Good News for TAM4

[T'ai Chi]

[B
Skeptics don't make a good living being skeptics,

[/b]

Except Shermer, Randi, Kurtz, and others, that is.

 

[T'ai Chi]

There's still a bunch of people that I want to see:

Ray Hyman, Susan Blackmore, Roger Culver & Philip Ianna, Jared Diamond, Thomas Gilovich, Terence Hines (he was at TAM1 and 2, but didn't speak), Nicholas Humphrey, Philip Klass, Larry Kusche, Mary Lefkowitz, Deborah Lipstadt, David Marks, Jeffrey Victor, Massimo Polidoro.....to name a few.

It really surprises me that you don't additionally list the people hold well-reasoned different views from the Skeptic mainstream, like Utts, Josephson, Sheldrake, etc.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I don't think of TAM as a "RandiLoveFest" at all. It isn't exactly one string of speakers, extolling the virtues and feats of Randi.

"TAM is Randi's show, it's his Foundation."

 

[CFLarsen]

Except Shermer, Randi, Kurtz, and others, that is.

If you are privvy to their personal finances, please share your knowledge.

 

[CFLarsen]

It really surprises me that you don't additionally list the people hold well-reasoned different views from the Skeptic mainstream, like Utts, Josephson, Sheldrake, etc.

I note that you say "view" and not "evidence". If they have the latter, let's see it.

I seriously doubt that they would come. If they did, I can assure you that there would be a barrage of questions waiting for them. Really, really tough ones.

 

[CFLarsen]

"TAM is Randi's show, it's his Foundation."

Yes, it is. However, it is far from a RandiLoveFest.

You would know if you had been there. But you haven't. I have, though. All three times.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you are privvy to their personal finances, please share your knowledge.

You assume that.

I just reason that becuase they have their own organizations they can't be doing all that bad. Right?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I seriously doubt that they would come. If they did, I can assure you that there would be a barrage of questions waiting for them. Really, really tough ones.

But are you interested in seeing them at a TAM or not? Wouldn't debating with 'the other side' be productive?

 

[CFLarsen]

You assume that.

I am asking if you were privvy to their personal finances. You weren't.

I just reason that becuase they have their own organizations they can't be doing all that bad. Right?

Wrong. You cannot assume that because they have their own organizations, they are making a good living.

Do you know just how big the JREF "organization" is? How many persons work there?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes, it is. However, it is far from a RandiLoveFest.

You would know if you had been there. But you haven't. I have, though. All three times.

It is "Randi's show", according to you. According to Randi and the JREF, it is for the skeptical community and to raise $ for the JREF. I'll go with their take on it.

 

[CFLarsen]

But are you interested in seeing them at a TAM or not? Wouldn't debating with 'the other side' be productive?

I would want to see some evidence. Debating for debate's sake is a waste of time.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is "Randi's show", according to you. According to Randi and the JREF, it is for the skeptical community and to raise $ for the JREF. I'll go with their take on it.

Selecting quotes again, are you? I said: "TAM is Randi's show, it's his Foundation."

You just can't be honest for two seconds, can you?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Dibs on the Skepchicks!

 

[T'ai Chi]

I am asking if you were privvy to their personal finances. You weren't.

No, you didn't "ask" at all. You wrote:

"If you are privvy to their personal finances, please share your knowledge."

Wrong. You cannot assume that because they have their own organizations, they are making a good living.

It is a very reasonable assumption.

Do you know just how big the JREF "organization" is? How many persons work there?

Again, an organization being around for some time being an indicator is a very reasonable assumption. I don't know any numbers, nor do I need to to make my reasonable assumption.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Selecting quotes again, are you? I said: "TAM is Randi's show, it's his Foundation."

You just can't be honest for two seconds, can you?

Does leaving out "it's his Foundation" change the content of what you said?

You just can't stop the personal attacks for two seconds, can you?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you didn't "ask" at all. You wrote:

"If you are privvy to their personal finances, please share your knowledge."

It is a very reasonable assumption.

Since you have no idea how big it is, it is very unreasonable. It was simply a cheap shots at skeptics.

Again, an organization being around for some time being an indicator is a very reasonable assumption. I don't know any numbers, nor do I need to to make my reasonable assumption.

Three, Justin. Randi, Linda and Kramer. Sometimes, they have an intern. You can walk around the JREF building in less than 30 seconds.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is a very reasonable assumption.

No it isn't. Not even close.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No it isn't. Not even close.

Well, I guess we'd need to know what Claus meant by "good living". Just what does that mean?

I'd say Shermer, Randi, and Kurtz, for example, are doing just fine. That is my guess. And that is not a jab at skeptics. Why would it be to assume that a few skeptics are successful in more than one area?

 

[CFLarsen]

Does leaving out "it's his Foundation" change the content of what you said?

You just can't stop the personal attacks for two seconds, can you?

Not a personal attack, Justin. Yes, I am pointing out that it changes the meaning of what I said. Standing alone, it seems as if I could be arguing that it is a RandiLoveFest. But I included the Foundation to show that it is not.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, I guess we'd need to know what Claus meant by "good living". Just what does that mean?

I'm talking Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James van Praagh-style good living. Think I am kidding? Sylvia Browne claims to be doing 15-20 readings a day, at $750 a pop, and so do members of her staff. Then, add her book sales, tours, TV appearances, etc, etc.

You do the math.

I'd say Shermer, Randi, and Kurtz, for example, are doing just fine. That is my guess. And that is not a jab at skeptics. Why would it be to assume that a few skeptics are successful in more than one area?

Your guess, yes.