JREF a Gay Organization?

[remirol]

So far, the discussion flow to me appears to have been:

JREF: "The JREF is not an atheist organization."
dglas: "This can only mean that atheists are excluded. I object."
Lots: "No, it means that the JREF is not specifically for atheists, but for critical thinkers."
dglas: "Yes, but it _sounds_ like it is explicitly disavowing atheists. Why is a special statement needed for atheists but not for gays? It looks bad."

... and then it's degenerated into abuse, tantrums, etc.

Someone else said this first, but I'll repeat it: A special statement is required for atheists because to the general public, the JREF could easily be confused for an atheist organization. Unlike American Atheists and other organizations whose sole purpose is to promote atheism, the JREF is involved with many other issues to which critical thinking should be applied, many of which bear no relation whatsoever to atheism -- say, for example, 9/11 conspiracy theories, ghost-hunting and bigfootery. A theist who also happens to be an excellent 9/11 debunker should not be discouraged from supporting the JREF and its activities simply because they are a theist. And there are an awful lot of very intelligent theists out there whose support should not be turned away... as opposed to 9/11 CTers and bigfoot-hunters, who are both a minority and, well, tend to disagree with the JREF on a lot of issues as opposed to just a fringe one.

No special statement is required for gays because nobody whose brains are not in their crotch would confuse the JREF for a gay organization.

 

[zooterkin]

So far, the discussion flow to me appears to have been

It was actually more like:

JREF: "The JREF is not an atheist organization, by which we mean that the JREF is not specifically for atheists, but for critical thinkers."
dglas: "This can only mean that atheists are excluded. I object."
Lots: "No, it means that the JREF is not specifically for atheists, but for critical thinkers."
dglas: "Yes, but it _sounds_ like it is explicitly disavowing atheists. Why is a special statement needed for atheists but not for gays? It looks bad."

...

 

[Cuddles]

It only took you all (with acknowledged exceptions) a month and 10 days to finally realize the OP was using homosexuality as a comparison - a very effective comparison. So effective, in fact, that responses to it perfectly displayed the point, leaving detractors with nothing to resort to but personal attacks. Maybe if I give another year some will figure out what the point of the comparison was.

So you're saying you were using a rhetorical ploy?

these boards are rife with unfortunate persons, using very unfortunate rhetorical ploys, to avoid considering the subject matter.

Indeed.

 

[MikeSun5]

Re: post #401... nominated, and frickin case closed IMO.

 

[dglas]

dglas,

I did not think that you were being homophobic.

Perhaps you would consider answering my question, as I answered yours?

I have, on so very many occasions, indicated what would "make me happy" as you so colloquially put it. Retract the statement and replace it with something neutral. I have even offered suggestions. So, I have answered your question, countless times over. Repeating the question after it has been answered so often is wearisome. Claiming that I have not answered it, when I have many, many times is dishonest. Move on.

 

[dglas]

Re: post #401... nominated, and frickin case closed IMO.

Nominated? For what? Mischaracterizing the discussion?
Is that sorry excuse for an in-clique back-patting award still going?
Are you using the award to push a point? Is that what you think it is for?

Then spend your time elsewhere. You aren't contributing to the subject matter.

 

[dglas]

So you're saying you were using a rhetorical ploy?

Yes, but not a cheap one. Sorry you can't see the difference.

Indeed.

Decoy deployed. Not distracted.

 

[dglas]

Normally I wouldn't overquote like this, but unfortunately, all of the post is an appropriate response to dglas' oft-repeated strawman above. The validity of content is, indeed, independent of the tone in which it is delivered. But the tone of delivery can, indeed, render the content moot. This is what is happening in this case; this is what the above message addresses.

The content is the content. The tone of delivery may render the perception of the content as being moot, but not the content itself. To think the content is affected by the tone is a fallacy. Go back to school.

In any event, this is nonsense because my tone is a direct result of the kinds of abuse I was subjected to by detractors lacking anything other than abuse to wield. The method is: We got nothing, so abuse the poster. When the poster responds angrily to our abuses, hit the poster with a retaliation penalty and pretend we are all innocent of instigating. Bait and report. It's the way things are done at the JREF forums.

Remirol's attempts are off-topic, a deliberate attempt to derail and a terribly mistaken derail based on a profoundly mistaken idea of what constitutes argument of content. Go back to school, Remirol; you desperately need it. The remarkable thing is that if you used this "reasoning" to attack anyone else, you'd be laughed off the stage in humiliation. But people don't want to face this topic, so their reason and logic have abandoned them, in favour of irrelevant, haphazard clutching at disingenuous straws. Remirol's efforts are an attempt to dscredit the poster, while refusing to address the subject matter. Are any of you falling for this? Really? Is this what you have come to?

If it is raining, it is raining. It doesn't matter who says it is raining or what tone they use in saying it. Doesn't influence the material at all. Period.

 

[Fiona]

In any event, this is nonsense because my tone is a direct result of the kinds of abuse I was subjected to by detractors lacking anything other than abuse to wield. The method is: We got nothing, so abuse the poster. When the poster responds angrily to our abuses, hit the poster with a retaliation penalty and pretend we are all innocent of instigating. Bait and report. It's the way things are done at the JREF forums.

If you were correct (and I do not think you are) then it would not be very wise to rise to the tactic, would it? So why do you?

 

[Plagiarius]

With a complete absence of other things to do, I trawled through this thread PRAYING that the opposing parties could come to some sort of agreement. Maybe then something meaningful could be gleaned from this otherwise showy, shouty excercise in ego.

WRONG.

 

[Fiona]

With a complete absence of other things to do, I trawled through this thread PRAYING that the opposing parties could come to some sort of agreement. Maybe then something meaningful could be gleaned from this otherwise showy, shouty excercise in ego.

WRONG.

So that about wraps it up for the power of prayer then? Well that is something

 

[Legato]

As you appear to be the only person who has misunderstood the meaning of the phrases, and it's been explained to you ad nauseum, you should be looking to yourself to find the source of the problem. A special retraction and rephrasing just for you would do more harm than good.

 

[Trent Wray]

I am new here, and a theist, and I understand dlgas' point (I think) --- that in trying to assure non-athiests we are welcome on this forum by making a specific statement saying the AREF isn't an atheistic organization DEVALUES atheists and places them in an "us versus them" stance. In other words, it's like saying, "oh don't worry .... there might be some athiests here, but don't worry ... it's not just athiests"

It is casting a negatory light in the direction of athiesm to single out athiests.

I think what he is failing to understand, however, is that when a certain majority is represented in a given group, and a minority comes along to that group .... the minority naturally wants to test the waters to see if they are "welcome" .. especially if it's a senstive area. IF the organization were promoting pizza and pretzels, it would be one thing. But since it deals with issues that are extremely sensitive to the average person .... it is POLITE and welcoming sometimes to address the minority. And, just from my limited experience thus far, the majority of people in the threads I've frequented seem to be athiests. So I can understand the clarifictaion.

If I walked into a pizza joint full of only caucasians, I'd not really think twice or notice or wonder if I was welcome. If I went to an abortion clinic to research it as an option for myself and there was a group of people outside the clinic praying and raising their hands up in the air, I would question whether or not I was safe to enter the clinic. If a policeman was monitoring their actions, I would feel more secure. It's a matter of circumstances.

I don't think the AREF is "profiling" itself so to speak. I don't think some of the "bullying" I've already seen in the forums is inhuman or out of the ordinary or "devaluing the public perception of athiests".

What it appears though, to be honest, is that dglas is aiming for a sort of skeptic's piousness ... trying to separate out critical thinkers from the rest of the crowd in a superiority type of way, and he is unhappy with the way people behave in the AREF forums. So he is resorting to put-downs and name calling and various forms of manipulation to bring others to a place he thinks will enrich the forums and make them more "perfect" and reflective of the benefits of skepticism and critical thinking, rather than the same type of banter and bullsh$%t you can find on any forum anywhere.

In other words, he seems to be unforgiving of the humanity found here. Which is, actually, the very thing the average person wants to find in order to feel welcome.

It is people who talk like dglas that would drive me off, which is probably what he wants anyway. He reminds me of a preacher on a soap box trying to evangelize the lost, demeaning others to "bring them to dlgas-ism".

It's almost like his posts were a religious tract he was using to convince others to believe as he does or something ... it's very religious

This was just my two cents as a newcomer ... interesting forums for sure. And I meant no offense, just food for thought no one asked me for.

 

[remirol]

The content is the content. The tone of delivery may render the perception of the content as being moot, but not the content itself. To think the content is affected by the tone is a fallacy. Go back to school.

And to pretend that I was saying that the content is affected by the tone is a fallacy: specifically, a strawman.

In any event, this is nonsense because my tone is a direct result of the kinds of abuse I was subjected to by detractors lacking anything other than abuse to wield. The method is: We got nothing, so abuse the poster. When the poster responds angrily to our abuses, hit the poster with a retaliation penalty and pretend we are all innocent of instigating. Bait and report. It's the way things are done at the JREF forums.

1) Two wrongs don't make a right. Most of us learned this in kindergarten.
2) People disagreeing with you is not abuse.
3) It seems that I have a much better grasp of the realities of how to get my point across than you do. Perhaps you should take a lesson from it?

 

[MikeSun5]

Nominated? For what? Mischaracterizing the discussion?

Nope. For a nice summary of this thread.

Is that sorry excuse for an in-clique back-patting award still going?

What clique would that be? The "everyone-but-dglas-clique?" Sorry pal, invites only. Me and remirol are going to go have another cyber-beer.

In any event, this is nonsense because my tone is a direct result of the kinds of abuse I was subjected to by detractors lacking anything other than abuse to wield.

So it's our fault for forcing you to sink down to our level? Shame on us all!!

Remirol's attempts are off-topic, a deliberate attempt to derail and a terribly mistaken derail based on a profoundly mistaken idea of what constitutes argument of content.

Read post #401. It was way more on-topic than most of your rants.

Remirol's efforts are an attempt to dscredit the poster, while refusing to address the subject matter. Are any of you falling for this? Really? Is this what you have come to?

Dude, you seriously don't see that you're doing the same thing???

If it is raining, it is raining. It doesn't matter who says it is raining or what tone they use in saying it. Doesn't influence the material at all. Period.

Understood, and very correct. Your rude, condescending tone does not influence your silly statement or your shaky reasoning behind it. It does make it harder to take seriously, but this topic should never have warranted this long of a discussion anyway. This has been an exercise in hyperbole and self-importance on the part of the OPer, and an exercise in futility and patience for everyone else. dglas - agree to disagree, buddy.

 

[dglas]

Understood..

Evidence?

Wait a minute. I thought you were done here. "Case closed" or some such nonsense, wasn't it?

 

[dglas]

I am new here, and a theist, and I understand dlgas' point (I think) --- that in trying to assure non-athiests we are welcome on this forum by making a specific statement saying the AREF isn't an atheistic organization DEVALUES atheists and places them in an "us versus them" stance. In other words, it's like saying, "oh don't worry .... there might be some athiests here, but don't worry ... it's not just athiests"

It is casting a negatory light in the direction of athiesm to single out athiests.

I think what he is failing to understand, however, is that when a certain majority is represented in a given group, and a minority comes along to that group .... the minority naturally wants to test the waters to see if they are "welcome" .. especially if it's a senstive area. IF the organization were promoting pizza and pretzels, it would be one thing. But since it deals with issues that are extremely sensitive to the average person .... it is POLITE and welcoming sometimes to address the minority. And, just from my limited experience thus far, the majority of people in the threads I've frequented seem to be athiests. So I can understand the clarifictaion.

So you say you see the point and yet you don't recognize the point. WEll, I suppose that's a step better than almost all of the responses so far. I appreciate you making the effort though, even if it turns out to be a contrivance.

There are neutral ways of welcoming newcomers that don't involve distancing from the "majority" as you put it, an "us vs them" approach as you put it. There is more at work here than you are depicting. It is certainly polite to address the "minority" (as you put it), but why must that address be impolite to the majority - so impolite that Randi saw the need to "clarify" it. He knew what he was saying. The clarification itself is evidence of that.

"The JREF welcomes all skeptical thinkers, atheists and theists alike."
How about that one? I could even handle the order being reversed.

If I went into a United Church and asked if it was only for theists do you think they would publicly shout, "The United Church is not a theistic organization." Or do you think they would respond something like, "We welcome everyone." You appear to see the difference in your opening paragraph, and then get lost in pizza (I can understand being distracted by pizza, happens to me a lot, but we must try to maintain focus).

If I walked into a pizza joint full of only caucasians, I'd not really think twice or notice or wonder if I was welcome. If I went to an abortion clinic to research it as an option for myself and there was a group of people outside the clinic praying and raising their hands up in the air, I would question whether or not I was safe to enter the clinic. If a policeman was monitoring their actions, I would feel more secure. It's a matter of circumstances.

I don't think the AREF is "profiling" itself so to speak. I don't think some of the "bullying" I've already seen in the forums is inhuman or out of the ordinary or "devaluing the public perception of athiests".

Again, a neutral statement would have served, wouldn't it, or are you saying that it wouldn't? Because if you are saying a neutral statement wouldn't suffice, then you are effectively saying the minority is trying to impose a perspective on the organization as a whole. I have heard the JREF's foremost deist make his argument about inclusiveness in order to generate funding.

The "devalued" public perception of atheism is a fact. Irrefutable. The headlines and public opinion polls and laws scream it every day. Here in Canada we have laws prohibiting hate literature - unless it's the Bible (which receives a special dispensation). In the states an attempt is being made to overturn an election result because the candidate is an atheist.

When the JREF uses the language it uses, it is pandering to this "devaluation" in order to appease people who would persist in have that "devaluation" maintained and reinforced.

You are mistaken in trying to categorize me as someone preaching atheism from a soapbox (even if such an idea made any sense). Not in this thread anyway; in this thread I am seeking equal time by attempting to negate a specific devaluation, since the JREF apparently sees atheism as something that needs to be publicly apologized for.

What it appears though, to be honest, is that dglas is aiming for a sort of skeptic's piousness ... trying to separate out critical thinkers from the rest of the crowd in a superiority type of way, and he is unhappy with the way people behave in the AREF forums. So he is resorting to put-downs and name calling and various forms of manipulation to bring others to a place he thinks will enrich the forums and make them more "perfect" and reflective of the benefits of skepticism and critical thinking, rather than the same type of banter and bullsh$%t you can find on any forum anywhere.

So, are you now going to claim that advocacy is fundamentalism?
Or that rational standards for argument are fundammentalism?

Is it really so bad to have higher standards of people who call themselves skeptics? When someone claims to argue by means of logic and rationality, it is perfectly legitimate to call them on failures of just that, which is what I am doing in cases like Piscivore, Remirol and some others.

If the religious had some standards for what comprises a good argument, maybe there would be such incredible relativism in the interpretations of so-called objective truths. A topic for another time perhaps.

In other words, he seems to be unforgiving of the humanity found here. Which is, actually, the very thing the average person wants to find in order to feel welcome.

It is people who talk like dglas that would drive me off, which is probably what he wants anyway. He reminds me of a preacher on a soap box trying to evangelize the lost, demeaning others to "bring them to dlgas-ism".

It's almost like his posts were a religious tract he was using to convince others to believe as he does or something ... it's very religious

Ahh. So, you ARE claiming that advocacy is fundamentalism? All that displays, I'm afraid, is a lack of acuity on your part.

"Unforgiving of humanity?" What in the world do you mean by that? It certainly sounds negative - perhaps even pejorative, but what does it mean? Is your idea of humanity vicious ad hominem attacks? Straw men? Discrediting the arguer instead of approaching the argument.

These are public forums, meaning they are open to the public (before the "private sandbox" people get their dander up). People present their ideas and, yes, advocate for them. I am an advocate of a way of thinking, just as anyone else is. This does not put me on the same soapbox as a religious fundamentalist. The core of what I propose involves non-dogmatism. You here, and others like you elsewhere, are making the "forcing freedom on us" argument which doesn't stand up to even the most casual examination.

To depict me as being "religious" because I advocate and publicly defend a position is ridiculous in the extreme. There is a significant difference between advocating non-dogmatism and preaching dogmatic fundamentalism and that difference has to do with the content. I hope you won't make this error again now that you have been given cause to understand that advocacy is not fundamentalism.

Assuming, of course, this was an error, and not just a deliberate mischaracterization. I'll give the benefit of the doubt this time.

Nevertheless, it was as entertaining an attempt at armchair psychology as any I've read. Profoundly misplaced, but entertaining. Sadly, you need more tools than is provided by mere theology to even make an attempt at such with respect to a non-dogmatist.

"There are more to humans than is dreamed of in your theology."

 

[TokenMac]

Again for dglas The JREF Stance on Atheism.

OUR STANCE ON ATHEISM
This is an important, personal, message to all my readers. There has been a heavy discussion going on in the JREF Forum about a basic question introduced by Hal Bidlack, and I quote forum member prewitt81 here:

If, upon my first arrival to this website, the main page of the JREF had declared the foundation to be an atheist society, I would've closed the window and probably never came back. Fortunately, it didn't and I wasn't instantly turned off.

After spending some time here and listening and learning from people with different viewpoints – it is an educational foundation, is it not? – I found out that atheists/agnostics were not the evil or immoral people I had always been taught they were. Nor were they sad and depressed because they “lacked a purpose in life that only faith in a creator could give.” I began to change the way I looked at things. I started questioning my beliefs and trying to rid myself of those that didn't stand up to scrutiny. It is an ongoing process, but I have taken some big steps in what I feel is the right direction. The “me” of yesterday would feel so sorry for me today because of some ideas I have given up, but I look back and feel bad for the little boy who was afraid of an angry God and an eternal Hell. I am happier now.

Leaving the doors open to everyone is, in my opinion, the only way to go. If we turn people away at the door, even inadvertently, we're missing out on a wealth of new potential skeptics. I don't want to even imagine where or what shape I'd be in now, had it not been for the JREF. Once we've offended those that need us most, all that's left is the choir to hear the preaching – if you'll pardon the analogy.

Thank you, Hal. It’s not the first time I’ve heard this, but it inspires me to clear the air on this subject in relation to the JREF. I want this fully understood: the James Randi Educational Foundation is not an atheist organization; it is an organization dedicated to offering down-to-Earth, rational, explanations and discussions of the so-called paranormal, supernatural, and occult happenings and claims with which we are constantly bombarded by the media and by groups – including religious groups – who try to convince us of such matters. While I, as JREF president, and those presently working in our office, are declared atheists, there is no bar against others taking positions with us, appearing on our web page or forum, doing business with us, or attending any of our functions. My personal stance is that religious claims are of the same nature as any other claims made without supporting evidence, that is, they are superstitious claims; if those claims come up for examination by the JREF, they must undergo the same sort of analysis as any others.

I’ve said it before: there are two sorts of atheists. One sort claims that there is no deity, the other claims that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a deity; I belong to the latter group, because if I were to claim that no god exists, I would have to produce evidence to establish that claim, and I cannot. Religious persons have by far the easier position; they say they believe in a deity because that’s their preference, and they’ve read it in a book. That’s their right.

The JREF has a stance against any claim for which no evidence is offered, and that must of course include religious claims. However, if any when anyone claims they have proof of any religious miracle or fact, we ask that it be presented, accepting such a claim in the same way that we accept any other. Religious claims are supernatural claims. If they are offered for examination, discussion, or consideration, or as possible applicants for the JREF prize, they must go through the regular procedure, with no special allowances or exceptions.

We are not, as an organization, atheists – any more than we are Caucasians, Americans, or Republicans. We are citizens of the world who are trying to understand that world, and who challenge irrationality; each of us decides for themselves what we wish to investigate, and what is irrational – and we will disagree productively in that respect. Personally, but not on behalf of the JREF, I look upon religious claims as superstitious in nature; but that does not exempt them from consideration.

I must observe that about 40% of my acquaintances consider themselves to be religious. I don’t often argue the matter with them, but I’m admittedly impatient with them when they try to get me to accept their philosophy merely because it’s easier, or because I can’t prove it to be wrong. We agree to disagree on that subject, but these friends offer me the same delight and satisfaction that I receive from my atheist friends. I mean that, sincerely.

I do not, and I will not, allow my serious atheistic beliefs to interfere with the operation of the JREF. My rationality and my sincerity will not allow me that conceit. The JREF embraces persons of many different varieties of philosophy; there are even two Buddhists among us, though I doubt any Holy Rollers have joined our ranks. We don’t ever ask about religious preferences, because we recognize that all persons have value in the overall picture of our population.

Most definitely, however, I will not change nor soften my statement that I am a concerned, forthright, declared, atheist. I'll never waffle in this respect, and I trust that those who read and/or hear my words will accept and believe that my personal convictions do not alter my dedication to reason, fairness, tolerance, and logic.

I hope that this better explains what we’re all about….

 

[dglas]

If you were correct (and I do not think you are) then it would not be very wise to rise to the tactic, would it? So why do you?

Because if people do not rise to the tactic and fight against it, it remains the norm. If no one argues against it, people will kitten threads, or load them with recipes or "FAIL!" or toy pictures. If wet skeptics do not persist, dry skeptics turn all conversation into meaningless cue-card reading jokes. If you don't oppose the vicious, the vicious are reinforced. If you don't shout, you won't be heard over their insults.

I will not accept the "just take it and shut up" argument. Anyone who takes potshots at me, thinking they can cow me into submission, is going to get it back, both barrels blazing - a rude awakening. I have made Remirol and Piscivore look foolish, and I will continue to do so, until they relent with the foolishness.

If There's No Defiance
It Remains Insane
If It's All Compliance
It's A Runaway Train

There is a "Runaway Train" here on these boards and it is evident in this thread. Vitriol instead of argument. Derision instead of reason. Armchair psychology and other attempts to discredit the individual rather than addressing the argument. Reflexive attack rather than careful consideration. That these people call themselves "skeptics," as if these methods were intellectually honest, is a personal humiliation to me.

Anyone who has sought to be heard has had to speak loudly and clearly, has had to answer abuse and derision, has had to dismiss "just shut up" arguments. You, Fiona, may even know of such examples from history.

When I respond in kind to these people, I am parodying them, mocking them, insulting them and laughing at them - all in hope that someone somewhere will realize that not all skeptics are like the examples displayed by people like Remirol and Piscivore. I am also setting a trap that exposes the bait-and-report biases on these boards. It turns out some can dish it out, but can't take it and then go whining to the mods, and when I persist in the point which they fail to address (see how Remirol is now on the defensive because he was called on his off-topic nonsense?), they then whine, whine whine about their abuse not working. Too damn bad!

Does that answer your question? Or is your question off-topic for this thread? Why, yes, I think it is. Luckily for you, the so-called rules about being on topic don't apply to your illustrious self.

 

[dglas]

Thank you, TokenMac, for posting that.

Dear, Mr. Bidlack,

At precisely what point did the JREF declare itself to be an atheist organization?

No.
Really.
When and where?
Why did Bidlack write this?
What was his point?

TokenMac's printing of Mr. Bidlack's question and Randi's response displays clearly that the JREF proclamation that it is "not an atheist organization" is a response to religious misinterpretation and what effectively amounts to a demand to eschew atheism.

So now, instead of the JREF proclaiming it is an atheist organization (which to my knowledge it has NEVER done!) and turning off believers, it proclaims it is not an atheist organization - to hell with the atheists. And as if there were no possible neutral way of providing inclusiveness. I've provided, what, 10 or so examples now? So, Hal causes the JREF to answer a challenge he assumes is there, that he contrives, but that is not there at all. Are you people starting to get the picture yet? And I am being accused of being overly sensitive? Are you kidding me?

Bidlack passively-aggressively imposed his will on the JREF, and Randi presented his ear for poisoning. So now, the JREF does not provide blanket inclusiveness, but singles out one group for special segregation (outsider, outcast, unclean) and contrives excuses for doing so.

Well played, Mr. Bidlack. Well played. And people lap it up and even make excuses for it

 

[TokenMac]

Thank you, TokenMac, for posting that.

I asked you where got the statement "the JREF is not an atheist organization" many times before, you ignored my request. I was just posting the only official stance by the JREF, because it seemed that you had not read it.

Dear, Mr. Bidlack,

At precisely what point did the JREF declare itself to be an atheist organization?

No.
Really.
When and where?
Why did Bidlack write this?
What was his point?

Bidlack never claimed the JREF ever declared itself an atheist organization.

Bidlack also made his point very clear in his letter, you should read it again.

TokenMac's printing of Mr. Bidlack's question and Randi's response displays clearly that the JREF proclamation that it is "not an atheist organization" is a response to religious misinterpretation and what effectively amounts to a demand to eschew atheism.

Yes the response was to clear up a misinterpretation, but I don't see how a misinterpretation can also be a "demand to eschew atheism". As you pointed out above the JREF never made the claim that is was an atheist organization, so why are you so sure that Randi's statement is to distance himself from atheist, and not just exactly what it seems to be (a clarification of the established goals of the JREF)?

So now, instead of the JREF proclaiming it is an atheist organization (which to my knowledge it has NEVER done!) and turning off believers, it proclaims it is not an atheist organization - to hell with the atheists. And as if there were no possible neutral way of providing inclusiveness. I've provided, what, 10 or so examples now? So, Hal causes the JREF to answer a challenge he assumes is there, that he contrives, but that is not there at all. Are you people starting to get the picture yet? And I am being accused of being overly sensitive? Are you kidding me?

I don't follow, should the JREF when challenged by Bidlack (who wasn't really challenging anything) Have turned of the believers or said to hell with the theist?

Do you feel that you as an atheist have more or a right to the JREF than a theist?

Bidlack passively-aggressively imposed his will on the JREF, and Randi presented his ear for poisoning. So now, the JREF does not provide blanket inclusiveness, but singles out one group for special segregation (outsider, outcast, unclean) and contrives excuses for doing so.

Well played, Mr. Bidlack. Well played. And people lap it up and even make excuses for it

Again I don't think you understood what Bidlack's letter was about, you should read it again.

 

[Trent Wray]

"The JREF welcomes all skeptical thinkers, atheists and theists alike."
How about that one? I could even handle the order being reversed.

Def. I think that is a better statement ... perhaps even simply saying "people of all religious stances, backgrounds, and faiths" or something all inclusive would be even more neutral and "better", not casting a light either way on any particular stance. All inclusive is the key, and I do see the point of how pointing out atheism in particular can be viewed as negatory. It's unfortunate, but it's the status of many a society.

If I went into a United Church and asked if it was only for theists do you think they would publicly shout, "The United Church is not a theistic organization." Or do you think they would respond something like, "We welcome everyone." You appear to see the difference in your opening paragraph, and then get lost in pizza (I can understand being distracted by pizza, happens to me a lot, but we must try to maintain focus).

Actually, I don't think that walking into a United Church is the best analogy. Perhaps (and I had a friend who attended a church like what I'm going to describe) walking into a bar to grab a beer and finding a bunch of people having a church service would be a better analogy. If I walked into such a situation, I could choose to leave or stay on my own of course, but if there was a sign saying what kind of faith was having the service, and whether or not I could still purchase and enjoy my beer or not would help me make a decision of whether or not I would feel like I was intruding, out of place, or welcome, or going to be bothered when I just wanted to down a Sam Adams, etc etc. So clarification in a circumstance where you go somewhere for one thing, but find a gathering of people who generally gather for "fellowship" in a place that is settup for a certain kind of majority .... etc etc I hope you see my point.

But def. .... the same clarification could have been accomplished here perhaps in a neutral way. totally.

The "devalued" public perception of atheism is a fact. Irrefutable. The headlines and public opinion polls and laws scream it every day. Here in Canada we have laws prohibiting hate literature - unless it's the Bible (which receives a special dispensation). In the states an attempt is being made to overturn an election result because the candidate is an atheist.

I'd have to take your word for it. In Xtian circles I see the ignorance toward athiesm, but most of my friends in my "circle" of friends are agnostics, athiests, and general skeptics and "seekers", and I work in the healthcare industry which is more akin to critical thinking and certain types of acceptance (at least in my experience).

So, are you now going to claim that advocacy is fundamentalism?
Or that rational standards for argument are fundammentalism?

Advocacy can lead to fundamentalism, but fundamentalism doesn't have to be a bad thing. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Ghandi, perhaps Mother Theresa ... examples of a type of positive fundamentalism. In general, people seem to respond better to peaceful intentions and a "follow me if you want to, not because I'm making you or looking down on you". People respond to positive reinforcement, and sometimes a good kick in the pants. But negative reinforcement is usually something that we don't always appreciate on heated topics that people hold close to the heart and mind.

I think you'd probably agree .... as your being upset and disenfranchised with JREF's statement is a good example of this. A simple statement can rub someone the wrong way, regardless of it's original intention.

I find that your way of approaching things seems to be more negative reinforcement, than a positive one. It's not a "come on brethren, let's have more respect for ourselves," rather it's a "people disrespect us because of you morons".

This is why I'm comparing the approach of some of your statements to religion, soap boxing, and the like. Because typical religious circles obviously use demoralization of people in order to get them to "be better". For most christians, the highest state of piousness they can achieve is knowing how worthless and sinful they are, etc etc ... thus this makes them righteous and more pious than the rest of the heathen running around. Your approach is similar in that you seem to be condescending to people you think are demoralizing themselves, thinking this will kick them into action to make them treat something as more valuable.

But if you really think someone is "down" ... kicking them while they are down usually doesn't help them back up. Sticking out a hand to hold might, but if they don't grab it or prefer to stay where they are at, then KEEP WALKING. Let it go. It becomes more akin to fundamentalism when you try to convince someone of why they need to get up and walk the way you want them to walk. And if your own personal integrity and value rests on whether or not others are valuing or devaluing your own beliefs, then my guess would be that your own beliefs are not the cornerstone of your own value. Does that make sense? But again ... if you think you are actually "helping" others to see the error in there ways, then I would suggest helping in a different manner than put-downs and whatnot.

Is it really so bad to have higher standards of people who call themselves skeptics? When someone claims to argue by means of logic and rationality, it is perfectly legitimate to call them on failures of just that, which is what I am doing in cases like Piscivore, Remirol and some others.

Again, stating your opinion is cool and what the forums are for. But continuing to hammer someone down who isn't seeing something your way is no different than what a religious person thinks is "their right and responsibility to their kind" so to speak. Have your say and let it go ... getting upset and alienating others and yourself may or may not be the most beneficial thing.

"Unforgiving of humanity?" What in the world do you mean by that? It certainly sounds negative - perhaps even pejorative, but what does it mean? Is your idea of humanity vicious ad hominem attacks? Straw men? Discrediting the arguer instead of approaching the argument.

Unfortunately, my idea of humanity is that we are creatures of extremes. Extreme ignorance as well as extreme intelligence. Extreme compassion as well as extreme cruelty. But I've found (for myself) that attempting to live in a peaceful way is beneficial. It is also beneficial to defend things at certain times, even if this means going against the concept of peace. Such is life. But using fists, even lingual ones, can be unproductive. It's good to know when to pick your battles, and who to fight. It seems to me your punching at the wrong people, people who aren't appreciating it as a sparring match to get more physically fit ... but people who are taking it personally. You know what I'm saying? In this since, it seems as though you're unforgiving of humanity in that you're not willing to give the benefit of the doubt ... the very thing you actually need in order to keep talking in this manner and have the freedom to put down others yourself.

To depict me as being "religious" because I advocate and publicly defend a position is ridiculous in the extreme. There is a significant difference between advocating non-dogmatism and preaching dogmatic fundamentalism and that difference has to do with the content. I hope you won't make this error again now that you have been given cause to understand that advocacy is not fundamentalism.

I don't think it's ridiculous to the extreme. It's that kind of statement that actually causes me to initially lean towards my own view rather than consider yours more objectively.

It's almost as though you feel skeptics and atheists and "thinkers" (obviously only certain ones) on this forum are "whoring around" something you value. That's totally fine and dandy to think or feel that way if that's the case. It's your right, and understandable. But at what point do you understand that the "whores" are not going to stop whoring, acccording to your standards, and you drop the argument? What are you hoping to accomplish by continuing? And I know I'm new ... but I'm wanting to peer deeper into the psyche of someone I see as being a religious athiest (and I still wouldn't use fundamentalist yet either). Since you disagree with a lot of statements, I'm hoping more of your banter and responses will yield insight into the roots of why you are so heated about this. I don't mean to sound like I'm looking at you as a lab rat in a cage being dosed with drugs .... but I am fascinated. Perhaps that's why I poked, to see what I'd get. Just being honest

Nevertheless, it was as entertaining an attempt at armchair psychology as any I've read. Profoundly misplaced, but entertaining. Sadly, you need more tools than is provided by mere theology to even make an attempt at such with respect to a non-dogmatist.

I think you've mistaken that because I'm a theist, that I'm using tools of theology to take part in this conversation I jumped into. I really am not ... I'm trying to understand your behavior from a practical stance of why you behave the way you do LOL. And I mean that in a neutral way, as neutral as possible. People who get fired up and think they are right, especially when they try to combine logic with emotional response --- and defend it ---- fascinate me. Like a moth to the flame.

"There are more to humans than is dreamed of in your theology."

I agree 99.9%. Although you are assuming what my theology is, but that's okay. I would expect an athiest to do that.

j/k! lol. that was a poke and a joke.

thanks for responding by the way. I appreciate it really

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Again for dglas The JREF Stance on Atheism.

I've got a JREF newsletter (the paper kind that members get mailed to them) with a similar statement from Jeff Wagg a year or two ago. I'd transcribe it here but I don't think the histrionic drama queen would even read it.

 

[zooterkin]

Thank you, TokenMac, for posting that.

Dear, Mr. Bidlack,

At precisely what point did the JREF declare itself to be an atheist organization?

No.
Really.
When and where?
Why did Bidlack write this?
What was his point?

It was actually prewitt81's question that was quoted (though I admit Randi's wording is a little unclear on this point).

Let me also point out that this edition of Swift is from August 2005, FFS, so the referenced discussion took place before that. I couldn't find prewitt81's comment by searching the forum, so perhaps it was an email or PM he sent to Hal Bidlack. Perhaps you could ask him, though it seems plain to me what prompted his comments, since Randi says so - there was a forum discussion about it. It probably wasn't the first, and certainly wasn't the last time the topic has been discussed here, and Randi took it as a hook to hang his comments on. His comments which make no disparaging remarks about atheists, mention that he and all the JREF staff are atheists, state that he views religious claims as superstitious; these comments which you think somehow says 'to hell with atheists".

And yet, even though this all took place nearly five years ago, you are still getting upset about a non-issue.

So, Hal causes the JREF to answer a challenge he assumes is there, that he contrives, but that is not there at all. Are you people starting to get the picture yet? And I am being accused of being overly sensitive? Are you kidding me?

Bidlack passively-aggressively imposed his will on the JREF, and Randi presented his ear for poisoning. So now, the JREF does not provide blanket inclusiveness, but singles out one group for special segregation (outsider, outcast, unclean) and contrives excuses for doing so.

Well played, Mr. Bidlack. Well played. And people lap it up and even make excuses for it

Or perhaps you actually have some long-nurtured grudge against Hal Bidlack? I really don't know, I've not been around here long enough, but there seems a certain amount of venom that you're spraying around, and it does not seem justified by the five-year-old statement.

 

[remirol]

I will not accept the "just take it and shut up" argument. Anyone who takes potshots at me, thinking they can cow me into submission, is going to get it back, both barrels blazing - a rude awakening. I have made Remirol and Piscivore look foolish, and I will continue to do so, until they relent with the foolishness.

Ah, this must be why I've been nominated twice for my posts in this thread alone. Because I look foolish.

There is a "Runaway Train" here on these boards and it is evident in this thread. Vitriol instead of argument. Derision instead of reason. Armchair psychology and other attempts to discredit the individual rather than addressing the argument.

And yet you failed to address my response, seeming to instead believe that you can continue your "hit back first" approach and somehow, in the process, convince people that you have any point at all.

I have summed up the reason for which it is necessary to explicitly make a statement regarding atheism and the JREF. TokenMac's repost of the actual statements made by the JREF indicates that indeed, this was the intent behind the JREF's statement as well.

You have built this entire crusade upon a strawman, dglas. The JREF never said anything like you claim it did -- it never explicitly disavowed atheism or anything of the sort. Since your premise was a strawman, your entire "argument" has collapsed like the house of cards it always was. It also appears that many other people are able to see this quite clearly -- that rather than discuss what was _actually said_, you are seeking to intentionally take offense whereever possible, and casting yourself in the "victim" role without understanding that your approach to discussion is solely to blame for the problems you've had.

You claim I am attempting to discredit you -- I need not bother. You're doing a fine job of that yourself.

 

[Piscivore]

I have made Remirol and Piscivore look foolish

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to be appropriately embarrased, if I can fit it in and I remember.

 

[dglas]

See: post 418. "...a basic question introduced by Hal Bidlack..." "Thank you, Hal."

Next evasion, please.

Quoth TokenMac:
"Do you feel that you as an atheist have more or a right to the JREF than a theist?"

No. Why in the world would that question come to your mind?
At no point did I demand any special status for atheists. Only in the tortured phantasms and straw men shamelessly foisted upon us by my detractors has this even been suggested. In fact, I was quite careful, clear and unequivocal to point out, on several occasions that I was not calling for special status for ANYONE. I was calling for strict neutrality. This, of course, has been deliberately lost in the rabid barking and the feast of ad hominems and fallacies conducted by my detractors..

This answers your question; does it satisfy your curiosity?

 

[dglas]

Ah, this must be why I've been nominated twice for my posts in this thread alone. Because I look foolish.

You have been nominated twice because some are trying to use the award as a means of promoting your nonsense, but being nominated for an award perfectly unrelated to the subject matter doesn't lend credibility to your fallacious arguments. In fact, that you lean on irrelevant nominations is further proof of how fallacious your thinking is. If you were being honest, you'd realize this.

And yet you failed to address my response, seeming to instead believe that you can continue your "hit back first" approach and somehow, in the process, convince people that you have any point at all.

There was a time when people would have been unconvinced tat racial issues were a point at all. It is unfortunate to see throwbacks to intellectually impoverished times.

Your arguments have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, including listing the fallacies involved.

I have summed up the reason for which it is necessary to explicitly make a statement regarding atheism and the JREF. TokenMac's repost of the actual statements made by the JREF indicates that indeed, this was the intent behind the JREF's statement as well.

You have built this entire crusade upon a strawman, dglas. The JREF never said anything like you claim it did -- it never explicitly disavowed atheism or anything of the sort. Since your premise was a strawman, your entire "argument" has collapsed like the house of cards it always was. It also appears that many other people are able to see this quite clearly -- that rather than discuss what was _actually said_, you are seeking to intentionally take offense whereever possible, and casting yourself in the "victim" role without understanding that your approach to discussion is solely to blame for the problems you've had.

You claim I am attempting to discredit you -- I need not bother. You're doing a fine job of that yourself.

Bolding mine.

You see, this is where you and I differ. I am interested in the argument. You are interested in discrediting the arguer.

I wonder if you will ever understand this.

 

[dglas]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to be appropriately embarrased, if I can fit it in and I remember.

Keep right on being busy obviously not noticing.

 

[Cavemonster]

In fact, that you lean on irrelevant nominations is further proof of how fallacious your thinking is. If you were being honest, you'd realize this.

You see, this is where you and I differ. I am interested in the argument. You are interested in discrediting the arguer.

Do you miss the irony of these two statements?

 

[dglas]

I've got a JREF newsletter (the paper kind that members get mailed to them) with a similar statement from Jeff Wagg a year or two ago. I'd transcribe it here but I don't think the histrionic drama queen would even read it.

"histrionic drama queen"

Yeah-uh-huh.

I wonder if anyone will notice the personal attack there.

Standard fare from UnrepentantSinner.

 

[dglas]

Do you miss the irony of these two statements?

Given that I have been trying to make a point that has been drowned out in vitriol and stupidity, I wonder if you are aware of the irony in yours?

I am not the aggressor here.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Given that I have been trying to make a point that has been drowned out in vitriol and stupidity, I wonder if you are aware of the irony in yours?

I am not the aggressor here.

You know what, I'm going to assume you're right. You made a point and a lot of people directed anger and hate towards you. Premise accepted.

So, remind me why that makes it ok for you to throw all your toys out of the pram? Attack with a heck of a lot of your own vitriol and spite, ignoring people who are, I believe reasonably and calmly asking you to stop throwing a tantrum because it makes people less inclined to listen to you and simply attacking them with rather nasty and barbed strawmen?

Want an example? Remirol has been saying for quite some time now that no matter how valid your point is, because we're people it's going to get ignored if you scream at people and demand they agree with you. What did you do in response to this rather reasonable and perfectly logical bit of advice? Accused him of claiming your borderline mouth foaming rants somehow have the ARGUMENT altered by your tone. Not only did he never once claim this, but you actually concede his point later on while still pretending that he was making the utterly insane one you attributed to him.

Why on Earth can't you just get over yourself and grow the hell up? Even if you were the poor put upon soul who simply wanted to make a point to the mean bullies in this thread who wouldn't listen, what gives you the right to push back? To bully others? To totally ignore their points and pull what you THINK they are saying out of your ass so you can rip it to shreds in a haze of rage and spite? Why don't you just be the bigger man here, because from the last few pages I have read, I'm amazed anyone is still responding to you.

Heck, a few people even told you that you had got the wrong end of the stick, and that the JREF had addressed the point you made each time they made the offending statement. What did you do, oh paragon of kindness and wisdom? Attacked them for being stupid of course! That's OBVIOUSLY the correct response, especially when whining about how put upon you are.

Good grief.

 

[remirol]

You have been nominated twice because some are trying to use the award as a means of promoting your nonsense, but being nominated for an award perfectly unrelated to the subject matter doesn't lend credibility to your fallacious arguments. In fact, that you lean on irrelevant nominations is further proof of how fallacious your thinking is. If you were being honest, you'd realize this.

You were the one who claimed I "looked foolish", though -- an entirely subjective assessment which is totally unrelated to the subject matter. If you didn't want to try to compete on those grounds, you shouldn't have made such a claim. As it stands now, you've discredited yourself even further by making a claim that was obviously unsupported by the available evidence -- clearly I do not look foolish, and people are listening to what I have to say because I am not trying to be abusive and condescending in my replies.

Again, perhaps you could take a lesson from this.

You see, this is where you and I differ. I am interested in the argument. You are interested in discrediting the arguer.

With such mind reading skills, you should apply for the MDC. Let me know how your application goes; I am interested in seeing you tested.

You could also just go back and read the posts in which I did directly address the argument rather than your failed approach, but you've been cherry-picking around those (from everyone, not just me) since this thread started; I see no reason that you'll change now.

 

[MikeSun5]

I am interested in the argument. You are interested in discrediting the arguer.

After all of dglas' insults and attacks, I'm just going to let the absurdity of that statment sink in a little...
.
.
.
...okay, I'm good. Wow.

dglas, the case IS closed. You are the only one who thinks this topic is worth fighting over. I just looked at the randi.org homepage, the "about us" tab, and I skimmed through the JREF's wikipedia entry, and I didn't see anything that stated the JREF is not an atheist organization (or that it is one). So if that statement was made at all, it's not part of what your everyday uninitiated person researching the JREF will see.

Again, you are wasting your good grammar and bad attitude on an unimportant topic that will probably never be raised outside of this thread.

 

[TokenMac]

Quoth TokenMac:
"Do you feel that you as an atheist have more or a right to the JREF than a theist?"

No. Why in the world would that question come to your mind?

This...

So now, instead of the JREF proclaiming it is an atheist organization (which to my knowledge it has NEVER done!) and turning off believers, it proclaims it is not an atheist organization - to hell with the atheists.

It seems here that you are ignoring the point of Randi's letter on purpose, but I could be wrong.

This answers your question; does it satisfy your curiosity?

You kind of answered one of my questions but you ignored all the rest, so no my curiosity is not satisfied.

 

[zooterkin]

Advocacy can lead to fundamentalism, but fundamentalism doesn't have to be a bad thing. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, Ghandi, perhaps Mother Theresa ... examples of a type of positive fundamentalism.

I don't think that evil old woman deserves to be in that list as a positive example. I'm also not clear what sort of fundamentalism you are talking about with respect to the others.

 

[remirol]

This would seem to be the logical continuation of the discussion, but nobody appears to want to ask the obvious questions, so...

So far, the discussion flow to me appears to have been:

JREF: "The JREF is not an atheist organization."
dglas: "This can only mean that atheists are excluded. I object."
Lots: "No, it means that the JREF is not specifically for atheists, but for critical thinkers."
dglas: "Yes, but it _sounds_ like it is explicitly disavowing atheists. Why is a special statement needed for atheists but not for gays? It looks bad."

... and then it's degenerated into abuse, tantrums, etc.

Someone else said this first, but I'll repeat it: A special statement is required for atheists because to the general public, the JREF could easily be confused for an atheist organization.

But what's wrong with being confused with an atheist organization? That implies that there's something 'bad' about being an atheist, doesn't there?

Not at all, because we're talking about atheist organizations, not atheists themselves. Besides the reasons outlined in the original message (which you conveniently snipped, you dishonest little bugger) an atheist organization is two things the JREF is not:

1) An advocacy group for a specific position
2) An inherently exclusive organization

Addressing these in order -- the JREF does not inherently advocate any single specific position. It is an educational foundation whose mission is to promote and encourage critical thinking in all aspects of our lives -- a broad brush rather than a single dot.

But what about the MDC? Isn't that taking a position that the paranormal doesn't exist?

Somewhat -- but that position is open to change, based on someone successfully demonstrating paranormal abilities per the MDC terms, which is quite unlike any other advocacy group. Also, it is not required to agree with that position to support the JREF's goals, nor to use critical thinking... which leads me directly to point #2.

Atheist organizations desire that all their members be atheists, for some relatively obvious reasons. As such, it is inherently exclusive of theists; one could not expect to join American Atheists as a practicing, devout Catholic and not feel just a bit on the "wrong side of the tracks". And this is fine for an advocacy organization -- but it does serve to limit that organization's growth and membership. It divides into "us & them", and sets itself firmly on the side of "us".

The JREF, on the other hand, as an educational foundation with the above-stated goals, would be ill served by intentionally excluding _anyone_. As stated previously, one can be both a theist and a superb 9/11 debunker, and accidentally discouraging that person from joining the JREF because they were confused about the nature of the JREF would be a sad moment.

But why would they be confused? I mean, don't they read?

Critical thinking is not an inherited skill, but a learned one. A large number of the members of the JREF are atheists, some quite outspoken ones. In addition, the JREF members often associate with high-profile atheists. Someone who is not used to thinking critically is very likely to make the fallacy of hasty generalization, and presume that because the members they see are atheists, that the entire organization must be composed of atheists.

One of the key components of critical thinking is to understand that not only does the rest of the world not think rationally, but that we ourselves frequently do not, as much as we may make an effort to. By allowing for the mistakes of others and being willing to compensate for them in reasonable circumstances, we can improve our own chances of teaching others the benefits of such an approach. In this case, we know one mistake we can safely expect others to make, so we can correct it with a few words at no cost to ourselves.

Oh yeah? You're just a poo head.

OK, you're on ignore.

 

[dglas]

dglas, the case IS closed.

If you feel that there is nothing more to say, then please do feel free to not say anything

Or do feel free to join Piscivore in the corner desperately making a point of "not noticing."

I have been busy trying to present a topic matter, and when the opportunity presents (read: someone not just flinging crap from their cage shows up), I do. You have been busy trying to make sure the opportunity never presents by flooding the bandwidth with aggressively meaningless noise. I know you don't understand the distinction, but that's the level of discussion at these forums.

That's the "educational" function of the JREF at work.

 

[dglas]

This...
It seems here that you are ignoring the point of Randi's letter on purpose, but I could be wrong.


You kind of answered one of my questions but you ignored all the rest, so no my curiosity is not satisfied.

"Kind of answered"

Are you serious? I could not possibly have more clearly and unequivocally answered the question. it is not possible to answer more clearly than I did, and you say "kind of answered." I am almost curious what, in your mind, a clear, unequivocal and unambiguous answer would look like. Would it help if I put it all in caps-lock for you?

Let's go over it again:
"No. Why in the world would that question come to your mind?
At no point did I demand any special status for atheists. Only in the tortured phantasms and straw men shamelessly foisted upon us by my detractors has this even been suggested. In fact, I was quite careful, clear and unequivocal to point out, on several occasions that I was not calling for special status for ANYONE. I was calling for strict neutrality. This, of course, has been deliberately lost in the rabid barking and the feast of ad hominems and fallacies conducted by my detractors.."

Bolding offered to make the obvious even more obvious. Oh, what the hell. let's pull it out of the paragraph and place it on its own. I'll even use separate paragraphs to help pare down distractions.

At no point did I demand any special status for atheists.

I was not calling for special status for ANYONE.

I was calling for strict neutrality.

Bolded again, just in case it helps.

These are quotes from the above paragraph, which was my answer to your question, "Do you feel that you as an atheist have more or a right to the JREF than a theist?" What's to misunderstand about my answer? Do you still think I "kind of" answered your question?

I do not think I have more of a right to the JREF than a theist does. I do, however, feel I have just as much of a right to not be officially cordoned off for special dissociation because I am an atheist. But, of course, this isn't about me; it's about perpetuating negative connotations by reinforcing them. The people who tried to make it about me were the ones attacking the arguer instead of the argument. And those asking leading questions trying to make it look like it is about me - like you just did. You didn't like my answer, despite its clarity, because it didn't accept the premise you tried to pull over our eyes.

Do you really imagine you can get stuff like this past anyone? When did you decide everyone was too stupid to notice a leading question when they were being bludgeoned with one?