Politicization of JREF

[CFLarsen]

But then you misunderstand the point. THe point is that if some get something (whether you disagree with that something is besides the point) and are willing to pay for it, your opinions of charlatan, liar, con artist, quack, whatever, are irreelvant. If she is those things, it is your responsibility to bring forth evidence, show it to the proper law enforcement agency.

The actual actions (as opposed to hot air) the organized skeptical community shows on these issues seems truly contradictory, given their claims against people like Sylvia.

Have you nothing bad to say about psychics like Sylvia Browne?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm not using the First Amendment in that sense, Lonewulf. I was pointing out that tai cheat can't seem to understand that what Randi is doing is protected by the First Amendment while, surprise, what longnails is doing is actually prohibited by criminal code (fraud) and civil law (theft by deception).

Ah, so you did mean it in a legal sense.

Good, good.

I can't help you with whatever other posters have written.

Natch.

Carry on, then. Nothing to see here, citizen.

 

[Moochie]

Reread the definition:

"a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group" = doesn't have to be "particularly organized."

What, a bunch of people with barely anything in common, not given to having much to do with one another?

Would you agree that most skeptics involved in any such movement would have the "generalized common goal" of, uh, promoting skepticism (at the very least)?

Well, I suppose we all like to eat fairly regularly, and have a nap now and again...

M.

 

[Reager]

What, a bunch of people with barely anything in common, not given to having much to do with one another?

Huh? Barely anything in common? What are you talking about? You may not have much to do with other skeptics, but many others aren't so limited in their associations.

Well, I suppose we all like to eat fairly regularly, and have a nap now and again...

M.

It's obvious that instead of backing up your statements you're just being flippant, so I'll leave the room now.

 

[K-W]

Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.

So views that you classify as liberal are biased and unskeptical because you say so, therefore these views don't belong in a skeptical newsletter...

I am glad Randi doesnt pass his views or the views of others through an ideological filter before publishing them and I trust he will ignore your call to do so.

 

[Lonewulf]

So views that you classify as liberal are biased and unskeptical because you say so, therefore these views don't belong in a skeptical newsletter...

Views that attack a certain group of people for a specific political orientation (I.E., being for gun rights), is to me crossing a line. Randi didn't actually do this, but if he did, I can understand why others would question such an action.

If Randi also specifically only cherry picked data to fit a political ideology, I also would dislike this action. Randi does not do this, but I would not like it.

The point is, there is a line to cross. I do not think that Randi crossed it, and I doubt that he will, but when he does I will be there, questioning it.

 

[BillyJoe]

A common response here has been: "It's Randi's commentary, he can write what he likes".
To which the legitimate reply has been: "Yes he can, but should he?"
To this could be added: "But, in the end, who really cares?"

These days I only read the commentaries in order to get involved in the commentary thread.
Sad but true.

 

[Lonewulf]

A common response here has been: "It's Randi's commentary, he can write what he likes".
To which the legitimate reply has been: "Yes he can, but should he?"
To this could be added: "But, in the end, who really cares?"

To which a response could be added:

"Then why hang around this thread?"

 

[BillyJoe]

Why not?
Are you not interested in views other than your own?

 

[Lonewulf]

Why not?
Are you not interested in views other than your own?

That's an unfair question. Of course I'm interested in views other than my own. But if you do not care, then what's the point? Your view is not caring... there's not much room for growth there, is there? "I don't care" is a response that does not lead to much discussion one way or the other.

I just find it strange to hang around a thread on a subject that you care nothing about. I certainly care what a person that I respect says. You may not, but if you had to ask, "Who cares?" I'd say "Me."

And if you do not care, then you cannot be up in arms over one side or the other.

 

[BillyJoe]

That's an unfair question. Of course I'm interested in views other than my own.

Well, it was a straight forward question.
As coincidence would have it, I went from here to check in on Peter Bowditch's website where he has a transcript of an interview about a recent debate he was involved in with a religious group titled "Is God a delusion?". He was asked what he hoped for in debating Christians. He replied that "What I hope for is that everyone can go away with a better understanding of why the other side holds the position it does."
I now have this as my sigature.

But if you do not care, then what's the point? Your view is not caring... there's not much room for growth there, is there? "I don't care" is a response that does not lead to much discussion one way or the other.

Good point.

But it's not really what I said. I didn't say, "I don't care". What I said was, "But, in the end, who really cares?"
The question here is the politicisation of the JREF. I don't think there is any doubt that he is politicising his commentaries. I also agree that he can say what he likes in his commentaries. I also agree that he should not. Just like he shouldn't have plagiarised a poster here some months ago. Just like he shouldn't have dismissed those who dared to take him to task for it. Just like he should not make comment before thinking through the isssues (referring to his waffling over Climate Change over recent weeks). But he will post what he will. He is entitled to do what he will. Because it's his commentary. We can say that he shouldn't. But we should realise that he will continue to do what he will. Nothing will change because he is unlikely to start listening to the "barking dogs".
It is in this context that I said, "But, in the end, who cares?"
There was a hint od sadness there hinted at by the last two lines:

"These days I only read the commentaries in order to get involved in the commentary thread.
Sad but true."

I just find it strange to hang around a thread on a subject that you care nothing about.

Well, I was intending it as a sign off post.
I don't usually bother unsubscribing to threads though, so when I saw you had responded to my post I felt it only fair to return with a reply.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[BillyJoe]

I must have forgotten to apply the new sig line. It's fixed now.

 

[Moochie]

Huh? Barely anything in common? What are you talking about? You may not have much to do with other skeptics, but many others aren't so limited in their associations.



It's obvious that instead of backing up your statements you're just being flippant, so I'll leave the room now.

You may do as you wish, but you haven't convinced me that people of a skeptical bent are an organized movement.

M.

 

[Czarcasm]

Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

Just to clarify things, when you use the "winky" emoticon, does that indicate that you are being sarcastic and don't really believe what you are saying? You seem to use it a lot, and I'm curious as to why.

 

[Drysdale]

So views that you classify as liberal are biased and unskeptical because you say so, therefore these views don't belong in a skeptical newsletter...

I am glad Randi doesnt pass his views or the views of others through an ideological filter before publishing them and I trust he will ignore your call to do so.

No, not because they're possibly liberal but because that particular view is directly an attack on the 2nd amendment in the of bill of rights.

He can and will I'm sure write what he pleases in his commentaries. I did'nt call on him not to do so. Just said I dont like it. There's a difference.
I'm not starting a movement in an attempt to censor his views.
I just happen to disagree with that particular view very strongly.

I would however have a problem if he uses it as a political soapbox from either political ideology, and the line about gun control is just that in my view.

I am entitled to disagree just as much as he or anyone else for that matter
disagrees with me.

 

[Lonewulf]

But it's not really what I said. I didn't say, "I don't care". What I said was, "But, in the end, who really cares?"

Obviously, many of the people that are posting in this thread.

The question here is the politicisation of the JREF. I don't think there is any doubt that he is politicising his commentaries. I also agree that he can say what he likes in his commentaries. I also agree that he should not. Just like he shouldn't have plagiarised a poster here some months ago. Just like he shouldn't have dismissed those who dared to take him to task for it. Just like he should not make comment before thinking through the isssues (referring to his waffling over Climate Change over recent weeks). But he will post what he will. He is entitled to do what he will. Because it's his commentary. We can say that he shouldn't. But we should realise that he will continue to do what he will. Nothing will change because he is unlikely to start listening to the "barking dogs".
It is in this context that I said, "But, in the end, who cares?"
There was a hint od sadness there hinted at by the last two lines:

Ah, I think I understand now.

My apologies for misinterpreting.

 

[Reager]

You may do as you wish, but you haven't convinced me that people of a skeptical bent are an organized movement.

M.

I dont think i ever claimed that all skeptics are part of an "organized" movement (whatever that means). What I did claim, some evidence of which I outlined in this post, is that a skeptical movement does indeed exist. If you disagree, state your reasons.

 

[Moochie]

I dont think i ever claimed that all skeptics are part of an "organized" movement (whatever that means). What I did claim, some evidence of which I outlined in this post, is that a skeptical movement does indeed exist. If you disagree, state your reasons.

Your ascribing an ideology to skeptics is way off the mark. Where do you get this from, your ****?

M.

Moochie, please refrain from violating your membership agreement in the future, particularly in regard to civility. I have edited the post and removed the offending comment.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[Reager]

Your ascribing an ideology to skeptics is way off the mark. Where do you get this from, your anus?

M.

This is pointless. Assertions are not arguments. Ad homs are juvenile. And you claim to be a skeptic?

 

[Moochie]

This is pointless. Assertions are not arguments. Ad homs are juvenile. And you claim to be a skeptic?

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

M.