactly nothing supporting willful fraud -- innocent until proven guilty, eh?
But, as you've yet to explain your philosophy, I'll be generous and render you the benefit of the doubt, if you'll but answer the following, simple question:
You have debunked the old skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it? Please consider your answer carefully. Be as brief and succinct as possible, but include all relevant detail.
Or is it all one of the great mysteries of the universe, O Father of the New Skepticism, unknown and unknowable?
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 11:13:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Not opening an old discussion, just providing motive for such a blatant "let's you and him fight" game.
The evidence provided by JREF donators who stopped donating money to the JREF after the $5000 scholarship scandal, just gave me the reason.
irrelavant. You have no valid reason to make the claim that Chris Bidlack was given a scholarship.
quote:
MY threads about that JREF scholarship scandal topic was closed TWICE in the SFN.
Due to length/lack of progress.
quote:
Yes, you are opening an old discussion.
But you wrote this :
” 1) The JREF dismissed a claim which did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize as it was neither testable nor repeatable. It was a video tape of a TV news program which claimed UFO's around the WTC on 9/11. It was neither a supernatural power nor a positive claim of repeatability.”
Are you speaking in name of the JREF?
I am reporting on the threads of which you linked to in the James Randi is a shit idol thread.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
quote:
Do you have evidence that the JREF dismissed the claim?
Presented in the James Randi is a shit idol thread.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
quote:
Do you have evidence that the JREF stated that the specific claim did not meet the basic requirements of the JREF prize? Where did you read that?
Presented in the James Ranid is a shit idol thread. JREF prize requirements were posted there.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7041&perpage=40&pagenumber=1
quote:
Answers with evidence , please, not the usual blab blab blab
We could say the same thing to you. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 03/11/2005 11:19:32 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2005 : 13:34:59 [Permalink]
|
This thead is in the The Feature Suggestions Folder that resides in the ”Website Related” area of our SFN forum. The focus in this area is narrow. And while some debate may be tolerated here if it directly pertains to a question or suggestion, this area is not for the continuation of, or for expanding a debate that is in progress in other threads on this forum.
A suggestion was made:
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I am sure SFN learned about some bad members of the skeptic society like mr. James Randi did with money scandals and a bad past in courts and others.
I suggest to my SFN don´t promote JREF link  ...in the other hand we can see that JREF didn´t promote SFN on their web page. I guess it is fair.
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/links.asp?action=showsubcat&id=28 
http://www.randi.org/education/links.html 
Here are a couple of replies by administrators of this site:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Is it fair to promote Mr. R and that Mr. R don´t promote SFN?
Speaking officially for the SFN, yes, it is fair. The SFN and the JREF are two different organizations with different goals for our link pages.
You can suggest that we take off the JREF link all you like, but it's not going to happen. Just because you and a handful of other people are annoyed at the JREF over money and your vague implications of impropriety doesn't mean that they don't provide good information about skepticism, critical thought, and science.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil.
…Link exchanges are a common practice to boost page views and possibly pick up membership for both sites. [That] does not mean that there are any organizational links of any kind. It's just a tactic to increase traffic. Or, it might be that the administrators at one site feel the information at another site is relevant to whatever message they are promoting.
I would prefer that they do link to us. But again, that is their choice. We have nothing to do with their inner workings.
Some others have also replied on subject. All discussion not pertaining to the original suggestion should be, is, or has been addressed in the appropriate threads on this forum. There is no reason to bring the larger debate here.
It is my opinion that the original suggestion has been sufficiently discussed in this thread. I am, therefore, locking the thread. If you feel that there is more to say about the original suggestion feel free to open a new thread and stay on the subject. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
