Whoa, am I psychic?

I have been reading Randi's Newsletter since before this forum was here. This week, I tried to read Swift, but my heart wasn't in it and I felt my eyes just kind of skimming over the topics.

I wonder if I'm the only one.
 
I know what you mean.

I skimmed through it to find a reference to this topic.
When I didn't find it, I just flicked back to the forum.
I expect I'll get over it though.

...in time.
 
I must be psychic. I could have told you last week he would not make any reference to this topic again. This is not a university. Swift is one old man giving his opinion. Generally Swift is of a high standard with plenty of good references. Forgive him if he is proved to be less than perfect. We know that what says is better than educated guesses.

If he starts making a habit of not giving references then that is a worry. We are a long way from that though.
 
rjh01 said:
If he starts making a habit of not giving references then that is a worry. We are a long way from that though.
Click to expand...
Well, obviously the copying is a habit, whether the lack of crediting is, nobody knows, although maybe you could use those psychic powers to let us in on it...

I repeat his own words:
I downloaded, edited, vetted, stored, juggled, and otherwise handled the huge amount of text that I have to organize in order to produce this page every week
Click to expand...
 
How many is a habit? The answer is a matter of opinion. Anything from twice to almost once a month.

My opinion
If you can find another failure to attribute or worse in the 5 editions on either side of the one Randi was caught then it would be a major worry.
 
fls said:
So you are saying that we should have been skeptical all along that Randi was the author of his words? That seems more cynical than skeptical to me.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's not what I was saying; I was saying that we should not be reading what Randi writes with the expectation that everything is above reproach, or even accurate. There have been several instances of Randi writing stuff that was not accurate just in the short time I've been here (such as the stuff about pro-creation literature at the Grand Canyon), and now an instance of plagiarism.

My point is that we shouldn't be surprised that such things happen; nor should it mean that suddenly Randi is less deserving of respect or consideration. It is obvious that we should regard what Randi writes with as much a skeptical eye as what anyone else writes; and when he makes mistakes, or acts in a way that we find questionable, we certainly should hold him accountable. It is the sense of 'shock' or 'betrayal' by some members here that concerns me...the implicit assumption behind that being that Randi is somehow less prone to the weaknesses and errors shared by the rest of mankind.
I think your disclaimer is unnecessary. I did not see anyone state that their disappointment was due to discovering that he makes mistakes.

Linda
Click to expand...
Perhaps my choice of the word "mistake" was not the best -- it could have two different meanings. The meaning I intend is simply to do something wrong (whether knowingly or unknowingly); you obviously read it as the stricter sense of doing something unknowingly. That's ok. Let me re-state it so say that some people were shocked/disappointed to learn that Randi could do wrong.

And let me also clarify here that obviously my comments are not directed at every person here. If the reactions I describe are not your reactions, then my comments are not directed at you.
 
rjh01 said:
I must be psychic.
Click to expand...
Really?

rjh01 said:
I could have told you last week he would not make any reference to this topic again.
Click to expand...
Could have? Yep, you sound like a "psychic" allright. :D
(On the other hand I did say that. Not sure what that makes me though :( )

rjh01 said:
Swift is one old man giving his opinion.
Click to expand...
Not sure if he appreciates your support. :nope:

rjh01 said:
Generally Swift is of a high standard with plenty of good references. Forgive him if he is proved to be less than perfect.
Click to expand...
One example of blatant plagiarism, even whilst admitted, was bad enough. The attack on the forum's barking dogs was galling. And the cover up was appalling.
And his continued silence deafening.
 
Meanwhile, here's a picture of the old man...

images


He's not losing any sleep. :D

(Oh, come on, I'm only joking now.)
 
rjh01 said:
How many is a habit? The answer is a matter of opinion. Anything from twice to almost once a month.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The point is there is no apology, only an attack on those that question Randi and a bunch of sad excuses. That's rudeness and arrogance.
 
Wolfman said:
Originally Posted by fls
So you are saying that we should have been skeptical all along that Randi was the author of his words? That seems more cynical than skeptical to me.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's not what I was saying;
Click to expand...

However, it is what we were saying.

I was saying that we should not be reading what Randi writes with the expectation that everything is above reproach, or even accurate. There have been several instances of Randi writing stuff that was not accurate just in the short time I've been here (such as the stuff about pro-creation literature at the Grand Canyon), and now an instance of plagiarism.

My point is that we shouldn't be surprised that such things happen; nor should it mean that suddenly Randi is less deserving of respect or consideration. It is obvious that we should regard what Randi writes with as much a skeptical eye as what anyone else writes; and when he makes mistakes, or acts in a way that we find questionable, we certainly should hold him accountable. It is the sense of 'shock' or 'betrayal' by some members here that concerns me...the implicit assumption behind that being that Randi is somehow less prone to the weaknesses and errors shared by the rest of mankind.
Click to expand...

We understand that. I don't think you understand. The sense of "shock" or "betrayal" (the continued gross exaggeration of the actual reaction by using terms like that doesn't help the situation, either) is not because Randi is considered less prone to weaknesses and errors. It is because he made a particular kind of error - an error that would be disappointing to discover any person had made, not just Randi.

Let me re-state it so say that some people were shocked/disappointed to learn that Randi could do wrong.

And let me also clarify here that obviously my comments are not directed at every person here. If the reactions I describe are not your reactions, then my comments are not directed at you.
Click to expand...

My point is that I don't think your comments apply to any person here. I don't think anyone indicated that they thought Randi could do no wrong until this episode, or that realizing this led to shock/disappointment.

This thread has gone on for six pages because others have insisted on mischaracterizing the actual complaints, not because anyone thinks it's worth six pages of discussion. So for the dead horse beating to stop, either we have to concede that we're all a bunch of hysterical Chicken Little's, or you have to concede that you've been beating a unicorn.

Linda
 
You know what would be really cute, Linda? If you could make that dog.....bark! :)
 
BillyJoe said:
You know what would be really cute, Linda? If you could make that dog.....bark! :)
Click to expand...

:)

I wanted to do that, but it's beyond my skills, so I decided to be satisfied with just the watchdog (not that he's a particularly useful watchdog - too friendly and rarely barks anyway).

I thought it might be even more fun to request that my title be changed to "forum watchdog" (espcially since I don't like "Muse" - seems a little woo). But then it gives the wrong impression. I'm really not a "tell other people how to behave" kind of person (as you know, I'm more likely to defend the right to act like a dick ;)), which makes this situation unusual.

Linda
 
fls said:
:)

I wanted to do that, but it's beyond my skills, so I decided to be satisfied with just the watchdog (not that he's a particularly useful watchdog - too friendly and rarely barks anyway).

I thought it might be even more fun to request that my title be changed to "forum watchdog" (espcially since I don't like "Muse" - seems a little woo). But then it gives the wrong impression. I'm really not a "tell other people how to behave" kind of person (as you know, I'm more likely to defend the right to act like a dick ;)), which makes this situation unusual.

Linda
Click to expand...

He is a handsome dog. He looks kind of like a yellow lab and a pit bull--
That reminds me of the "does your dog bite?" joke that Richard Wiseman told.
He is your dog, isn't he? What is his name. (I know I'm digressing, but the horse is dead...and the dog appears to be eager for attention.)
 
articulett said:
He is a handsome dog. He looks kind of like a yellow lab and a pit bull--
That reminds me of the "does your dog bite?" joke that Richard Wiseman told.
He is your dog, isn't he? What is his name. (I know I'm digressing, but the horse is dead...and the dog appears to be eager for attention.)
Click to expand...

That's a nice looking dog, and a nice picture. The new avatar was a bit jarring when reading this, though ;)

fls said:
And just so you know, my avatar is a picture of me, taken by myself. I would feel guilty if I used copyrighted material without attribution and the permission of the copyright owner, even for as trivial a matter as an avatar. Although, I'm not entirely sure how one goes about adding an attribution to an avatar.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by articulett
He is a handsome dog. He looks kind of like a yellow lab and a pit bull--
That reminds me of the "does your dog bite?" joke that Richard Wiseman told.
Click to expand...

I HATE it when someone does that!!!

He is your dog, isn't he? What is his name. (I know I'm digressing, but the horse is dead...and the dog appears to be eager for attention.)
Click to expand...

By all means come over and give him attention - you'll wear out before he does. :)

He is a yellow lab - his head looks heavier in the picture (maybe the cropping) - named "Xaero" (character from some computer game my oldest son was into at the time).

So are you going to tell us the joke?

Folly said:
That's a nice looking dog, and a nice picture. The new avatar was a bit jarring when reading this, though ;)

Originally Posted by fls
And just so you know, my avatar is a picture of me, taken by myself. I would feel guilty if I used copyrighted material without attribution and the permission of the copyright owner, even for as trivial a matter as an avatar. Although, I'm not entirely sure how one goes about adding an attribution to an avatar.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And when I switch it back to a picture of myself, someone will come along and read this thread and say, "that's a bit mean....she's not that much of a dog." :)

Linda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom