Good News for TAM4

[T'ai Chi]

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.

So by "good living" you actually meant 'making a minimum of $11,250/day'.

 

[CFLarsen]

So by "good living" you actually meant 'making a minimum of $11,250/day'.

That is but one example, yes.

That's over 4 million dollars a year.

 

[T'ai Chi]

That is but one example, yes.

That's over 4 million dollars a year.

Well if you were clear in the first place, which would have been nice, I wouldn't have said any skeptic makes a 'good living', by your definition.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well if you were clear in the first place, which would have been nice, I wouldn't have said any skeptic makes a 'good living', by your definition.

It's not really your day, is it?

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's not really your day, is it?

By "good living" you actually meant 'making a minimum of $11,250/day'. Could you be more specific next time with your definitions?

 

[CFLarsen]

By "good living" you actually meant 'making a minimum of $11,250/day'. Could you be more specific next time with your definitions?

You had no problems making an assumption without knowing this. That you make an a55 out of yourself is not my problem.

Do you agree that JREF is a very small organization?

 

[WonderfulWorld]

Claus, Why do you bother to engage someone who so plainly intends to:

1. Assume
2. Presume
3. Baldly assert without evidence
4. Never, ever think?
   [/list=1]There is a limit to how much time a rational person ought to spend on the intentionally irrational.
   
   Mike.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You had no problems making an assumption without knowing this. That you make an a55 out of yourself is not my problem.

By your standards, someone making $200,000/year must be living in the gutter.

Do you agree that JREF is a very small organization?

Of course. What does that have to do with anything.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Claus, Why do you bother to engage someone who so plainly intends to:

1. Assume
2. Presume
3. Baldly assert without evidence
4. Never, ever think?
   [/list=1]There is a limit to how much time a rational person ought to spend on the intentionally irrational.
   
   Mike.

1. 
   
   Mike, "Never, ever think" is demonstrably false. But you knew that already.
   
   Claus did some assuming as well, but you just don't see (or want to see) it.
   
   He asserts, without evidence, that the RNG's were not calibrated. There are papers saying they were. There are websites saying they were. It is not an extraordinary claim. He has no idea, with certaintly about the Orion, and no idea whatsoever about the other RNG's involved, yet still puts forth his claim that they weren't calibrated. Go figure..

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He asserts, without evidence, that the RNG's were not calibrated. There are papers saying they were. There are websites saying they were. It is not an extraordinary claim. He has no idea, with certaintly about the Orion, and no idea whatsoever about the other RNG's involved, yet still puts forth his claim that they weren't calibrated. Go figure..

He's right - the RNG's were not calibrated. I should know - I was there. In fact, they were quite cavalier in their attitude about it - "Bah! Calibrate, shmalibrate. No one will ever know the difference".

 

[CFLarsen]

Mike, "Never, ever think" is demonstrably false. But you knew that already.

But the other points aren't?

Claus did some assuming as well, but you just don't see (or want to see) it.

We know, Justin: You are the misunderstood genius here.

He asserts, without evidence, that the RNG's were not calibrated. There are papers saying they were. There are websites saying they were. It is not an extraordinary claim. He has no idea, with certaintly about the Orion, and no idea whatsoever about the other RNG's involved, yet still puts forth his claim that they weren't calibrated. Go figure..

Take this to the appropriate thread.

 

[CFLarsen]

By your standards, someone making $200,000/year must be living in the gutter.

No, I am not saying that. You keep inventing stuff. Why do that? You know it will be pointed out. Are you a masochist?

Of course. What does that have to do with anything.

It has everything to do with your argument, Justin. Which you have lost, again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, Why do you bother to engage someone who so plainly intends to:

1. Assume
2. Presume
3. Baldly assert without evidence
4. Never, ever think?
   [/list=1]There is a limit to how much time a rational person ought to spend on the intentionally irrational.
   
   Mike.

1. 
   
   You are quite right about the latter. However, it's so easy to counter his idiotic claims and assertions. It's like shooting ducks in a barrel.
   
   Sometimes, I just wish he would try a bit harder. He's not much of an intellectual challenge.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You are quite right about the latter. However, it's so easy to counter his idiotic claims and assertions. It's like shooting ducks in a barrel.

Sometimes, I just wish he would try a bit harder. He's not much of an intellectual challenge.

Sorry to spoil your beliefs, but all I've said was that some skeptics make a good living, something which you found absurd and attempted to grill me for. However, you defined, after the fact, of course, a good living as a minimum of $11250/day. So you attemtped to grill me on something you defined after the fact, and using a definition of 'good living' that people would find rather a understatement.

You also said that "TAM is Randi's show, it's his Foundation."
]/i], which is partially true. It is his foundation, of course, but TAM is not his show, it is mainly a venue for critical thinkers to get together and discuss related issues and to raise money for JREF. If you think of it as a "show", you apparently view it as entertainment and not education.

 

[Kiless]

....

Anyway, what did people feel about the original hosting of TAM in Florida? How many people here went and what did they think of that part of the country?

I say Australian skeptics should join in with it and everybody go to Sydney.

 

[CFLarsen]

Anyway, what did people feel about the original hosting of TAM in Florida? How many people here went and what did they think of that part of the country?

I think we were about 280-something. It was a stunning show-up, already exceeding expectations by far. It was somewhat marred by the Columbia disaster, but after a break, we pressed on.

The conference was held at the hotel, but we had to get taxis if we wanted to go anywhere. There were shops 10 minutes away, though. Rooms were OK, but it was too bleedin' hot for January!

I say Australian skeptics should join in with it and everybody go to Sydney.

In your dreams, you wallaby...

 

[DanishDynamite]

Danish, I'm looking forward to meeting you again.

Same goes for me, Patricio.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Got a reply from Randi! I've just asked him whether I can disclose the contents here, so until I get a green light, I'll refrain.

I don't think I'll be overstepping any bounds, though, by saying that the reply is encouraging.

 

[T'ai Chi]

He's right - the RNG's were not calibrated. I should know - I was there. In fact, they were quite cavalier in their attitude about it - "Bah! Calibrate, shmalibrate. No one will ever know the difference".

I guess if you are from the Horselaugh school this makes sense.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I guess if you are from the Horselaugh school this makes sense.

That is, in fact, where I matriculated. And the RNG's there were regularly out of calibration too! I guess it's a common thing.