Time for skeptics to grow up?!

[articulett]

Oh...so now "breeds" means "implies"? Ah yes...
So why was Dann so upset (with exclamation points even) that Randi agreed with the statement that in the case of the article: "superstitions (!) breed homeless people" Dann's words actually comes from the article itself:

In this week’s newsletter there is an interesting quotation from a reader, Sandra L. Hubscher, who has read an article in The Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 30, with the title, “In Congo, superstitions breed homeless children”.

Which makes DANN so Irate that he claims:

Why is it so hard for many skeptics to notice that poverty and misery breed superstition, an insight which makes it very obvious how to go about fighting superstition if you actually want to do away with it in an efficient manner? Or do they really believe that these children would be so much happier if they were starving without the added insult of being called witches?

So, the article we are talking about got it wrong...Randi and the writer got it wrong...But Dann, the ever noble poverty fighter, got it right. The rest of us clearly wanted to let the kiddies starve just so long as they weren't being called witches.

Dann...take a deep breath and let a bit of air out of your ego. You mispoke, right? You can print that off and ask people what they think of the person who wrote it (don't tell them it was you), and you will be angry at what they say. But you will learn something you can use.

Everyone has already acknowledged that poverty plays a role in the situation.
But it is NOT "THE CAUSE" as you have repeated claimed (though sometimes you slip and say "superstition causes poverty" and start linking items that you think "prove" that claim--which is the opposite of your original opinion.

You brought this lesson upon yourself. At least use it. Humility makes people a lot more likable, you know--and you can make things better once you become aware that you have something to work on. And you do. Everyone does. Nobody needs you to tell them to "grow up".

 

[Slimething]

[ignore][/ignore]

Alas, that is what you really are best at, dann. Again, I openly challenge you to point out any lie from me.

If I made a list of all the issues I've brought up that you have selectively refused to address, it would fill up too many pages of this thread. However, anyone who flips back through this thread and takes stock of these issues will conclude that, what you lack in perspicacity, you make up for with self-righteousness, arrogance and banality.

 

[athon]

There is social stigma, which by the way has a self inflicted component. It isn't just that your neighbors will snub you, you may have your own guilt feelings. The expectation a sibling takes in orphaned nieces and nephews may run deep.

There is often resentment, perhaps mixed with grief. I would be sad if my brothers died.

There is the overwhelming burden of poverty and common mythical beliefs are longstanding.

What my point is, the dynamic involved here is not simple. It is very complex. Just because an outsider can see the relationship between accusations of witchcraft and the burden of an unwanted obligation to one's sibling's orphaned children doesn't mean it is some simple conscious lie to accuse the children of being witches.

There is still ignorance involved. There is still a belief in witches. I think it's best here to broaden one's perspective. Look at the wider view of multiple factors at play here besides just a belief in the supernatural.

Thank you for pointing this out Skeptigirl. My point from the beginning has been to say that 'cause and effect' here are complicated beyond simplicities.

Critical thinking in socieities such as these is actually socially destructive, espcially without replacement values. It's not a clear case of 'my child is a witch, cast it out', nor a case of 'I can't afford my child, so I'll accuse it of being a witch to make myself feel better'. Sociology is never so simple.

This is why I don't feel that basic judgements such as 'immaturity' and a simple lack of education being responsible for the actions are neither helpful or entirely correct.

Athon

 

[athon]

I'm way more pessimistic about eradicating poverty than you are, I guess. I'd focus on education.

~~ Paul

This is where my pessimism kicks in, then. Education of a standard that would build a firm foundation for scientific literacy is very difficult to implement in an impoverished society, especially when the education aims to promote critical thinking.

Athon

 

[articulett]

Calm down.

70% of 20,000 is a whole lot of street kids. Still, perhaps my motivation in my particular line of reasoning is pointing out the fact that people read this article and are so absolutely certain that the answer to this social ill is teaching the people to be skeptical of witchcraft, while I, on the other hand, choose to be skeptical that these people really believe in witchcraft. Lying to make oneself look not-as-bad is a trait far more common in the human family than a real belief in witches. Your mock exasperation and quipping about Catholicism have nothing to do with anything I've been saying.

I am calm. It's your own shiftiness you are noticing. The article Dann is talking about from the Christian Science Monitor mentioned itself that Superstition Breeds Homelessness. It claims the very thing that DANN refuses to acknowledge.

I never said that I'm certain about rightness nor did I say that "teaching people to be skeptical is the answer to all social ills". It's interesting how you and DANN and Gurdur seem to see things that people are NOT saying (like Dann's line about how skeptics don't care if the kids starve--just so long as they are not called witches)--and then you guys take personal offense from these incorrect observations and attack. After that, you step back and engage in what looks like a mutual masturbatory game of "look how great and smart and noble and clever we are!--we done told those ignoramuses off."

You have called people simple when it was you who was being a simpleton. Moreover commenting on the harm of peoples' opinions, beliefs, or statements IS NOT THE SAME as attacking those people. I know that you think it is, and you react accordingly--it's what this thread is about. No one ever insulted the poor people--nothing in the newsletter or anywhere else was a slam to the poor people in the article.

Now read your quote above and see for yourself how it sounds. To me it sounds like "I'm skeptical of the skeptics...I'm just a victim here, and articulett et. al. are over-reacting...I'm clever and noble because I'm not calling the people stupid; I'm just calling them liars." No one else called them stupid either--or liars. It was only in your head. And Dann's head. And you others who know who you are.

And that pretty much sums up Dann's opening post too, doesn't it? It seems like others agree (--not that this is a popularity contest--though Dann and his buddies have tried to make it one...and he is the one bringing up numbers of people on assorted sides.) If you don't get that, then maybe you are the "stupid" one. Dann revealed himself to be the fool when he went and posted his foolishness on the skeptoid thread --he was just so sure that everyone was going to see it his way.

There are some people on this thread whose hypocrisy is blinding to everyone else--and playing the victim when people point out that you're dumbasses, is particularly offensive. (I just learned they don't *** bleep** that word. ) And those of you getting mad while reading this need to hear this (though I doubt you read much of anything): You sound patronizing and snide in 85% or more of the posts you write. You are reading only to find the truth you've already arrived at in your head--or maybe just to see who is "with you" or "who is against you". You expect people to read your words carefully (and they are hard to slog through sometimes), but you don't return the favor. You are not likable, nor fun, nor humble, nor anywhere near as smart as you pretend. You are Polonius's. And if these words are making you mad--then I mean you. The rest of us don't take an ego dive from verbal attacks; we learn and advance our social skills. We use the ignore button. We turn your own words against you. It doesn't take an ever growing cascade of warnings before we clue in.

Look at Paul's writing--ever patient...never the first to strike...trying to please everyone (impossible of course)...he's even humble on occasion--and funny!. And smart. He doesn't take offense easily and he apologizes...sends out olive branches. You could learn something. People get a kick out of talking to such people. I love reading most of the people on this forum. People here seem to enjoy eccentricities and oddballs and skeptics of all sorts. They learn to converse, write, throw teasing barbs, joke, argue, sulk, and debate; they get--as well as give--to this forum community. They get along like a scrappy but lovable community. They want new members that are similar to feel welcome. So we wish you pricks would humble yourselves just a tad--this isn't your frat party.

And it wasn't mock exasperation. I'm just giving a shout out to my fellow skeptics in cyberland who are tired of this crap from the "skeptoids". Go back and read all the gentle warnings in this thread if you can stand to be bored--or give it to someone more socially adept than you (since the incompetent can't recognize competence), and find out for yourself who started the ad homs and never stopped. Look who took offense at a persons statement as though it was a personal attack while completely being oblivious to their own prior much more egregious statements. Look who put themselves above others while accusing everyone who disagreed of doing the same.

Not a single person (except for DANN) claimed to have all the answers nor did anyone deny that poverty was involved in children being labeled witches. We just pointed out that it was the belief that was the MOST DIRECT cause. Again and again and again. And not one of you hypocrites heard what anyone else was saying as you wove your little merry world of "look how superior we are to those skeptics over there...". You pretend your motives are noble, but this was a thread to say, "look how noble Dann and his ilk are". Everyone who commented otherwise, was attacked. I don't want potential forum members to think I am like that --because I'd rather have them around than the loud, unyielding, self important, and forever obnoxious. Remember Interesting Ian? You guys are morphing into him. Stop.

You are backtracking now--but you are transparent. Now you're getting a taste of your own medicine and it doesn't taste good, does it? So maybe, just maybe, you will learn something about giving and taking and humility from people on this thread or on this forum who are clearly more skilled than you. And, rest assured, I'm not saying it's me. I do not feel superior to anyone except for a "skeptoid" here and there. (and I sure as hell take offense at them telling me and others what our priorities should be.)

The lessons are free, guys--you just have to become aware that you need them.

(The thing is--you guys could have said nothing--and no-one but me and slimething would have known what self-important dolts you were....(except for Hammegk...everyone already knew about him.) The more you say, the worse it gets. Give your ranting a break. We will all be happier. Or let it die out. Or (gasp), apologize--without sarcasm; it's so simple. And the people here are really a pretty nice crowd.

 

[articulett]

An attempt to share. Isn't that cute.

But, no, no! Bad! That's not what humans eat.

Yes, but since it's what you skeptoids dish out, I thought you might like some in return.

Don't start a flame war with me, Hammegk; I've been itching to hand you your a$$ on a platter, and I suspect I will have a swell of rising support on that one.

 

[articulett]

tsk tsk.

Dann...Education is the only known remedy for superstition..

Get it? When you give the example that pollution causes cancer--that is the direct cause. Maybe we are having language problems. But poverty is not the direct cause of superstition. How do we know? Because rich people can be very superstitious--i.e.--money doesn't cure superstitious behavior.

Your statement that poverty breeds superstition is like saying "bathing suits breed skin cancers"-- Does it? No, it's a correlation, not a causation. The are both related to a third thing...exposing one's skin to the sun. In the same way, poverty does not cause people to boot out their kids because they are witches. That last part is important. It may make people eager to get rid of their kids...it may make them vulnerable to noticing things that irk them...the article mentioned step parents, we know that and parents, in general, abuse step children at 100 times the parental rate (per article I cited already.)

Are you following. Because if not. You CAN'T get it. It's not because others are mean or stupid or wrong or heartless--it's actually because you have a bit of those traits, and you are stubbornly refusing to acknowledge it.

Calling kids witches presumes that such people need a behavior change along with the food, etc. Feeding people or giving them money doesn't "cure" superstition. How do we know? Because rich people and fat people are still superstitious. What's the missing ingredient? Education. Not as a substitute for feeding or care or medical help--but because it is the most necessary ingredient in getting people to stop booting their kids because they are demonic. (Of course, educating them away from religious beliefs so that they could learn and utilize family planning services would be very good as well.)

You are just wrong from a semantic perspective and a legal perspective. You did what humans do--confused correlation with causation--just as the parents who see their burdensome kid doing something freaky are doing when they label that child a witch.

You are just wrong. It's not that anyone else is right. It's just that poverty does not CAUSE people to label their kids witches. It might be a factor or increase the odds, but it sure as hell isn't the cause. The more you talk, the worse it gets for you. You just look like someone protecting their ego who is losing the opportunity to learn. You misinterpreted the article and used it to slam a group of people who are probably a lot more educated on the subject than yourself--and you used it to make yourself look like some noble warrior.

 

[articulett]

Let's leave it at that, Gurdur. I think it is clear to (almost) everybody that if, for instance, you said that poverty breeds discontent and that the way to stop discontent would therefore be to put a stop to poverty, nobody would assume that you can't get p***** off when Sylvia Browne appears on TV.
I think that Paul was misled by "people".

I'm the "people". And I'm not the one manipulating and dodging and grandstanding. Neither is slimething. Gurder is not a good sidekick for you either. Paul is being as nice as he can. How much louder do the voices need to get before you hear it. Your opening post sounded like an attack and a self important claim about the "real reason" for parents calling their kids witches.

And why would you ask that Paul would dredge through this whole thread? He has a life you know--and you and your buddies do not make for very stimulating reading. You are all over the place with your claims and argument. It seems like you felt that people were attacking the Congolese people. But no one ever did. So you decided to defend them (whatever that means) and slay all those darn skeptics who would dare insult the Congolese (no-one did...though Hammegk made a snide remark involving "starving animals".)

The more people tried to tell you that you misread the article--and that as a matter of the English language--the direct cause of people calling their kids witches was belief in witches. That is the ONLY direct cause. People who don't believe that their kids (or step kids) can be witches...or who don't believe in witches...or who don't live in a culture where many people believe in witches--don't boot their kids out for "being witches". Lots of people boot their kids out. For the poor, the kids are a bigger burden, and so they may be subconsciously or consciously looking for a reason. But that means it's a "catalyst" for people accusing their kids of being witches--not THE CAUSE.

And we've been so blinded by giving deference and respect to religious type beliefs (and other superstitions) that most people (including the Priest in the article) miss this FACT. Randi doesn't. The writer of the letter didn't. The poverty part of the equation is the simple part that everyone gets just fine. But just as giving blood transfusions can save lives, all the blood transfusions in the world won't work if your parent forbids it because they think it will cause you to suffer eternally after you die. Nor will money.

That is all that any of the horrible "people" are saying. It's not a battle or an "us" vs. "them" game. It's just a drama in your head and a little bit of a bruised ego. You'll get over it and be as good as new as soon as you decide to stop these posts. You (and Gurdur) really did start it--and you were like little tattletales too. Neither Paul, nor I, nor slimething, (nor Chadd who gave up long ago) are being manipulative. You are doing it to yourself--just like Randi says--you are letting your ego stand in the way of admitting that you can be fooled.

Yes, you can be wrong sometimes too. Welcome to planet earth.
We earthlings will welcome you back when you get your heads out of your a$$es.

 

[dann]

[IGNORE]

Oh...so now (...) to tell them to "grow up".

[/IGNORE]


[IGNORE]

Alas, that is (...) with self-righteousness, arrogance and banality.

[/IGNORE]


[IGNORE]

I am calm. (...) nice crowd.

[/IGNORE]


[IGNORE]

Yes, but (...) on that one.

[/IGNORE]


[IGNORE]

tsk tsk. (...) some noble warrior.

[/IGNORE]

I'm the "people".

I never doubted that you, the "people", were behind this. Paul made the mistake of trusting your judgment. I guess that he won’t make that mistake again.

[IGNORE]

(...) And I'm not the one (...) heads out of your a$$es.

[/IGNORE]

 

[dann]

Oopsy... (...) They are just too busy flinging poo at images of themselves in the mirror and trying to get the attention of zookeepers so they can complain about those other awful monkeys in the looking glass. tsk.

What is it called in psychoanalytical terms? Projection? Who's complaining?

 

[hammegk]

Yes, but since it's what you skeptoids dish out, I thought you might like some in return.

Don't start a flame war with me, Hammegk; I've been itching to hand you your a$$ on a platter, and I suspect I will have a swell of rising support on that one.

and TTFN.

<plonk>

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is where my pessimism kicks in, then. Education of a standard that would build a firm foundation for scientific literacy is very difficult to implement in an impoverished society, especially when the education aims to promote critical thinking.

Oh, I'm pessimistic along with you. The problem is that you can't just "eliminate poverty." I'm sure you agree that such a simplistic recipe is naive through and through. One way to help with poverty is to get people working, and that requires education.

~~ Paul

 

[CFLarsen]

tsk tsk.

Dann...Education is the only known remedy for superstition..

tsk tsk.

No, it isn't. Education is not a guarantee that superstition will disappear. You also need people to want to give up their superstition. They need to realize that the world they can know is better than the world they want to believe in.

Randi often says about the Superstitious: "They want it to be true, they need it to be true". He's very right.

Education is one of the remedies for superstition. But uneducated people are not necessarily superstitious.

 

[dann]

Oh, I'm pessimistic along with you. The problem is that you can't just "eliminate poverty." I'm sure you agree that such a simplistic recipe is naive through and through. One way to help with poverty is to get people working, and that requires education.

So the complex recipe, the one that isn't naive through and through, is to tell the poor and (?) the superstitious to get an education, grow up and get a job?
And that also goes for the people in Congo who cannot feed their children?

 

[articulett]

tsk tsk.

No, it isn't. Education is not a guarantee that superstition will disappear. You also need people to want to give up their superstition. They need to realize that the world they can know is better than the world they want to believe in.

Randi often says about the Superstitious: "They want it to be true, they need it to be true". He's very right.

Education is one of the remedies for superstition. But uneducated people are not necessarily superstitious.

Yes. I didn't say that they were. Saying education is the remedy for superstition is not saying that uneducated people are superstitious. If the remedy for lice is getting one's head shaved, then that does not mean that all those with shaved heads must have had lice.

And are you in Mensa? Because if so, you were insulted a few pages back, I think. If not, it might be because you posted before reading and made a slight error in logic.

We have explored all the possibilities here, Claus. We know that rich people can be superstitious as can well fed people--therefore, we know that poverty (of food or cash) does not cause superstition. (Which is what Dann has been trying to claim). In order for something to be a cause of something else--you'd have to be able to complete this sentence--If not for ______, than ____________ would not have happened.

We know that there is a history of people going on witch hunts and calling people witches and punishing them. This had no association with income. So we know that poverty does not cause people to call their kids witches.

We know that there have been many poor people throughout history, but very few who accuse their kids of being witches. They may give their child to foster care or adoption or make them work or sell them--but labeling them a witch is rare.

We know that parents can kick out their kids due to drugs, mental illness, burdensome behavior, poverty, etc. But parents kicking out kids does not seem to be correlated to labeling your kid a witch.

What does cause people to label their kid a witch--belief in witches!..having a culture that believes in witches... Not every person who believes in witches labels their kid a witch, but every parent who thinks their kid is a witch believes in witches.

What is the only known remedy for curing a superstitious belief? Education.
I agree with you--people want to be fooled. Randi educates by showing people that they can be fooled. I'm not saying education works every time. I'm saying that it is how people stop being superstitious. How did we come to stop accusing people from being witches?

In fact most civil rights have been won via education and elimination of superstition, confirmation bias, and other types of fear mongering.

But you missed what this thread was about. Or perhaps you know of a way to ameliorate superstition other than education? This thread is about poor people who have kicked their kids out for being "witches". Although poverty is a likely factor in this situation, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the cause. The direct cause is "superstition"--as Randi said, and the article said, and Dann is tantruming about.

(And Dann--go ahead and ignore me (in fact, put me on "ignore")--it's pretty clear what you do and don't read, and I think most people stopped reading your tripe long ago...You think you have a lot to teach and nothing at all to learn.)

And tsk to you.
(and one for you too, CFLarson--tsk)

 

[articulett]

So the complex recipe, the one that isn't naive through and through, is to tell the poor and (?) the superstitious to get an education, grow up and get a job?
And that also goes for the people in Congo who cannot feed their children?

It's fascinating how you mischaracterize everyone's statement. Did anyone say that it was a good idea to tell poor people to grow up and get a job? No. They said that poverty may be correlated with superstition--but it does not cause it.
Any remedy would need to address the problem, and not pretend it doesn't exist while funneling kids off to Catholic charities where they'll learn more superstitions including the book responsible for witch hunting horrors of the middle ages. Moreover, they'll learn dogma that teaches against birth control and family planning...a sure fire method for greatly reducing poverty.

Even the rich and well fed Jehovah Witness kid can't get a blood transfusion. Education might not always work--but it's the best thing we have in our arsenal at this time.

Quit pretending that pointing this out means that we would criticize anyone--also, it doesn't mean we don't understand the poverty question. We do. But it's only a part of the problem. You act as if you can shower money and food on these people and then the parents will be dashing off to the orphanages to retrieve their witchly child.

 

[dann]

Randi often says about the Superstitious: "They want it to be true, they need it to be true". He's very right.

The Amazing is very right, but only up to a point, I think. When he explains how people deceive themselves, he is excellent. But when he leaves his field of expertise and starts telling people to grow up, he isn't. He is right when he says that people not only want to, but actually need to believe. When we go a little further than that, he and many other skeptics seem to prefer to pass moral judgment on the believers instead of analyzing: Why do people need to believe? Where does this need come from? Well, let's leave it at that and simply dismiss them with Time to grow up.
And when you point this out to them, their reaction is very hard to distinguish from what you would expect to find in a bunch of guru worshippers who, as we all know, need to believe.
And no matter how many ”I am not quite sure, but it appears to me that”, “they appear to”, “poverty seems to be”, “To me “this type of situation” seems to be”, “skeptics seem to think” are being just, no matter how many things you phrase in the form of questions, the mere fact that somebody obviously questions their judgment seems to be enough to enrage these “people”.

 

[dann]

... while funneling kids off to Catholic charities where they'll learn more superstitions including the book responsible for witch hunting horrors of the middle ages.

So far articulett is the only one who has proposed to leave it to the Catholic charities to deal with the problem!

Moreover, it is the Christianization of these people that makes them have children they cannot afford--because the missionaries teach abstinence not birth control. I think they owe it to the people to take in surplus children when their doctrine is part of the problem.

But who cares, right, articulett?
"The incompetent are the least likely to know it, and the ones who feel most confident in their abilities. It's true! "

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. I didn't say that they were. Saying education is the remedy for superstition is not saying that uneducated people are superstitious. If the remedy for lice is getting one's head shaved, then that does not mean that all those with shaved heads must have had lice.

And are you in Mensa? Because if so, you were insulted a few pages back, I think. If not, it might be because you posted before reading and made a slight error in logic.

We have explored all the possibilities here, Claus. We know that rich people can be superstitious as can well fed people--therefore, we know that poverty (of food or cash) does not cause superstition. (Which is what Dann has been trying to claim). In order for something to be a cause of something else--you'd have to be able to complete this sentence--If not for ______, than ____________ would not have happened.

We know that there is a history of people going on witch hunts and calling people witches and punishing them. This had no association with income. So we know that poverty does not cause people to call their kids witches.

We know that there have been many poor people throughout history, but very few who accuse their kids of being witches. They may give their child to foster care or adoption or make them work or sell them--but labeling them a witch is rare.

We know that parents can kick out their kids due to drugs, mental illness, burdensome behavior, poverty, etc. But parents kicking out kids does not seem to be correlated to labeling your kid a witch.

What does cause people to label their kid a witch--belief in witches!..having a culture that believes in witches... Not every person who believes in witches labels their kid a witch, but every parent who thinks their kid is a witch believes in witches.

What is the only known remedy for curing a superstitious belief? Education.
I agree with you--people want to be fooled. Randi educates by showing people that they can be fooled. I'm not saying education works every time. I'm saying that it is how people stop being superstitious. How did we come to stop accusing people from being witches?

In fact most civil rights have been won via education and elimination of superstition, confirmation bias, and other types of fear mongering.

But you missed what this thread was about. Or perhaps you know of a way to ameliorate superstition other than education? This thread is about poor people who have kicked their kids out for being "witches". Although poverty is a likely factor in this situation, I'm sure you'll agree it's not the cause. The direct cause is "superstition"--as Randi said, and the article said, and Dann is tantruming about.

(And Dann--go ahead and ignore me (in fact, put me on "ignore")--it's pretty clear what you do and don't read, and I think most people stopped reading your tripe long ago...You think you have a lot to teach and nothing at all to learn.)

And tsk to you.
(and one for you too, CFLarson--tsk)

Aren't you a bit condescending at times?

 

[Checkmite]

I am calm. It's your own shiftiness you are noticing. The article Dann is talking about from the Christian Science Monitor mentioned itself that Superstition Breeds Homelessness. It claims the very thing that DANN refuses to acknowledge.

I never said that I'm certain about rightness nor did I say that "teaching people to be skeptical is the answer to all social ills". It's interesting how you and DANN and Gurdur seem to see things that people are NOT saying (like Dann's line about how skeptics don't care if the kids starve--just so long as they are not called witches)--and then you guys take personal offense from these incorrect observations and attack. After that, you step back and engage in what looks like a mutual masturbatory game of "look how great and smart and noble and clever we are!--we done told those ignoramuses off."

You have called people simple when it was you who was being a simpleton. Moreover commenting on the harm of peoples' opinions, beliefs, or statements IS NOT THE SAME as attacking those people. I know that you think it is, and you react accordingly--it's what this thread is about. No one ever insulted the poor people--nothing in the newsletter or anywhere else was a slam to the poor people in the article.

Now read your quote above and see for yourself how it sounds. To me it sounds like "I'm skeptical of the skeptics...I'm just a victim here, and articulett et. al. are over-reacting...I'm clever and noble because I'm not calling the people stupid; I'm just calling them liars." No one else called them stupid either--or liars. It was only in your head. And Dann's head. And you others who know who you are.

And that pretty much sums up Dann's opening post too, doesn't it? It seems like others agree (--not that this is a popularity contest--though Dann and his buddies have tried to make it one...and he is the one bringing up numbers of people on assorted sides.) If you don't get that, then maybe you are the "stupid" one. Dann revealed himself to be the fool when he went and posted his foolishness on the skeptoid thread --he was just so sure that everyone was going to see it his way.

There are some people on this thread whose hypocrisy is blinding to everyone else--and playing the victim when people point out that you're dumbasses, is particularly offensive. (I just learned they don't *** bleep** that word. ) And those of you getting mad while reading this need to hear this (though I doubt you read much of anything): You sound patronizing and snide in 85% or more of the posts you write. You are reading only to find the truth you've already arrived at in your head--or maybe just to see who is "with you" or "who is against you". You expect people to read your words carefully (and they are hard to slog through sometimes), but you don't return the favor. You are not likable, nor fun, nor humble, nor anywhere near as smart as you pretend. You are Polonius's. And if these words are making you mad--then I mean you. The rest of us don't take an ego dive from verbal attacks; we learn and advance our social skills. We use the ignore button. We turn your own words against you. It doesn't take an ever growing cascade of warnings before we clue in.

Look at Paul's writing--ever patient...never the first to strike...trying to please everyone (impossible of course)...he's even humble on occasion--and funny!. And smart. He doesn't take offense easily and he apologizes...sends out olive branches. You could learn something. People get a kick out of talking to such people. I love reading most of the people on this forum. People here seem to enjoy eccentricities and oddballs and skeptics of all sorts. They learn to converse, write, throw teasing barbs, joke, argue, sulk, and debate; they get--as well as give--to this forum community. They get along like a scrappy but lovable community. They want new members that are similar to feel welcome. So we wish you pricks would humble yourselves just a tad--this isn't your frat party.

And it wasn't mock exasperation. I'm just giving a shout out to my fellow skeptics in cyberland who are tired of this crap from the "skeptoids". Go back and read all the gentle warnings in this thread if you can stand to be bored--or give it to someone more socially adept than you (since the incompetent can't recognize competence), and find out for yourself who started the ad homs and never stopped. Look who took offense at a persons statement as though it was a personal attack while completely being oblivious to their own prior much more egregious statements. Look who put themselves above others while accusing everyone who disagreed of doing the same.

Not a single person (except for DANN) claimed to have all the answers nor did anyone deny that poverty was involved in children being labeled witches. We just pointed out that it was the belief that was the MOST DIRECT cause. Again and again and again. And not one of you hypocrites heard what anyone else was saying as you wove your little merry world of "look how superior we are to those skeptics over there...". You pretend your motives are noble, but this was a thread to say, "look how noble Dann and his ilk are". Everyone who commented otherwise, was attacked. I don't want potential forum members to think I am like that --because I'd rather have them around than the loud, unyielding, self important, and forever obnoxious. Remember Interesting Ian? You guys are morphing into him. Stop.

You are backtracking now--but you are transparent. Now you're getting a taste of your own medicine and it doesn't taste good, does it? So maybe, just maybe, you will learn something about giving and taking and humility from people on this thread or on this forum who are clearly more skilled than you. And, rest assured, I'm not saying it's me. I do not feel superior to anyone except for a "skeptoid" here and there. (and I sure as hell take offense at them telling me and others what our priorities should be.)

The lessons are free, guys--you just have to become aware that you need them.

(The thing is--you guys could have said nothing--and no-one but me and slimething would have known what self-important dolts you were....(except for Hammegk...everyone already knew about him.) The more you say, the worse it gets. Give your ranting a break. We will all be happier. Or let it die out. Or (gasp), apologize--without sarcasm; it's so simple. And the people here are really a pretty nice crowd.

You're wasting an awful lot of time arguing against a seemingly invisible post.

Nobody here has called anyone stupid. Nobody here yet seems to have taken offense at anything. We're calmly discussing this issue; because I take a less-than-common viewpoint, you seem to be ascribing motivations to me that don't follow. It would be almost comical for me to be upset that these people are being "insulted" by being called stupid (which I'm not, because nobody's done that yet), while I turn around and call them liars and pretend that's better somehow.

And you certainly can't accuse me of ranting with my 2-3 paragraph posts, as long as you keep responding with screeds of epic length.