SF Weekly: "Who's Crazier - Birthers or Truthers?"

[Orphia Nay]

"So who's crazier, birthers or truthers? The analysis of this question requires some subtlety. The birther position -- that Obama's birth certificate is invalid for any number of reasons -- is fairly banal when compared to the insane grand narrative of truthers, whose conspiracy theory takes detours through the realms of physics and international politics. However, the birther position, supported as it is by a simple refusal to recognize that a birth certificate is, in fact, a birth certificate (see above, again) is more patently idiotic.

"Our final verdict: Truthers are crazier. Birthers are dumber. In the name of the Illuminati, let's hope these people don't mingle among each other and reproduce."

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/09/versus_whos_crazier_--_birther.php

:D

[Arus808]

lovely ^_^ birthers are dumber...truthers are crazier...they should be equally be derided

[Perfume V]

It does sort of cheer me how quickly the epithet 'Birthers' has stuck. There was a time not very long ago when it felt like something that was only used among skeptics as a humorous nod to the similarities in reasoning between the two conspiracy groups. It's pretty funny that it's become the commonly-accepted term.

[jakesteele]

It does sort of cheer me how quickly the epithet 'Birthers' has stuck. There was a time not very long ago when it felt like something that was only used among skeptics as a humorous nod to the similarities in reasoning between the two conspiracy groups. It's pretty funny that it's become the commonly-accepted term.

Personally, I think pseudo-skeptics are the craziest and dumbest of the lot, not to mention suffering from a near terminal case of "Illusionary Superiority". They do incalculable damage to science by cloaking their cognitive biases under the guise of science. While giving the impression that they are objective, impartial and logical, they are nothing more than a priori armchair quarter backs.

PseudoSkeptics perceive themselves as the defenders of science and reason against a raising tide of irrationality. They consider themselves to be the champions not only of science, but also of the uninformed public who are naïve and unenlightened. It gives them a sense of superiority and a sense of purpose in the lives.

They think they are part of a special, elite group that perceives reality exactly as it is. They suffer from “Immaculate Perception”, the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself. This gives them a feeling of being elevated and better than others.

Warriors for Truth, Justice and the Scientific Way - They believe that they are warriors against the darkness of ignorance and superstitious thought. They are fighting a desperate war of Light vs Darkness. They are the vanguard of an emerging Age of Enlightenment.

[Eyeron]

Pseudo Skeptics? Can you give examples of what they would do or say?

A true skeptic goes by evidence and should change his mind on things when there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion.

Anything else is not being a skeptic. By anything else I mean people who draw a conclusion first and say "it must be this", such as "a UFO can only be an alien spacecraft and nothing else (UFO Hunters) and proceeds from there. There is also the flip side of the coin too, people who call themselves skeptics but operate on the premise that "it is completely impossible for it to be an alien space craft under any circumstances".

[Dr Adequate]

Pseudo Skeptics? Can you give examples of what they would do or say? I can. I googled on the term and made a list.

---

Pseudoskeptics don't believe in UFOs when they are "short of any kind of proof" (http://www.ufoskeptic.org) : I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism... There is another aspect to the UFO phenomenon that involves politics and secrecy rather than observational evidence. I do not currently have a ticket to any SCI program, but over the years I have gotten to know individuals who for one reason or another would be aware of the existence of relevant black programs... The above is, of course, short of any kind of proof, but all in all I have now gotten to the point in my exposure to the subject at which I think it somewhat more likely than not that something not merely delusional, but real and important may be going on with regard to the UFO phenomenon.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that "confusing memories" prove that you've visited another universe (http://glenavalon.com/otherworlds.html) : Join us in a brave foray into the unknown and uncharted realms of parallel universes. Prepare yourself for a trek, not to outer or inner, but to adjacent space.

Will we find Eden? Lands of Magic? Our heart's desire? Or will we find worlds just like our own? Some of us may have already visited other universes - the evidence may be confusing memories - improbable places or people we have seen. Can we observe these parallel universes? Have we observed them? Can we travel between them? What kind of device would we need? What energy barriers would we encounter and have to overcome? Is there a shortcut between the worlds? Does quantum consciousness hold a key?

ASIDE TO PSEUDOSKEPTICS: Please don't bother. We are talking subjective experience here and trying to derive clues to what is happening. These things occurred - they happened to us - no amount of skepticism or psychobabble on your part will convince us otherwise.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that the "Face On Mars" is evidence of a lost Martian civilization, but that NASA is hushing it up (http://www.mactonnies.com/imperative38.html) : If the "Face" and/or other features test positively for artificiality, this discovery promises to be the most explosive we have ever encountered. The Cydonian Imperative advocates completely open disclosure of any findings that would tend to bear out the Artificiality Hypothesis. I am troubled by NASA's demonstrated refusals to comply with scientific method and acknowledge the work of independent researchers.

The Cydonia inquiry is not trivial, pseudoscientific, or dismissable. On the contrary, the enigmas on the Martian surface (and perhaps elsewhere in the Solar System) challenge our conceptions of planetary and genetic selfhood. We cannot afford to miss this potentially transformative opportunity...

It is interesting that this image, withheld from public inspection, depicts the Face in its entirety. Such accuracy tends to suggest that acquiring high-resolution images of the Face is not only easier than NASA/MSSS would have the public believe, but that NASA has an abiding interest in studying the Cydonia region. The reasons for the space agency's near-silence on the Cydonia issue, in light of the image above, are far from trivial...

Skeptics groups rail against "pseudoscience." But perhaps the time has come for independent thinkers, armed with real knowledge as opposed to false preconceptions, to begin questioning the agenda behind pseudoskepticism.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that John Edward can talk to the dead (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/skeptic09.html) : One of the most famous psychic mediums in this country is John Edward who performs readings before a live audience on television. His impressive abilities suggests that he may actually be communicating with the dead. pseudo-skeptics claim that John Edward is a master of reading body language to elicit information. But, Edward often does phone readings and sometimes readings where he cannot even see the subject... pseudo-skeptics claim that questionnaires and bugging devices help producers learn about deceased family members... Concerning bugging devices, the show's producer replied, "Of course there's microphones, but are they being fed anywhere, no. And John doesn't see any of this."

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that crop circles... or "at least some of them" were created by "Non-Human Intelligence" (http://www.suppressedscience.net/crops.html) : If Nickell and Fischer had examined that question, they would have found that their four arguments for hoaxing are perfectly compatible with the hypothesis that crop formations, or at least some of them, are created on purpose by a non-human intelligence (NHI), such as extraterrestrials or spiritual beings... Proper skepticism must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, much of what comes out of the "skeptical" community these days is not proper skepticism, but all-out, fundamentalist disbelief. Such skepticism can be called pseudo-skepticism, pathological skepticism or bogus skepticism.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that Uri Geller has magical powers over cutlery (http://www.uri-geller.com/mindbending.htm) : Some historians believe Jesus Christ was born on December 20th. Perhaps the first unusual event of Uri's life was that he was born on the same day, although some time later, in 1946 to be exact. Coincidence? Maybe, but a portent perhaps of the shape ( or shape-shifting ) of things to come.

Uri says that he first became aware of his mindpower at the age of four. He was eating, when the fork he was using bent and snapped. His mother, a member of the Freud family, was not surprised at his ability and nurtured his childhood accordingly. It was this acceptance, rather than denial, which enabled his self belief. A belief, Uri says, is inherent in all children, it is social conditioning which creates the denial...

When I spoke with Uri, he told me that he still meets with scientists and accepts the positive motive behind scientific discovery, it seems it is the adversarial 'pseudo skeptics' which Uri has washed his hands with...

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that they can debunk the Big Bang without actually knowing any physics; nor apparently in alien visitors, ghosts, ESP, Bigfoot... (http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm) : These ordinarily sound scientific platitudes are used as the ultimate "get out of jail free" cards for pseudo-skeptics who have no answers to inconvenient questions. Let's examine Sagan's assertion that "extrarordinary" claims require "extraordinary" evidence. The problem with this statement is that popular science does not require extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims. Big Bang theory may be the most extraordinary claim in the history of popular science. Here we have an idea that can be neatly encapsulated in eight words: "At first, there was nothing...then it exploded." But how can NOTHING explode? Big Bang theory "defies gravity" and violates innumerable laws of physics, it remains a HYPOTHETICAL mathematical model, yet it is promoted as truth by NASA and institutions of higher learning around the world. Why has the mainstream never demanded the same standards of Big Bang theorists that it does of "paranormal" proponents?

Where are the "double-blind tests" validating Big Bang theory? Has Big Bang theory been tested by JREF or other skeptical organizations?

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that mediums can catch terrorists, on the nit-picking basis that this has never actually happened (http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/terrorism.html) : I am presenting an issue which hitherto has NOT been part of the procedure of crime detection training.

One has to ignore the entrenched negativism of the closed minded skeptics (or as Professor C T Tart calls them 'pseudo-skeptics') They are defeatists and I submit they are a danger to national security for retarding or preventing professional investigation of psychic phenomena.

Law enforcement agencies ought to obtain the services of highly gifted psychics - not the run of the mill commercial ones, but those who can pass empirical tests for repeatable accuracy. There may be at least four or five in each country who ought to be regarded as absolute 'pure gold.' These would be hard to find as the truly gifted ones keep a very low, non-commercial, very private profile...

Two gifted psychic mediums would be required - one of them a trance-medium. Usually, the mediums bring others with them to give them psychic energy support. One of the mediums will be in a position to communicate with the terrorist's 'attachment.' This will be done while the other trance-medium goes into trance and allows the terrorist's 'attachment' to use the voice box of the second medium.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe everything they hear, plus everything they make up (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina40326.htm) : Fortunately, not every one is pseudo skeptic. We have also many true skeptics... It is said that even Hitler had some psychic powers (I just heard this and do not know the details of it). If true, this does not mean that everything this monster did was right or conversely, his crimes against humanity do not nullify his psychic ability... We know that thoughts are vibrations. These vibrations are what make the electroencephalograph machine (lie detector) work. Vibrations are created by particles. In quantum physics time breaks down and becomes irrelevant. So is it possible that your thoughts work in times that have not yet occurred? If true, this would explain how we dream things that come to pass later, telepathy, premonition, remote viewing and other psychic claims... This proves that healing comes from within and is triggered by our brain. In fact all healing come from our brain. All what drugs do is, trigger the defense mechanism of the body by stimulating the brain to release the endorphins and other chemicals that would heal the body... Belief is a powerful human faculty. If we can tap into this, we can basically heal our selves at will...The pseudo skeptics with materialistic persuasion are not after science or truth. They are promoting a religion based on materialism. There is nothing scientific, nothing logical and nothing rational about their belief. They are believers in a dogma that is contrary to human reason and observable facts... Islam presents itself as a religion. This, of course is not true.

---

You get the picture? It's what gullible people call those who don't share their delusions. I believe that it's intended to be an insult.

[jakesteele]

Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.

They go into a situation with a predetermined agenda to disprove rather than to objectively weigh and asses the available data. It’s just a matter of finding a way to disprove

To a pseudo all UFO photographs are fakes, especially the real ones, if they exist. In other words, all potential evidence is lumped into a generic category of hoax, lie, weather, balloons, flares, innocent mistake, etc.

Whatever it is…is something else.

They employ what I’ll call Ocaam’s Hammer – the simplest explanation is not usually the best, it is always the best.

A Pseudoskeptic is to science and healthy skepticism what a politician is the truth.

[Horatius]

Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.

They go into a situation with a predetermined agenda to disprove rather than to objectively weigh and asses the available data. It’s just a matter of finding a way to disprove

To a pseudo all UFO photographs are fakes, especially the real ones, if they exist. In other words, all potential evidence is lumped into a generic category of hoax, lie, weather, balloons, flares, innocent mistake, etc.

Whatever it is…is something else.

They employ what I’ll call Ocaam’s Hammer – the simplest explanation is not usually the best, it is always the best.

A Pseudoskeptic is to science and healthy skepticism what a politician is the truth.


Ah so it's a Strawman.

[Quad4_72]

Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.

They go into a situation with a predetermined agenda to disprove rather than to objectively weigh and asses the available data. It’s just a matter of finding a way to disprove

To a pseudo all UFO photographs are fakes, especially the real ones, if they exist. In other words, all potential evidence is lumped into a generic category of hoax, lie, weather, balloons, flares, innocent mistake, etc.

Whatever it is…is something else.

They employ what I’ll call Ocaam’s Hammer – the simplest explanation is not usually the best, it is always the best.

A Pseudoskeptic is to science and healthy skepticism what a politician is the truth.

Interesting. Let me take a wild guess here, but you tend to believe conspiracy theories involving the government don't you?

[Eyeron]

I'm going to go with Truthers. This birther thing (And I'm personally disgusted with the derogatory tone it implies) is nothing more than people who can't accept Obama as our president fair and square, just like there are people who still refuse to believe that Bush won the presidency vs Al Gore fair and square. I don't understand why those people who refuse to accept that Gore lost aren't held in the same disregard as the people who refuse to accept Obama birth certificate.

[Dr Adequate]

Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence. How do you tell the difference between the two without reading their minds?

Let me guess ... you see if they agree with your favorite unsubstantiated belief.

And, as I have demonstrated above, so does everyone else who uses the term.

[Horatius]

I'm going to go with Truthers. This birther thing (And I'm personally disgusted with the derogatory tone it implies) is nothing more than people who can't accept Obama as our president fair and square, just like there are people who still refuse to believe that Bush won the presidency vs Al Gore fair and square. I don't understand why those people who refuse to accept that Gore lost aren't held in the same disregard as the people who refuse to accept Obama birth certificate.


The difference is, Birtherism is about refusing to accept a single document - that has been verified by every level of authority that has any degree of influence over the validity of said document. And that document is also one for which millions of other Americans have equivalents that have never had their validity questioned.

With the Gore election thing, it's much more complicated, involving several different sorts of voting irregularities in multiple jurisdictions, and involves things that very few Americans have personal experience with.

The people who still fight the Gore/Bush election may be irrational, but they're nowhere near as irrational as Birthers.

[gtc]

It is a difficult question but most truthers hold enormously convoluted beliefs about 9/11.

The simplest Truther belief would either be LIHOP - that Bush knew the attack was going to happen but didn't actively try to stop it or the MIHOP view that Osama was working on behalf of the US. Neither are physically impossible but there is no plausible reason why the US government would act that way and there is no evidence to suggest that they did act that way.

The simplest Birther belief is that Obama's parents somehow managed to get him a birth certificate and placed a birth announcement in the paper. I can't see how they could have done that but I imagine it might be physically possible. Again there is no evidence to suggest that they did and no reason to think that they would do that.

[JohnG]

Completely shameless derail here jakesteele and apropos of nothing, but as a fellow Star Trek fan, I gots to know:

Where does that "In the insane society the sane man must act insane" quote you attribute to Mr. Spock come from? I've seen all of the TOS episodes, all of the movies and read an embarrassingly large number of the books and that quote is ringing no bells.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a misremembered corruption of Spock's line from the end of the episode "Mirror, Mirror":

"It's far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men."

Someone somewhere (not necessarily you) mentioned it and like a lot of misinformation on the web it spread. As a purveyor of truth I'm sure you want to be sure of your facts and want no part in the spread of erroneous information, right?

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, sorry for the derail and Live Long and Prosper!








good lord I need a girlfriend

[MervinFerd]

I'm going to go with Truthers. This birther thing (And I'm personally disgusted with the derogatory tone it implies) is nothing more than people who can't accept Obama as our president fair and square, just like there are people who still refuse to believe that Bush won the presidency vs Al Gore fair and square. I don't understand why those people who refuse to accept that Gore lost aren't held in the same disregard as the people who refuse to accept Obama birth certificate.

Balderdash.

Birthers (I like the word a lot) refuse to accept a clearly demonstrated and indisputable fact. That's not sane. A conspicuous number of elected Republicans have signed onto the BS--as have their supreme leaders and intellectuals Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

In contrast, I cannot recall any prominent Democrat questioning the fact that GW Bush was the legal president. Many Democrats were bitter about an election decided by 5 Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, the Florida recount supervised by a highly partisan Secretary of State and a popular vote won by Al Gore. That's perhaps not healthy, but its certainly not insane.

[Eyeron]

Prominent Democrat is the key word there. I'm not talking them, I'm talking average ordinary people people who are extremely partisan.

[Elizabeth I]

Completely shameless derail here jakesteele and apropos of nothing, but as a fellow Star Trek fan, I gots to know:

Where does that "In the insane society the sane man must act insane" quote you attribute to Mr. Spock come from? I've seen all of the TOS episodes, all of the movies and read an embarrassingly large number of the books and that quote is ringing no bells.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a misremembered corruption of Spock's line from the end of the episode "Mirror, Mirror":

"It's far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men."

Someone somewhere (not necessarily you) mentioned it and like a lot of misinformation on the web it spread. As a purveyor of truth I'm sure you want to be sure of your facts and want no part in the spread of erroneous information, right?

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, sorry for the derail and Live Long and Prosper!








good lord I need a girlfriend

[adding to the derail]The only other place I remember ever hearing that quote, and having it attributed to Spock, is in the movie version of Cyra McFadden's novel The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County, which I highly recommend (both the book and the movie.) A kid says it to the main character, who asks, "Who said that?" and the kid says, "Mr. Spock in Star Trek."

[Juniversal]

Prominent Democrat is the key word there. I'm not talking them, I'm talking average ordinary people people who are extremely partisan.But there was never a prominent left wing movement akin to the likes of the Birther movement during Bushes Presidency attempting to discredit the legitamcy of his tenure..

[jakesteele]

Interesting. Let me take a wild guess here, but you tend to believe conspiracy theories involving the government don't you?

Why on earth would you say that?

[jakesteele]

How do you tell the difference between the two without reading their minds?

Let me guess ... you see if they agree with your favorite unsubstantiated belief.

And, as I have demonstrated above, so does everyone else who uses the term.

If you had to read their minds to tell the difference then it would mean they both used the same methodologies for different purposes reasons. The definitions show a distinct difference between the two. Pseudoskepticism is the anti-christ of true skepticism.

[jakesteele]

Completely shameless derail here jakesteele and apropos of nothing, but as a fellow Star Trek fan, I gots to know:

Where does that "In the insane society the sane man must act insane" quote you attribute to Mr. Spock come from? I've seen all of the TOS episodes, all of the movies and read an embarrassingly large number of the books and that quote is ringing no bells.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a misremembered corruption of Spock's line from the end of the episode "Mirror, Mirror":

"It's far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men."

Someone somewhere (not necessarily you) mentioned it and like a lot of misinformation on the web it spread. As a purveyor of truth I'm sure you want to be sure of your facts and want no part in the spread of erroneous information, right?

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, sorry for the derail and Live Long and Prosper!


good lord I need a girlfriend


This is where the Mr. Spock quote comes from.

#17 – Elizabeth 1
[adding to the derail]The only other place I remember ever hearing that quote, and having it attributed to Spock, is in the movie version of Cyra McFadden's novel The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County, which I highly recommend (both the book and the movie.) A kid says it to the main character, who asks, "Who said that?" and the kid says, "Mr. Spock in Star Trek."

It probably came from this quote. Can’t remember the episode, though.

“It is the insane man who is deemed sane in an insane world.”

[PixyMisa]

But there was never a prominent left wing movement akin to the likes of the Birther movement during Bushes Presidency attempting to discredit the legitamcy of his tenure..
The equivalent would be the National Guard memo silliness. Not quite the same, but close enough.

[Brainster]

SF Weekly gets it right in my opinion. The Truthers are crazier, but the Birthers are dumber. We all know that there are more dumb people than crazy people, ergo the Birthers seem to be more numerous than the Troofers. And the Troofers are starting to get a little hot under the collar (http://www.truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5651) about being compared to Birthers:

How utterly despicable.

"Birther" is an obvious attempt to smear "truthers" with the nut-ball brush.

Off topic but important. Has anyone else noticed that Alex Jones has become totally right-wing, unhinged and fringe lately? He's so committed to this silly and well debunked Obama birth certificate hoax that he has literally made a laughing stock out of 9/11 Truth seeing as how he claims to be the godfather of the whole thing. I for one am embarrassed to mention his name or show his films anymore. I have once adamant truthers telling me that they question whether or not 9/11 was even an inside job now based on his recent insanity. They believe that he just latches on to any kook theory in order to promote his website and sell films. It's getting harder and harder to defend Jones.

Heheh, Alex became totally right-wing, unhinged and fringe lately? Crap, I thought he was a nutbar loony tunes survivalist the first time I listened to him. But now that he's talking down Obama, suddenly the 9-11 fruitloops who happen to be leftists are suddenly realizing this guy's not their ally?

[JohnG]

This is where the Mr. Spock quote comes from.

#17 – Elizabeth 1
[adding to the derail]The only other place I remember ever hearing that quote, and having it attributed to Spock, is in the movie version of Cyra McFadden's novel The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County, which I highly recommend (both the book and the movie.) A kid says it to the main character, who asks, "Who said that?" and the kid says, "Mr. Spock in Star Trek."

It probably came from this quote. Can’t remember the episode, though.

“It is the insane man who is deemed sane in an insane world.”


I won't belabor the point, this derail has gone far enough but I remain skeptical that the character of Mr. Spock ever uttered those words in a Star Trek TV episode, movie or even book (I'm sure you'd agree that some character misquoting Spock in the book/movie mentioned by Elizabeth I hardly counts). I am, however willing to change my opinion if you can provide some compelling evidence. Heck, in a case like this I'd even settle for a heavily compressed YouTube video:p At any rate, if I am right about this, I probably won't be the last Trek nerd to question the provenance of your quote, so you might as well save yourself some aggravation and embarrassment and check it out for yourself.

To wrap up (and get slightly back on the proper topic) I offer you another quote, in a similar vein to yours:

"In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" - Erasmus

The Internet can often seem like the land of the blind; full of ignorance, paranoia, half truths and outright lies. You may have felt like a one-eyed king on some of the CT sites you have visited in the past, but here I think you'll find that the vision of most of the so-called "Debunkers" is at least 20/20 and it is you, not they who needs an appointment with the Ophthalmologist;)

[Dr Adequate]

If you had to read their minds to tell the difference then it would mean they both used the same methodologies for different purposes reasons. The definitions show a distinct difference between the two. Pseudoskepticism is the anti-christ of true skepticism. But the definitions don't tell me how to distinguish between the two.

You say that: "A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking". Very well, then: so if someone claims to have seen fairies at the bottom of his garden, then the true skeptic, who is prepared to be persuaded of any claim, no matter how startling, if presented with sufficient evidence, will say: "You will have to show me some good evidence for that claim, or I shall not be convinced". Whereas the pseudoskeptic, a bigot who has closed his mind to the possibility of fairies, will "cloak denialism in the language of skepticism", and will say ... "You will have to show me some good evidence for that claim, or I shall not be convinced".

How, then, are we to tell the two apart?

---

P.S: here is a believer in fairies (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/05/will-detection.html) complaining about "pseudoskeptics":

The 'pseudoskeptics' can simply ignore the issue of consciousness for now, but they won't be able to understand the UFO/ET situation, or one of the major implications of contact. Any advanced technological civilization visiting our world (and their 'technology') will have not only a vastly greater understanding of physics, but of metaphysics and consciousness as well, and they will certainly be using this knowledge for their purposes here, in ways that most humans cannot imagine, much less understand.

Humans have long interacted with strange beings from countless other realms, such as angels, fairies, ghosts, etc.

[Orphia Nay]

How, then, are we to tell the two apart?

And why bring up pseudoskeptics when the topic is Birthers and Truthers who have been proven to have no evidence?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true [...]


So very wrong...

[Matthew Cline]

So then, a true skeptic will only ever conclude "undecided" and "proven", and never conclude "unproven"? And they'll never put sugar in their porridge.

[jakesteele]

Sorry about derailing the thread, I wasn't thinking when I did it. Won't happen again.

IMHO, Truthers trump Birthers.

[T.A.M.]

I also have to consider who are more deplorable, and that is where Truthers easily top Birthers.

To me, as a non-American, the idea that a few of your less sane, less intelligent citizens would question (despite the evidence) the authenticity of Obama as an official "born" american is silly, stupid, but RELATIVELY harmless.

Truthers, however, falsely accuse many people (none of which besides Cheney and a couple of others are they brave enough to call out by name) of murdering 3000 Americans. Such false and evidenceless based accusations alone make the truthers the more vile of the two lots...by a landslide.

TAM:)

[Dr Adequate]

Sorry about derailing the thread, I wasn't thinking when I did it. Won't happen again. I'd still like to continue our discussion of "pseudoskeptics", if you'd be interested. But maybe on another thread.

[Puppycow]

It does sort of cheer me how quickly the epithet 'Birthers' has stuck. There was a time not very long ago when it felt like something that was only used among skeptics as a humorous nod to the similarities in reasoning between the two conspiracy groups. It's pretty funny that it's become the commonly-accepted term.

Now adherents to every CT will be "-ers," just as every political scandal is a "-gate."

[Eyeron]

But there was never a prominent left wing movement akin to the likes of the Birther movement during Bushes Presidency attempting to discredit the legitamcy of his tenure..

Except the person who first brought the issue up was a prominent liberal, Senator Philip Berg.

Added:

youtube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39aHQP5rN5k

(I don't know how to imbed videos on this site).

[Cl1mh4224rd]

(I don't know how to imbed videos on this site).


If you have...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39aHQP5rN5k

...you want to use...

39aHQP5rN5k

[linusrichard]

Except the person who first brought the issue up was a prominent liberal, Senator Philip Berg.


Not a senator. Not a prominent liberal. (I don't even know if he's a liberal, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument, since he was a supporter of Sen. Clinton, so it fits.)

And anyway, how does that (I mean, the true parts of it) in any way refute this:
But there was never a prominent left wing movement akin to the likes of the Birther movement during Bushes Presidency attempting to discredit the legitamcy of his tenure..



The Birther movement may have been set off by Berg, and Berg may be a Democrat and even a liberal, but that doesn't make the Birther movement a left wing movement by any stretch of the imagination.

[uk_dave]

Let me guess ... you see if they agree with your favorite unsubstantiated belief.



You've become.........American!! :jaw-dropp

[LashL]

Except the person who first brought the issue up was a prominent liberal, Senator Philip Berg.


Philip Berg is a lunatic lawyer, not a senator. He's also a truther, who has represented some of the truthers who brought unsuccessful and fantasy-laden lawsuits against George Bush and others, alleging complicity in the 9/11 attacks, among myriad other allegations of wrongdoing and conspiracy.

The guy is a complete fruit loop.

[Juniversal]

The Birther movement may have been set off by Berg, and Berg may be a Democrat and even a liberal, but that doesn't make the Birther movement a left wing movement by any stretch of the imagination.I totally agree. But let me rephrase for context. There was never a prominent left wing movement to argue the legitamcy of Bushes presidency akin to the right wing birther movement of today.

[Elizabeth I]

Now adherents to every CT will be "-ers," just as every political scandal is a "-gate."

Well, then, let me just say right now that I don't want to see the "mooners."

Do. Not. Want.

Thank you!

[Eyeron]

My bad, one of the videos I saw called him a senator.

I found this in searching for his position and title:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2066207/posts

But now I know he is a 911 cultist (I refuse to call them truthers because they're nothing of the sort) he has ceased to have any credibility in my eyes. He was once one of the Deputy Attorney Generals of Pennsylvania. So that probably does make him prominent. And I believe he is a registered Democrat, so that has a high probability of making him a liberal.

But, since he was a supporter of Clinton, it would stem to reason the real motivation for him bringing in this lawsuit was to discredit Obama in any way possible. The election would have had a different outcome if he was successful, and more than likely we would have a conservative as President now. Unfortunately he didn't realize the effect it would have on the people who just can not accept that Obama is a Citizen of the USA. Sometimes a a rolling stone does gather moss, it seems.

And here's an interesting Wiki on him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Berg

But despite all of this, I'd still call the 911 cultists crazier. So since Berg is one of the cultists guess where that places him.

[linusrichard]

He was once one of the Deputy Attorney Generals of Pennsylvania. So that probably does make him prominent.

Just for fun, and without googling, can you name any other person whose highest position is state deputy AG? I know I can't. I guess "prominent" is a matter of perspective, but no, I don't consider a former state deputy AG to be "prominent."

And I believe he is a registered Democrat, so that has a high probability of making him a liberal.
Whatever works for you.

...

But despite all of this, I'd still call the 911 cultists crazier. So since Berg is one of the cultists guess where that places him.

One of the craziest of the crazies? Here we agree!

[LashL]

My bad, one of the videos I saw called him a senator.

I found this in searching for his position and title:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


He has brought lots of frivolous lawsuits in recent years; the birther one is just the most recent. He acted for William Rodriguez, the WTC custodian cum conspiracy fantasist who deceitfully calls himself the "last man out" and dishonestly claims to have "saved hundreds of lives", and who sued George Bush and 155 others, for instance. You can read the court documents on that one here (http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com). (It was, of course, dismissed by the court, although Rodriguez, bizarrely, denies it).


But despite all of this, I'd still call the 911 cultists crazier. So since Berg is one of the cultists guess where that places him.


I agree that the 9/11 conspiracy fantasists are crazier than the "birthers". Both groups are nutty, and Berg belongs to both groups, which makes him among the craziest of the bunch.

[Eyeron]

Just for fun, and without googling, can you name any other person whose highest position is state deputy AG? I know I can't. I guess "prominent" is a matter of perspective, but no, I don't consider a former state deputy AG to be "prominent."

Without googling I wouldn't be able to either, I had to search for his credentials in order to be sure he truly did have a prominent position.

According to Wiki, here's what a DAG does:

United States Deputy Attorney General is the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice. In the United States federal government, the Deputy Attorney General oversees the day-to-day operation of the Department of Justice, and may act as Attorney General during the absence of the Attorney General. The Deputy Attorney General is appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The position was created in 1950.[1]

On March 12, 2009, Barack Obama's nominee David W. Ogden was confirmed by the US Senate in a vote of 65-28


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Deputy_Attorney_General

So how is that not a prominent position? How do you define prominent?


However the problem I've come across is that it doesn't say there is more than one. For example, it said in another article I was reading that Berg was one of 40 DAGs of Pennsylvania so I am confused there.

However, here is another site that defines the duties of a DAG:

* Exercise all the power and authority of the Attorney General unless any such power or authority is required by law to be exercised by the Attorney General personally or has been specifically delegated exclusively to another Department official.


* Represent DOJ at White House coordination meetings of the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, and maintain staff to address related Justice policy.


* Act on behalf of the Attorney General for purposes of authorizing searches and electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and Executive Order 12333 on Intelligence.


* Review and recommend to the Attorney General whether to seek or decline to seek the death penalty in specific cases.


* Act as initial contact with the White House on pending criminal matters.


* Recommend to the White House, after consultation with the Office of the Pardon Attorney, whether the President should grant specific petitions of pardon or commutation of sentence.


* Be responsible for all DOJ attorney personnel matters, including final action in matters pertaining to the employment, separation, and discipline (except for GS-15 and below attorney matters which have been delegated to the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management.


* Coordinate and control the Department’s reaction to civil disturbances and terrorism.


* Oversee budget matters as well as certify to Congress the cost-effectiveness of DOJ investments in information technology.


* Set enforcement priorities in consultation with the Attorney General, to address key priorities, chair inter-and intra-agency task forces and organizations, e.g., National Procurement Fraud Task Force, International Organized Crime Council, National Corporate Fraud Task Force, Anti-Gang Coordination Committee, Attorney General Advisory Committee.


* Manage high-priority program offices that reside within ODAG, e.g, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, the Faith Based and Community Initiatives Task Force, and the Iraq Rule of Law program.


* Perform such other activities and functions as may be assigned from time to time by the Attorney General.


http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm

So why would this not be a prominent position? How do you define a prominent position then?

[Horatius]

However the problem I've come across is that it doesn't say there is more than one. For example, it said in another article I was reading that Berg was one of 40 DAGs of Pennsylvania so I am confused there.

However, here is another site that defines the duties of a DAG:


http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/ag.htm

So why would this not be a prominent position? How do you define a prominent position then?



I think you missed a key word in the phrase "a former state deputy AG".

[linusrichard]

I think you missed a key word in the phrase "a former state deputy AG".

Indeed - and it's a little word that makes a big difference. US DAG, maybe a prominent position. Maybe semi-prominent. Certainly a high-ranking position, important, prestigious, powerful, etc. At the same time, David W. Ogden isn't exactly a household name. In fact, browsing through the last 5 or 10 US DAGs, I only recognized those (Eric Holder and Jamie Gorelick) who are prominent for other reasons.

But a state DAG is a horse of an entirely different color.

From the Pennsylvania AG's website (http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice.aspx?id=341):

Deputy Attorney General I

This is entry level professional work providing legal services of a varied nature. Primary assignments involve assisting attorneys of higher rank by researching, interpreting and applying laws, court decisions, and other legal authorities in the preparation of briefs, pleadings, complaints, presentments and other legal papers in connection with suits, trials, and other proceedings. The difficulty of legal problems encountered ranges from simple to moderately complex. Attorneys in this class seldom appear in court without attorneys of higher rank.

The minimum qualifications for this class are graduation from an accredited law school and admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Now, I'm not saying Philip Berg was a Deputy Attorney General I. He could have been a II, III, IV, or even a Chief or Executive Deputy Attorney General. I'm just saying that if all we know is that he was a Deputy Attorney General, then we don't have enough information to know if he held a position of prominence, because it could have been a relatively low-ranking position.

[Eyeron]

So the definition of prominent would be defined by how well known or famous a person has to be?

I just can't agree with that definition of prominent.

[linusrichard]

So the definition of prominent would be defined by how well known or famous a person has to be?

I just can't agree with that definition of prominent.

m-w.com:
2 a : readily noticeable : conspicuous b : widely and popularly known : leading

dictionary.com:
3. leading, important, or well-known: a prominent citizen.



What definition do you want?

[240-185]

Thierry Meyssan and his Voltaire network are also both birthers and truthers.

[Eyeron]

What definition do you want?

By that definition, the position of Vice President Of America would not be a prominent position. Because when you think of it, the VP is just not famous and most people don't even know what he does or who he is. The President is far more more visible. That's why I don't agree with that definition.

So there probably should be a better definition of prominent than just being famous.

[Myron Proudfoot]

I seem to remember the truthers making a big deal out of some "prominent" former Republican officials claiming 9/11 was an "inside job." Was one a former staff for Bob Dole years before and one was an under-secretary for Bush I or some such. Given the large number of folks that work for both parties--both as elected and non-elected over the years-- I think you'd be able to find some in each party with a tinfoil hat firmly screwed on.

That said, I wish a few leaders in the Congressional GOP would publicly, and loudly say that the birthers are nuts. Sort of take them down like President Clinton did the twoofers who disrupted one of Hillary's 2008 primary rallies...

[dudalb]

Well, then, let me just say right now that I don't want to see the "mooners."

Do. Not. Want.

Thank you!

The semi official title for The Moon Hoax believers is "Moon Bats".

[oldhat]

The defensive truther-rationalizing comments at the bottom of the Weekly article are hilarious.

[Chaos]

The semi official title for The Moon Hoax believers is "Moon Bats".

I thought it was "the people who put ´luna´ into ´lunatics´"?

[linusrichard]

By that definition, the position of Vice President Of America would not be a prominent position. Because when you think of it, the VP is just not famous and most people don't even know what he does or who he is. The President is far more more visible. That's why I don't agree with that definition.

So there probably should be a better definition of prominent than just being famous.

I disagree completely. The Vice President of the US is famous. Let's go back a few posts to my unscientific prominence test: Without googling, how many Vice Presidents of the US can you name? I can name the current one and the previous nine with no trouble at all, as well as several others. The President is more prominent than the Vice President, no doubt. But the Vice President is prominent. I can't name the last ten Secretaries of State, or the last ten Secretaries of Defense, or the last ten Attorneys General.

But anyway, put that all aside, my question to you was "What definition do you want?" So, what definition do you want?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

By that definition, the position of Vice President Of America would not be a prominent position. Because when you think of it, the VP is just not famous and most people don't even know what he does or who he is.


The position of Vice President of the United States is extremely well-known. It's not necessary for one to know what, exactly, that position requires--or even who currently holds it--for it to be considered a prominent position.

The President is far more more visible. That's why I don't agree with that definition.


Prominence isn't unique. That is to say, there isn't only one person or position that can claim prominence. The POTUS is a prominent position. So is the VPOTUS.

[Eyeron]

I disagree completely. The Vice President of the US is famous. Let's go back a few posts to my unscientific prominence test: Without googling, how many Vice Presidents of the US can you name? I can name the current one and the previous nine with no trouble at all, as well as several others. The President is more prominent than the Vice President, no doubt. But the Vice President is prominent. I can't name the last ten Secretaries of State, or the last ten Secretaries of Defense, or the last ten Attorneys General.

But anyway, put that all aside, my question to you was "What definition do you want?" So, what definition do you want?

Here's a test for you: take a walk through the streets of the city where you live and ask people if they know who the Vice President is and if they can name him. Of course the more educated people and those who are concerned with politics as a hobby or occupation of some sort will know, but the average person on the street won't or just won't care who the Vice President is.

As far as my definition of prominent goes, I just don't think that a prominent position should be defined by fame factor alone. It seems to me there are many important jobs out there that aren't really well known that do have an affect on many people's lives. For example, say the director of the Center For Disease Control. Or the director of a city's power plant. And so on. Because these people aren't famous it wouldn't be considered a prominent position and therefore unimportant. I guess what I am trying to say is that there probably should be more factors to determine how to define what is a prominent position. But I don't know how to express that definition properly.

[linusrichard]

Here's a test for you: take a walk through the streets of the city where you live and ask people if they know who the Vice President is and if they can name him. Of course the more educated people and those who are concerned with politics as a hobby or occupation of some sort will know, but the average person on the street won't or just won't care who the Vice President is.

I would wager that if you went out into the street and asked people if they knew who was occupying various government positions, more people would know who the Vice President is than any other official other than the President.

As far as my definition of prominent goes, I just don't think that a prominent position should be defined by fame factor alone. It seems to me there are many important jobs out there that aren't really well known that do have an affect on many people's lives. For example, say the director of the Center For Disease Control. Or the director of a city's power plant. And so on. Because these people aren't famous it wouldn't be considered a prominent position and therefore unimportant. I guess what I am trying to say is that there probably should be more factors to determine how to define what is a prominent position. But I don't know how to express that definition properly.

Okay. But that's just not what "prominent" means. I don't know what else to tell you, I'm sorry. It doesn't mean "important." It means visible, conspicuous, well known. Kanye West is more prominent than Ben Bernanke. Paris Hilton is more prominent than Robert Gates. Is this good? No. Is this bad? Maybe. But it is true. Sorry.

[Eyeron]

Yes, it is true, I just find it a very limiting definition.

[Horatius]

Yes, it is true, I just find it a very limiting definition.




Some definitions should be limiting.

Rather than waffling about which "prominent" people might support a given theory, why not simply ask, which "prominent and/or important" people support it?

In any case, it looks like a state deputy AG is neither prominent nor important, so the whole question is kind of silly.

[Eyeron]

I did just that for the 911 conspiracy and here's one website I got:

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Which beggars the question how can these people with such credentials believe such rubbish?

But I'm having a lot of problems trying to find out which of our Congressmen and Senators who support the idea of Obama not being a citizen.

Added:

After doing some more research I found this Wiki Article on Andy martin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_%28U.S._politician%29

It's kind of hard to pin him down as either a liberal or a conservative though. But he was the one who first started the rumors of Obama being a Muslim and launched a lawsuit against the state of Hawii to release Obama's original paper certificate.

He also believes that Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, an African American journalist and political activist who wrote for a newspaper in Hawaii in the 1940s and 1950s that was accused by the House Un-American Activities Committee as being a front for the Communist Party USA.

I am still searching for more information.

[Dr Adequate]

He also believes that Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis, an African American journalist and political activist who wrote for a newspaper in Hawaii in the 1940s and 1950s that was accused by the House Un-American Activities Committee as being a front for the Communist Party USA. Which would, of course, make Obama a natural-born citizen wherever he was born.

[D'rok]

Score one for the birthers in the crazy contest. The US District Court smacked down a frivolous Taitz lawsuit today:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wtvm/ConnieRhodesvsArmy.pdf

ETA: Some juicy quotes:

"Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly 'protect and preserve' those very principles."


"Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

[linusrichard]

Score one for the birthers in the crazy contest. The US District Court smacked down a frivolous Taitz lawsuit today:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/wtvm/ConnieRhodesvsArmy.pdf

ETA: Some juicy quotes:

"Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly 'protect and preserve' those very principles."


"Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

Very nice. I especially like the end of footnote 3. If there are any birthers in the House, they've put themselves into kind of a corner.

[Horatius]

Very nice. I especially like the end of footnote 3. If there are any birthers in the House, they've put themselves into kind of a corner.



I like footnote 5, "evidence", scare quotes and all. And the paragraph bridging pages 13 and 14 should be required reading for everyone who claims their BS should be taken seriously by the courts.

[D'rok]

I like how Taitz cited an AOL poll as an authority for her legal argument. For fail, that is pure win.

[portlandatheist]

Score one for the birthers in the crazy contest."

Hey, at least the birthers are willing to take their "evidence" to a court. I suppose that doesn't make them any less crazy, it just means they aren't as lazy as truthers.

[Travis]

I like how Taitz cited an AOL poll as an authority for her legal argument. For fail, that is pure win.

She also claims that Worldwide opinion is that Obama "slipped through the guardrails to become President" without substantiating the assertion in any way, not even citing some illegitimate online poll.

Her claim that the document (short form birth certificate) should be "assumed to be fraudulent" said almost all that you would need to know about her.

I thought their point that Congress approving Obama appointments was a de facto sign of their own opinion that Obama is legitimate was interesting.

[D'rok]

Her claim that the document (short form birth certificate) should be "assumed to be fraudulent" said almost all that you would need to know about her.

Assumption of guilt and reversal of the burden of proof. Always a winning legal strategy!

[Travis]

Assumption of guilt and reversal of the burden of proof. Always a winning legal strategy!

Especially since she also alleged that her faked Kenyan Birth Certificate should be assumed to be genuine just..........well.....because she wants you to.

[ktesibios]

It seems that after publicly accusing the judge of treason, ORly went down to Georgia to file a motion for reconsideration, in which she basically neglected to address any of the issues cited in the judge's original order in favor of, like a proper PCT, simply re-re-regurgitating her talking points all over again.

Now Judge Clay, citing Yogi Berra "it was like deja vu all over again", has ordered her to show cause, within 14 days, why she should not be dinged with a $10,000 sanction for misconduct.

Those of us who like to observe the world around us and try to understand our observations might be tempted to infer two things:

1. Political diatribes and unsupported assertions are not exactly the currency of choice in the Federal court system.

2. Deliberately pissing off a Federal judge is a rather bad idea.

Residents of Planet X like Ms. Taitz are not likely to get this. I think we can expect to see a spectacular meltdown in the near future.

You can read her motion and Judge Clay's latest order here (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/judge_clay_land_v_orly_taitz_part_ii.php?ref=mp):p opcorn1

[linusrichard]

Any lawyers with federal experience here? It was always my impression that, in the federal courts, an order to show cause was not quite "Why shouldn't I fine you $10,000?" but more like "Prepare to be fined $10,000."

[Brainster]

Two pages in and nobody's offered the obvious skeptic response?

False dichotomy.

:D

[Orphia Nay]

Two pages in and nobody's offered the obvious skeptic response?

False dichotomy.

:D

Yeah, but noone wants to Godwin the thread. ;)

[Alt+F4]

Especially since she also alleged that her faked Kenyan Birth Certificate should be assumed to be genuine just..........well.....because she wants you to.

Exactly. Orly would like the world to operate like this: if you don't believe everything she says you're a treasonous Nazi who should be immediately hanged.

[tsig]

Here's a test for you: take a walk through the streets of the city where you live and ask people if they know who the Vice President is and if they can name him. Of course the more educated people and those who are concerned with politics as a hobby or occupation of some sort will know, but the average person on the street won't or just won't care who the Vice President is.

As far as my definition of prominent goes, I just don't think that a prominent position should be defined by fame factor alone. It seems to me there are many important jobs out there that aren't really well known that do have an affect on many people's lives. For example, say the director of the Center For Disease Control. Or the director of a city's power plant. And so on. Because these people aren't famous it wouldn't be considered a prominent position and therefore unimportant. I guess what I am trying to say is that there probably should be more factors to determine how to define what is a prominent position. But I don't know how to express that definition properly.

If you don't know what you want to say then it is going to be impossible to respond to you.

[tyr_13]

Hey, at least the birthers are willing to take their "evidence" to a court. I suppose that doesn't make them any less crazy, it just means they aren't as lazy as truthers.

No, it means that they are dumb enough to think they have a chance in court.

[McHrozni]

I'd say that twoofers win this one hands down.
Birthers need to believe that their president or one of his parents managed to fake a few government documents decades ago. That would require a few corrupt public officials somewhere, who might well die before this ever became an issue.
Certainly not something that would be outside of the realm of possibility to the extent all 9/11 twoof theories are, wouldn't you say?

McHrozni