Confronting A Paranormal Challenge Challenger On Air

Trevor from Toronto

Scholar
Trevor from Toronto
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
71
Hello. New to the forum. I'll be posting infrequently, but it's cool to find a place like this on the internet.

To get right to the title of the thread -- I think it's time, the conditions are right, the tools are there now, and the will of the JREF seems to have turned towards this affirmative position.

I've started doing this myself on the easiest free forum available: internet paranormal podcasts recorded live. Perhaps JREF staff will have access to larger mainstream media outlets? But as for the internet/radio paranormal podcasts, they've multiplied like mushrooms. Most are wide open to skeptics to access at will without call screeners. And even if there is a call screener, they're easy to get past.

I started doing this a few weeks ago, and then was surprised to find that JREF has decided to get agressive with the big name people trying to bilk the naive out of a lot of money selling products and services based on nonsense. The announcement that I heard was made on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe show #78, I believe, in an interview direct from the begining of the Amazing Conference. A usually excellent podcast if you haven't heard it.

I threw a wrench into a discussion on a completely different podcast by an amazing character who claims to be able to obtain readings of distress from eggs. Familiar to many around here, likely, but the discussion between Jeff Wagg and him is under the Challenge Applications section of the forum under the title: GERALD EPLING - Shimmering Leaf Inventor.

I can't post links it appears during my first 15 posts, sorry about that.

Anyways, I had dropped the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge question to him when he was a guest on the Kevin Smith Show. It's at kevinsmithshow.com and you can go to his archives section and listen to it under the podcast archive show with Gerald Epling's name on it.

If you are familiar with Jeff Wagg's correspondence posted with Epling, or have just now read it, you'll be up to speed on this amusing claim. I read this just before I phoned in to the kevin smith show and had a hard time not laughing, but brought up the million dollar challenge and had to hang up and take his answer off the air.

It is very interesting to hear his response. His friendly tone shifts immediately when responding to the question. Great stuff about a specially designed "egg smashing machine'" and now Jeff Wagg won't get back to him and he wants the million dollars for his research and is ready for the test!

At any rate, I think it would be a very entertaining development if suddenly these paranormal talk shows with wide open phone lines were to suddenly be hit with a few hard questions and challenges. If nothing else, just people calling in and pleasantly demonstrating the guests' enormous misinformation and logical fallacies would be great. Or, depending on the claims, challenging the person to "go for the gold" and take that money off Randi's hands for charity and boost their celebrity status even higher. The biggest names out there seem to make the rounds whenever they've got something new to promote. Shouldn't Randi's Challenge be promoted on the same shows with the big audiences?

Just a few thoughts after some Walker Black on a Monday night. LOL.
 
Hi Trevor from Toronto. Where are you now?

To be technical, I'm not actually in TO but I am in the GTA. :shocked:

In response to your suggestion -- "So many kooks. So little time".
 
Why, I'm in Toronto, Gord in Toronto. Actually in Toronto.

Yes, "So many kooks, so little time". I can relate. On the other hand, I've gotten some entertainment out of this so far. But I think humour is the key to really enjoying myself and getting something more out of it.

I hope that the people at JREF come up with some funny stuff to do to the big names to get some publicity.
 
Gord, your flashing smiley gives the baby jesus epilepsy. I, too, am not in Toronto, but in the "Greater Toronto Area." Let's have a party.
 
Gr8wight said:
Gord, your flashing smiley gives the baby jesus epilepsy. I, too, am not in Toronto, but in the "Greater Toronto Area." Let's have a party.
Click to expand...

Uhoh, looks like they've made a 3-way LOVE CONNECTION!
 
I'm in Toronto too.

Can I come to the party or is this a "no girls allowed" thing?
 
Gr8wight said:
Gord, your flashing smiley gives the baby jesus epilepsy. I, too, am not in Toronto, but in the "Greater Toronto Area." Let's have a party.
Click to expand...

I used to be in the "Greater Toronto Area", but I left Buffalo years ago :P
 
I have for quite a few years been a member of the Ontario Skeptics Society for Critical Inquiry www.skeptics.ca

They have been somewhat inactive in the last year because they have been working to set up a permanent location (now done). I have some considerable hope (and a promise from the president) that activities will start up again shortly. One of the activities was a monthly informal get-to-gether at the Swiss Chalet at Bedford and Bloor.

Maybe that will get revived. We used to get about 20 people out. I'll consider putting an effort into reviving it if there is any interest. PM me.

Ontario Skeptics also has a closed (not exposed to the Internet) Topica group.

Gord
 
teck49 said:
Ya Eh, Dat's very cool Eh! You guys should get togedder and go catch a Yoopers concert Eh. Or maybe form a haakey team Eh. Yoo Betcha.

(kidding)
Click to expand...

Lol. Only an american from the great lakes region would put an a sound in hockey :)
 
Hello. New to the forum. I'll be posting infrequently, but it's cool to find a place like this on the internet.

To get right to the title of the thread -- I think it's time, the conditions are right, the tools are there now, and the will of the JREF seems to have turned towards this affirmative position.

I've started doing this myself on the easiest free forum available: internet paranormal podcasts recorded live. Perhaps JREF staff will have access to larger mainstream media outlets? But as for the internet/radio paranormal podcasts, they've multiplied like mushrooms. Most are wide open to skeptics to access at will without call screeners. And even if there is a call screener, they're easy to get past.

I started doing this a few weeks ago, and then was surprised to find that JREF has decided to get agressive with the big name people trying to bilk the naive out of a lot of money selling products and services based on nonsense. The announcement that I heard was made on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe show #78, I believe, in an interview direct from the begining of the Amazing Conference. A usually excellent podcast if you haven't heard it.

I threw a wrench into a discussion on a completely different podcast by an amazing character who claims to be able to obtain readings of distress from eggs. Familiar to many around here, likely, but the discussion between Jeff Wagg and him is under the Challenge Applications section of the forum under the title: GERALD EPLING - Shimmering Leaf Inventor.

I can't post links it appears during my first 15 posts, sorry about that.

Anyways, I had dropped the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge question to him when he was a guest on the Kevin Smith Show. It's at kevinsmithshow.com and you can go to his archives section and listen to it under the podcast archive show with Gerald Epling's name on it.

If you are familiar with Jeff Wagg's correspondence posted with Epling, or have just now read it, you'll be up to speed on this amusing claim. I read this just before I phoned in to the kevin smith show and had a hard time not laughing, but brought up the million dollar challenge and had to hang up and take his answer off the air.

It is very interesting to hear his response. His friendly tone shifts immediately when responding to the question. Great stuff about a specially designed "egg smashing machine'" and now Jeff Wagg won't get back to him and he wants the million dollars for his research and is ready for the test!

At any rate, I think it would be a very entertaining development if suddenly these paranormal talk shows with wide open phone lines were to suddenly be hit with a few hard questions and challenges. If nothing else, just people calling in and pleasantly demonstrating the guests' enormous misinformation and logical fallacies would be great. Or, depending on the claims, challenging the person to "go for the gold" and take that money off Randi's hands for charity and boost their celebrity status even higher. The biggest names out there seem to make the rounds whenever they've got something new to promote. Shouldn't Randi's Challenge be promoted on the same shows with the big audiences?

Just a few thoughts after some Walker Black on a Monday night. LOL.
Click to expand...

You're trying to rationalize a reason for going trolling?
 
Expression_man said:
You're trying to rationalize a reason for going trolling?
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not what Trevor meant. You misunderstand the OP.

From Wikipedia: "In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."

Asking people who make extraordinary paranormal claims why they haven't applied for the Challenge isn't trolling. It's a valid question. And if the person responds with incorrect or incomplete information, as they often do (e.g., "Randi doesn't have the money," or "Jeff Wagg refuses to test me"), it isn't trolling to point out that that information is incorrect or incomplete.

(BTW, by "incomplete", I'm referring to situations in which the "refuses to test me" statement should be followed by something like "because I issued death threats to the whole organization", but for some odd reason never is.)

A person might come into the forum and sling insults, for example, on how close-minded skeptics are, how the Challenge is all a fake, etc etc etc -- which is fine, unless he or she /continues to do so/ in the face of reasoned argument otherwise. I'm not saying that all of the responses will be reasoned -- many people will respond hotly, passionately, angrily, and in all the manners that an actual troll would be aiming to provoke. But when a person is corrected and refuses to acknowledge the correction, and keeps on spewing the same incorrect, incomplete, or deliberately inflammatory information, that's when one can be reasonably assured that the person meets the definition of "troll" and is only here to "spin up the skeptics".

If you reread Trevor's OP, that's not what he's saying. He's /not/ saying, "hey, let's confront all these people on the air and call them poopie-heads, make 'em mad, insult their mothers," or something to that extent. He's saying, "hey, let's ask some direct, specific question on why these people, with such extraordinary claims, are unwilling to be tested, when a million bucks (not to mention turning current scientific thought completely on its ear) are on the line?"
 
Jackalgirl said:
Nope, that's not what Trevor meant. You misunderstand the OP.

From Wikipedia: "In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."

Asking people who make extraordinary paranormal claims why they haven't applied for the Challenge isn't trolling. It's a valid question. And if the person responds with incorrect or incomplete information, as they often do (e.g., "Randi doesn't have the money," or "Jeff Wagg refuses to test me"), it isn't trolling to point out that that information is incorrect or incomplete.

(BTW, by "incomplete", I'm referring to situations in which the "refuses to test me" statement should be followed by something like "because I issued death threats to the whole organization", but for some odd reason never is.)

A person might come into the forum and sling insults, for example, on how close-minded skeptics are, how the Challenge is all a fake, etc etc etc -- which is fine, unless he or she /continues to do so/ in the face of reasoned argument otherwise. I'm not saying that all of the responses will be reasoned -- many people will respond hotly, passionately, angrily, and in all the manners that an actual troll would be aiming to provoke. But when a person is corrected and refuses to acknowledge the correction, and keeps on spewing the same incorrect, incomplete, or deliberately inflammatory information, that's when one can be reasonably assured that the person meets the definition of "troll" and is only here to "spin up the skeptics".

If you reread Trevor's OP, that's not what he's saying. He's /not/ saying, "hey, let's confront all these people on the air and call them poopie-heads, make 'em mad, insult their mothers," or something to that extent. He's saying, "hey, let's ask some direct, specific question on why these people, with such extraordinary claims, are unwilling to be tested, when a million bucks (not to mention turning current scientific thought completely on its ear) are on the line?"
Click to expand...

While the definition is correct, in practice it can be very different. Trolling depends on your point of view.

Unfortunately too many groups do not want to be asked valid questions and will view doing so as trolling. (See Loose Change Forum) While the intention may not be to "make 'em mad, insult their moters (sic)", the result will most likely be that.

I don't think it is truly trolling to do what Trevor suggests, but it will be viewed as such.
 
Spindrift said:
While the definition is correct, in practice it can be very different. Trolling depends on your point of view.

Unfortunately too many groups do not want to be asked valid questions and will view doing so as trolling. (See Loose Change Forum) While the intention may not be to "make 'em mad, insult their moters (sic)", the result will most likely be that.

I don't think it is truly trolling to do what Trevor suggests, but it will be viewed as such.
Click to expand...

<chuckle> Ah, the old "it isn't what you intend, it's the perception" business, eh? I see what you're saying.

But I can't quite agree -- just because someone calls something something else, doesn't make it so. If someone questions my views by asking me about my sources for the views, and I say "that's an ad hominem attack," it doesn't make it an ad hominem attack. It just means I don't know what "ad hominem" means and/or I'm trying to avoid having to actually answer the question.

I don't think it that what Trevor is proposing would be trolling (unless, of course, the purpose was to antagonize believers without really paying attention to their answers), and I think that if people refused to answer on the basis that his asking direct, pointed questions was trolling, that would simply be another indication that their position is, uh, less than solid.

But you have made an interesting point about debating tactics, that's for sure -- thanks!
 
Interesting development of the thread, checking back. Thanks, Jackalgirl.

Of course trolling is not the object of something like this. Trolling, as I understand it, does not involve solid question and debate with reason and facts -- even in a confrontational manner or a humorous manner. Trolling is just done to stir up an irrational response. It isn't constructive, and it isn't done to come to the truth of something or provoke a testing of the truth of something.

But having said that, pointed questions with humour or a dash of sarcasm will produce an emotional response that comes with the unmasking. Just calling up and making fun of somebody is not going to be very effective -- it will likely provide sympathy from the true believers. Spindrift is right that they'll try and spin it as trolling even with rational methods, but that's very hard to do convincingly when the person is calm and detached in their manner and the inescapable truth is laid out front and centre and has to be talked about. In the case of the Shimmering Leaf Inventor, his response was to first talk about about his new egg smashing machine he claimed to have built. But then, as if realizing he wasn't convincing enough, he went on to trash James Randi and the foundation as atheists. He made a big deal out of it, as if that were grounds for the Million Dollar Challenge being somehow unfair or biased! :) Unfortunately I had hung up or that would have provided some interesting material to discuss.

Even when Randi has hit the big names and they appear as "unsinkable ducks" intitially, they gradually sink and become laughable. Few can take them seriously anymore when a homorous incident where they're debunked is hung on them. Having watched and read about a few of the debunkings, there is a humour to it and a sort of glee. Some are taken to ridiculous extremes to make a point. I'd really like to see him nail Silvia Browne like that.
 
Trevor from Toronto said:
Hello. New to the forum. I'll be posting infrequently, but it's cool to find a place like this on the internet.

To get right to the title of the thread -- I think it's time, the conditions are right, the tools are there now, and the will of the JREF seems to have turned towards this affirmative position.

I've started doing this myself on the easiest free forum available: internet paranormal podcasts recorded live. Perhaps JREF staff will have access to larger mainstream media outlets? But as for the internet/radio paranormal podcasts, they've multiplied like mushrooms. Most are wide open to skeptics to access at will without call screeners. And even if there is a call screener, they're easy to get past.

I started doing this a few weeks ago, and then was surprised to find that JREF has decided to get agressive with the big name people trying to bilk the naive out of a lot of money selling products and services based on nonsense. The announcement that I heard was made on The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe show #78, I believe, in an interview direct from the begining of the Amazing Conference. A usually excellent podcast if you haven't heard it.

I threw a wrench into a discussion on a completely different podcast by an amazing character who claims to be able to obtain readings of distress from eggs. Familiar to many around here, likely, but the discussion between Jeff Wagg and him is under the Challenge Applications section of the forum under the title: GERALD EPLING - Shimmering Leaf Inventor.

I can't post links it appears during my first 15 posts, sorry about that.

Anyways, I had dropped the $1 Million Paranormal Challenge question to him when he was a guest on the Kevin Smith Show. It's at kevinsmithshow.com and you can go to his archives section and listen to it under the podcast archive show with Gerald Epling's name on it.

If you are familiar with Jeff Wagg's correspondence posted with Epling, or have just now read it, you'll be up to speed on this amusing claim. I read this just before I phoned in to the kevin smith show and had a hard time not laughing, but brought up the million dollar challenge and had to hang up and take his answer off the air.

It is very interesting to hear his response. His friendly tone shifts immediately when responding to the question. Great stuff about a specially designed "egg smashing machine'" and now Jeff Wagg won't get back to him and he wants the million dollars for his research and is ready for the test!

At any rate, I think it would be a very entertaining development if suddenly these paranormal talk shows with wide open phone lines were to suddenly be hit with a few hard questions and challenges. If nothing else, just people calling in and pleasantly demonstrating the guests' enormous misinformation and logical fallacies would be great. Or, depending on the claims, challenging the person to "go for the gold" and take that money off Randi's hands for charity and boost their celebrity status even higher. The biggest names out there seem to make the rounds whenever they've got something new to promote. Shouldn't Randi's Challenge be promoted on the same shows with the big audiences?

Just a few thoughts after some Walker Black on a Monday night. LOL.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an amusing way to get your point accross to me ;)

Jenn-not-in-Toronto
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom