• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Pro Uri Gellar article with crazy innuendos regarding James Randi

Limbo said:
I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.
Click to expand...

Randi is not My Hero. This crap has been all over the Internet for years. Considering the number of idiots who hate Randi, do you not think that at least one of them would have pursued this story if it was true?

The fact that nothing has come of this, provides proof that Randi is innocent of the claims made. If you think there is something to it, phone the police.

I am a little pissed by idiots, innuendo, and liars.
 
Limbo said:
I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.
Click to expand...

Randi is not my hero. But, the accusation that he is a pederast is a sleazy one, with nothing to back it up. I have enough faith in human nature to hope many people would find such an unfounded accusation disgusting, no matter whom it was levied against. Stating that we are doing so simply because James Randi, our alleged hero, is the one accused is downright stupid.

If someone is going to call anyone a pedophile, then they should be prepared to follow through with some concrete evidence or shut the hell up. It's not a charge to be made or taken lightly. Perhaps you are willing to take it at face value, but others are not. Since you apparently are, then put your money where your mouth is, and call the police.
 
Last edited:
Today, over half of the Swiss population believes that William Tell really lived. A modern scientific view of the Tell account implies that any healthy adult male should be able to reproduce his success. But in reality, William Tell represents one in a million.
Click to expand...

William Tell was real because over half the Swiss population believes so? If this is his standard of evidence, I'm less than convinced. If I found that sort of appeal to popularity convincing, I'd be a Catholic.

About.com: Urban Legends assures us that 65% of Brits believe King Arthur was real yet only 47% believe Richard the Lionheart ever lived. 58% think the fictional Sherlock Holmes was real and 51% give Robin Hood the thumbs up.

Or, to put it another way "over half of the British population believes that fictional characters were real whilst almost half believe the very real Richard the Lionheart was fictional". So much for the general public's grasp of reality.

If historians can't even determine beyond doubt that William Tell even existed (and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that he's fictional), it's going to be an uphill battle to convince me to take legendary superhuman tales about him at face value, no matter how many people think he was real.
 
Last edited:
Several posts removed. Please remember to post on topic, and not to bicker over personal issues in threads.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Since the non-personal issue part of my post was removed too, I'd like to point out I STILL would love to see a youtube of Randi knocking somebody on his rump. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by chillzero: 
Edited to remove quoted mod box, and comments. Do not comment on moderation in threads.

On-topic, people who disagree with others and fabricate reasons that their opposition is immoral should be lit up. Can someone provide something I can tangibly use my outrage at?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Limbo said:
I guess I might be a little pissed too if someone questioned the integrity and honesty of my hero and asked for some sort of evidence to back up his story.
Click to expand...

It's not about that. One thing that makes skeptics unpopular is that they hold the same standard for everybody. The fact that we don't follow conventional partisanship is just not accepted generally as even possible, much less understood.

Truth is: if an accuser was slandering somebody I didn't like (eg: the Pope) and asserted that he didn't need proof, I'd call that accuser a sleazebag, too.

This assignment of burden of proof to the claimant is not just a skeptical thing: slander and libel are actionable in most nations, and people who invent or circulate false and harmful claims should expect punishment via the law.
 
Limbo...look to your own life and morality here. It's in serious question. In the end, you know the truth but are posting still because this is the "internet" and not reality to you. It's like going up to someones house and spray painting on it, yet here, you can claim credit and still not feel like it is something you did personally. But, it is.

Just because you can't get "caught" doesn't make it morally correct and in the end that reflection will still be upon you and how the world and even you yourself feel about you.

Do yourself a favor. Think and act like you would in "real" life, because this is "real" and sadly these posts of yours are going to eat your soul away.
 
blutoski said:
Truth is: if an accuser was slandering somebody I didn't like (eg: the Pope) and asserted that he didn't need proof, I'd call that accuser a sleazebag, too.
Click to expand...

I just thought of a concrete example...

Back about ten years ago when there was that tragic death during that quack therapy called holding therapy (treating kids that don't bond with their adopted mothers by squashing them in a sleeping bag and re-enacting birth &c). The kids are often stripped down to their underwear, to get as close as possible to their 'birthday suit'.

A journalist wrote that that these quacks invented a therapy where they have to strip kids down to their underwear and hold them entirely because they were sexually attracted to juveniles.

I wrote a letter to the editor to point out that while there was no question that these people were quacks, bu there was no evidence for these other serious allegations, and it behooves a newspaper to think twice about such serious slander.



It's considered very serious by the law because the impact is so hard to reverse despite proving one's innocence.
 
Last edited:
very good point. Slander and spreading lies only reflects back on the person telling the lies. Unless Uri himself is posting this stuff, it's going to look bad for him.
 
kittynh said:
Limbo...look to your own life and morality here. It's in serious question. In the end, you know the truth but are posting still because this is the "internet" and not reality to you. It's like going up to someones house and spray painting on it, yet here, you can claim credit and still not feel like it is something you did personally. But, it is.

Just because you can't get "caught" doesn't make it morally correct and in the end that reflection will still be upon you and how the world and even you yourself feel about you.

Do yourself a favor. Think and act like you would in "real" life, because this is "real" and sadly these posts of yours are going to eat your soul away.
Click to expand...


It's just that the whole False Memory Syndrome Foundation accused members thing concerns me a little. There is a potential for a conflict of interest, perhaps? Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? Note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just looking for more information. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously I'm not a Randi fan, but if I was I'm sure I would be offended by my posts too. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
It's just that the whole False Memory Syndrome Foundation accused members thing concerns me a little. There is a potential for a conflict of interest, perhaps? Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation? Note I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just looking for more information. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. Obviously I'm not a Randi fan, but if I was I'm sure I would be offended by my posts too. I can understand that. But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes... the "non-apology-apology" that is so popular with politicians.

My favourite version: [Pope Forgives Molested Children]

Can we seek your forgiveness for being so irrationaly upset with you for merely circulating shocking slander?
 
Limbo said:
But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.
Click to expand...

Can you be specific as to which 'guys' you are referring to?
Give an example of 'too emotional', 'personal loyalty' and 'partiality'?
 
User CP... Edit Ignore List... Add a Member to Your List... "limbo"... [Okay]
 
Limbo said:
Can anyone tell me more about Randi's involvement with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation?
Click to expand...

If you read the description of FMSF, I think it is fairly apparent that Randi brings the principles of skepticism to the advisory board, along with a number of other board members.

But it seems to me that the principles of skepticism require a little more detachment from you guys. You're too close to the issue to think impartially. You guys are way, way too emotional about it. You guys need to step back from the pull of personal loyalty, from your admiration of Randi, and calm down, and really examine your partiality.
Click to expand...

So, you have some impartial evidence that shows these allegations are true, then? Other than theories about Randi's own suppressed memories?
 
Limbo said:
"Randi claimed that he made the tape under the direction of the police chief of Rumson, New Jersey, to entrap harassing obscene callers."

Is there a copy of any kind of police documentation that would prove this?
Click to expand...

These tapes came out in another legal case I believe. They seem to be a matter of public record I would guess.

I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died.
 
The Professor said:
These tapes came out in another legal case I believe. They seem to be a matter of public record I would guess.

I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died.
Click to expand...

"I've heard that the police that were supposedly involved have died."? OK. :confused:
 
Snipped from an email sent to me by The Professor:
Were you the one who molested the young boys like your hero did? Is that why you want to be like him.
Click to expand...

I think most know the implication of "hero".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom