Post your ideas and suggestions here

[Scepcop]

Hi folks,
I created this board for you to share your ideas and suggestions for improving this site or for what we could do with SCEPCOP.

We can explore ideas here, brainstorm, or coordinate plans and projects. I'm all ears.

At this point, we don't have the resources to publish a hardcopy magazine. But we can always write online articles.

I was thinking that maybe me and a few others should write some articles debunking some of the professional skeptic articles. For now, we could take some episodes of Michael Shermer's Paranormal investigation programs on YouTube, of which there are obvious flaws to expose, and debunk them point by point including his flawed conclusions at the end of each episode.

What do you all think?

Also, if you have any requests for new board topics, this is the place to post them as well.

Thanks,
Vinstonas

[ciscop]

what about a BULLSH!T forum
they have failed in some episodes
i can recall the SECOND HAND SMOKING EPISODE
they have their information wrong
and it was showed on national tv

[Scepcop]

Are you referring to the Pen and Teller show?

If so, yeah that show is very sloppy and unprofessional and just plain annoying sometimes.

But why are you saying this? I thought you were on their side?

[Frank Lee]

I suggest banning the delusional member known as "The Professor". He's really not doing the the Believer movement any favors. His nonsensical trolling of this board to feed his narcissism hurts more than it helps.

Frank Lee

[Frank Lee]

I see "The Professor's" most recent attempt to start trouble has been locked. This is a wise first step. I've seen enough of his trolling on a couple of other boards (from which he was eventually banned) to suggest that he probably won't stop his behavior, but good luck. Maybe with his options dwindling he'll value his membership here enough to knock it off.

I know this board is small now, but if you ever hope to grow and be taken seriously, members like "The Professor" are going to have to be weeded out or the damage he causes will result in this forum withering on the vine.

Frank Lee

[Scepcop]

[Frank Lee]

[Scepcop]

Well the Professor came and started posting about Randi and the link to the sex tapes. He didn't come here attacking individual skeptic posters directly. Then the skeptics followed him in here and started debating him, in defense of Randi. That's what it seems like. Am I wrong?

After that, lots of ad homineum and character attacks ensued.

I've already told the Professor to be careful with slanderous or libelous remarks here, which might incite threats of legal action from JREF.

It's probable that Randi already knows about SCEPCOP and the discussions in this forum about him. He's not stupid, though very closed minded no doubt.

You know, I've been on forums before where SOMEONE ELSE started the mudslinging at me first, and yet I was the one who eventually got banned for it, not the perpetrators. Is that unfair or what? Of course it is. But humans are subjective and emotional, not logic, so hence, regardless of who started it, I was the one seen as the one disrupting the crowd, because the moderators disliked me. It was highly subjective. I broke no rules, I only riled up people. So I was banned cause they disliked me. It was subjective. And that's what I try to keep out of here, subjectivity. You will find that me and Eteponge, the one I made moderator, are very fair and objective in our judgments. At least give us credit for that.

[Frank Lee]

[Scepcop]

Hi Frank,
Can you show me how the Professor's posts about the Randi sex tapes were a "character attack"? From what I remember, he simply posted the link to them and asked honest questions about them that no one would answer. There is nothing wrong with that, since the existence of the tapes is an objective fact and constitutes "hard evidence".

As to character attacks, well as long as he doesn't lie or make false statements of facts, opinions about another person's character are protected under Free Speech. Didn't you know that? Opinions on the internet are protected under Free Speech, as long as they are not overt lies and do not contain false facts.

Besides, it cuts both ways. The skeptics made many character attacks on The Professor too.

Yes I agree that libel and slander are wrong. But can you show me where he committed such?

You claim to be fair right? Let me ask you this then. In that NAMBLA thread that was locked, the skeptics started insinuating that The Professor was the head of it and even called for others to email Universal Studios to try to get him in trouble about it. Do they have any objective evidence that he is the head of NAMBLA? If not, then they could be committing libel, as well as jeopardizing The Professor's employment (he has a family to raise too). Thus they had the potential to cause damage to his personal life. Was that right in your view? Were the skeptics wrong to do that?

Another question for you. Randi admitted that he lied when he said that he did the same tests as Rupert Sheldrake and debunked them. Do you think it was right for Randi to lie? Is it ok for him to lie, since he is on your side? Are you able to call him out when he does wrong too?

Suppose it were 100 percent proven that Randi lied simply to try to refute someone he couldn't refute. Would that be wrong in your eyes?

Look I do not claim to be 100 percent fair and objective, but at least I am much MORE fair and objective than the average person. Agreed?

Look I understand your disgust at the sex tapes issue. But as long as he simply asks honest questions about them, I don't see why that is wrong or illegal. They exist, and bringing them up in and of itself is not libel or a false statement of fact. I'm just being technical about this.

Besides, I can see why he is pressing this issue. It is very understandable. He is using a very effective strategy that is even mentioned in Sun Tzu's "Ancient Art of War", which is to press your strength onto your opponent's weakness. These tapes are obviously an Achilles Heel on Randi, which he dreads and avoids like the plague, for obvious reasons. They have the ability to destroy his reputation, if the mainstream public found out about them and heard them. And that's what enemies and opponents do in battle or debate, they find the other side's weakness and exploit it, or press on it. If your objective is to win, then it's a very logical and effective strategy.

For instance, if we were playing tennis, and I discovered that you had a weak and unsteady backhand, I would exploit that and start hitting my best shot (my forehand) to your backhand to draw out more errors, and thus greatly increasing my chances of winning. It's a simple logical strategy - focusing your strength on your opponent's weakness.

In Randi and the Professor's case, Randi's weakness/achilles heel are those sex tapes, and the Professor's strength is that he is a showman and showmen are good at getting attention, so thus he is trying to draw attention to Randi's weakness. Thus, it is a logical strategic move, even if you don't like it. And a legal one too.

Comprendo?

Incidentally, I also use the same strategy in my treatises against pseudoskepticism and Christian fundamentalism. I find the points that they can't refute or explain away, and emphasize them, to score big points.

Now, if you are arguing that the sex tapes are a cut and dried case, then simply answer his questions about it, and then the case will be closed. But the skeptics are NOT answering his questions about it, so they act like they have something to hide.

As far as I know, these questions have not been answered fully:

1. Who taped these conversations and why? If Randi taped them, then who ordered him to do it? And why? If it was the police, where is the proof for this?
2. How did those tapes get into public hands?
3. Why was Randi expressing interest in getting blow jobs from those boys and giving blow jobs to them in the taped conversations, and also making arrangements to meet up with them?
4. Where is the evidence to back up Randi's claim that the police ordered him to have these conversations to trace boys who were blackmailing him?
5. Where is the evidence that these boys were blackmailing him? I didn't hear any indication in the conversations that Randi was being blackmailed.

Until those questions are adequately answered, people have a right to suspect that something is being hidden or covered up. Do they not?

Are you able to answer those questions?

There is nothing wrong with simply asking questions, right?

Have you even listened to the 7 audio files? If so, I'd like to get your objective analysis and opinion of them.

You also have to take into account that what Randi does naturally will make him a lot of enemies. He is not a uniter, he does not preach love, kindness and connectedness. He does not uplift other people either. Instead, he is an attacker and divider, who loves to see his opponents go down and thrives on it. So of course he is going to make a lot of enemies. Duh. What did you expect?

[Frank Lee]

[ciscop]

for me dave koenig has every right of posting the tapes
is freedom of speech right?
i just dont see the point if he doesnt pursuit
like he really believe in
he is just using them as an attack on randi
chances are he already know where does tape came from
but he is pledging ignorance to play us all
just like he has done in other forums
that guy is delusional


and about penn and teller
i think they are great,
but they have been wrong in many episodes
like the one i told you of second hand smoking
i also think they were off topic on hypnosis
and i think they did a poor job on recycling too i might be wrong

[brett]

tell you what why don't we just ban ALL discussion of jref /randi - it seems this subject has taken over this site to the exclusion of a lot of other interesting posts that remain unanswered or totally ignored - if as "appears" to be the case the jref/randi " issue is a spill over from other sites where various people have been evicted from - why don't they go set up a site SPECIFICLY to discuss this issue

frankly people the whole saga is getting very boring - and no doubt putting off some who would have posted here but for this continuing saga - i though this board was about debunking skeptics and PsKeptics - and their arguments - not as it is turning into , a flipping war zone for the pro/anti Randi people

jref / randi are of no interest to a lot of us outside the states - or is it that those of us from else where are not wanted here ??

i am beginning to wonder .

[NinjaPuppy]

I agree with you Brett. I made a similar comment on viewtopic.php?f=7&t=282 yesterday.

IMO, it seems that most of this animosity is nothing more than a spam attempt of a personal agenda/vendetta spawning from one member.

[ciscop]

2 members now..
highflyertoo has a antirandi agenda too

that guy is actually nuts, he was in a mental institution for week according to his own words. (look for the link on JREF blacktapes)

so.. yeah..
jref forum is just a bunch of attacks from both sides.. so.. i dont see the point