Pat Robertson... Really? Reallyy????

[crimresearch]

Just went to the log-in page and saw the banner ads... Today JREF is brought to you courtesy of those free thinkers at Regent University. And the front page topic on JREF itself is an 'MMA expert'


We can't call ******** in this forum, we have to 'play nice' with the Strorm Front contingent... but we have to wade through crap like that while we are here.

Penn and Teller must be rolling in their graves.

[zooterkin]

Just went to the log-in page and saw the banner ads... Today JREF is brought to you courtesy of those free thinkers at Regent University.

I don't normally see any ads, as I've ticked the "remember me" box, but when I went there I saw a "Start 4 Life" advert aimed at pregnant women.

The topic of the sort of ads that non-members see has been brought up in the past; the JREF doesn't have a lot of control over what appears.


And the front page topic on JREF itself is an 'MMA expert'

I'm not sure what the problem with that is. Can you explain?

[JoeBentley]

If JREF is like most organization they probably run their ads through an intermediary and have little if any actual control over what ads are being shown. For the most part you're gonna see ads based on your browsing history at most places.

[Steve]

If JREF is like most organization they probably run their ads through an intermediary and have little if any actual control over what ads are being shown. For the most part you're gonna see ads based on your browsing history at most places.

Perhaps the JREF should stop being like most organizations, and give a little thought to the image they are portraying. Unless of course they think that any money is worth having regardless of the source.

[applecorped]

Perhaps the JREF should stop being like most organizations, and give a little thought to the image they are portraying. Unless of course they think that any money is worth having regardless of the source.


^^^^This.

[Klimax]

Perhaps the JREF should stop being like most organizations, and give a little thought to the image they are portraying. Unless of course they think that any money is worth having regardless of the source.

There's limit to everything like image, free service or control over ad providers.

[applecorped]

There's limit to everything like image, free service or control over ad providers.

What's the limit in this case?

Mods?

[Wolfman]

And the front page topic on JREF itself is an 'MMA expert'

Breach of rule 12 removed.

So...tell us exactly what is wrong with a topic on an "MMA expert"?

1) He's most definitely an expert, he competes at the highest levels of the sport, and has dedicated himself to mastering MMA. So calling him an expert is neither inaccurate nor offensive

2) In the article about him, he explicitly states that he rejects all the 'woo' surrounding martial arts, and is a long-time fan of James Randi in opposing woos

3) He's a known celebrity, with a decent following, who can help promote James Randi's work.

4) MMA is a legitimate sport...in fact, an extremely skillful and demanding sport. If it were a famous golfer, or a famous basketball player, would crimresearch be complaining? I doubt it...it seems to be specifically because he has some sort of issue with MMA (although given the vagueness of his comments, this may not be the case, and I certainly don't want another accusation of 'twisting his words')

So please...enlighten the rest of us. What exactly is 'wrong' or 'offensive' about an article that discusses an MMA expert who talks about rejecting martial arts woo, and states that he wants to work with the JREF to promote critical thinking? What is there in this that is objectionable?

Or have I (and others) somehow 'misinterpreted' your comments, and you actually meant "I think that having a lead article about an MMA expert who is helping support the JREF's work is a great thing"?


ETA: the banner ads issue has been raised multiple times before, the plain fact is that the JREF doesn't have much control over what content is displayed there.

[crimresearch]

Edited quoted of moderated material.

So...tell us exactly what is wrong with a topic on an "MMA expert"?

1) He's most definitely an expert, he competes at the highest levels of the sport, and has dedicated himself to mastering MMA. So calling him an expert is neither inaccurate nor offensive

2) In the article about him, he explicitly states that he rejects all the 'woo' surrounding martial arts, and is a long-time fan of James Randi in opposing woos

3) He's a known celebrity, with a decent following, who can help promote James Randi's work.

4) MMA is a legitimate sport...in fact, an extremely skillful and demanding sport. If it were a famous golfer, or a famous basketball player, would crimresearch be complaining? I doubt it...it seems to be specifically because he has some sort of issue with MMA (although given the vagueness of his comments, this may not be the case, and I certainly don't want another accusation of 'twisting his words')

So please...enlighten the rest of us. What exactly is 'wrong' or 'offensive' about an article that discusses an MMA expert who talks about rejecting martial arts woo, and states that he wants to work with the JREF to promote critical thinking? What is there in this that is objectionable?

Or have I (and others) somehow 'misinterpreted' your comments, and you actually meant "I think that having a lead article about an MMA expert who is helping support the JREF's work is a great thing"?


ETA: the banner ads issue has been raised multiple times before, the plain fact is that the JREF doesn't have much control over what content is displayed there.
Breach of rule 12 removed.

If you have a problem with Penn and Teller's episode exposing the Martial Arts for the woo-woo it is, take it up with them.

If you agree with Pat Robertson and what he stands for, then defend it here.

[crimresearch]

If that were the case, then I'd be seeing porn, anti-war sites, porn, porn, kink, and progressive sites. :-}

I guarantee that this didn't come from my cache:

[crimresearch]

I don't normally see any ads, as I've ticked the "remember me" box, but when I went there I saw a "Start 4 Life" advert aimed at pregnant women.

The topic of the sort of ads that non-members see has been brought up in the past; the JREF doesn't have a lot of control over what appears.


I'm not sure what the problem with that is. Can you explain?
It just strikes me as odd that JREF is so concerned about 'the children' on some apocryphal library computer somewhere, that we can't reference Penn and Teller's show because of the auto-censor, but when it comes to stuff like that, it is shrugged off with a que sera, sera.

As far as the JREF 'image', and an association with professional TV sports culture goes, be it pounding someone in a ring, or any other steroid fueled spectacle... let's just say I'm skeptical about the benefits of the whole thing.

[theprestige]

Just went to the log-in page and saw the banner ads... Today JREF is brought to you courtesy of those free thinkers at Regent University. And the front page topic on JREF itself is an 'MMA expert'


We can't call ******** in this forum, we have to 'play nice' with the Strorm Front contingent... but we have to wade through crap like that while we are here.

Penn and Teller must be rolling in their graves.

While I am certainly willing to get butthurt about nothing at the drop of a hat, I must say that as a habitual user of ad-blocking web browser plugins, you seem to have a PEBKAC problem.

[Loss Leader]

Perhaps the JREF should stop being like most organizations, and give a little thought to the image they are portraying. Unless of course they think that any money is worth having regardless of the source.


Who better to take money from? Causes that JREF users widely detest waste money aiming ads at them. I'd be madder as the advertiser than as the site with the advertising. After all, Pat Robertson paid a company to put his ads in front of the people most likely to be interested in them. Instead, using the stupid metric of browsing history, the ad company is doing the exact opposite.

This being said, I never see 3rd party ads when I come to the Forum. I'm not sure why your experience is different.

[gentlehorse]

Perhaps the JREF should stop being like most organizations, and give a little thought to the image they are portraying. Unless of course they think that any money is worth having regardless of the source.

According to D.J. Grothe, the JREF adheres to best-practices in the field of nonprofit messaging.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=7887077#post7887077

The social science of donor appeals trumps the image portrayed by the JREF and how forum members might feel about it. It seems that we don't generate enough income to matter.

That's the biz.

[Nova Land]

This topic has come up at least a half dozen other times over the past 6 years. Anyone interested in reading previous discussions can click the forum ads (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=forum+ads) tag at the top of this page. (Or you can click the link in this comment.)

[Jalok]

<SNIP>

If you have a problem with Penn and Teller's episode exposing the Martial Arts for the woo-woo it is, take it up with them.

If you agree with Pat Robertson and what he stands for, then defend it here.Moderated content removed.

1. Did you actually read the post you are replying to?

2. If the martial arts bit is off-topic, why did you bring it up in the OP?

jalok

[zooterkin]

It just strikes me as odd that JREF is so concerned about 'the children' on some apocryphal library computer somewhere, that we can't reference Penn and Teller's show because of the auto-censor, but when it comes to stuff like that, it is shrugged off with a que sera, sera.
You seem to be a bit confused. You are lumping together completely different and unrelated issues. It is a fact that some web sites will be excluded by the software used by some schools if they contain certain words, and the JREF has taken the decision that, given their aim is education, they do not want to be in that position. Nevertheless, Penn and Teller's show can be referenced, and the name can even be spelt out in full in the Members Only part of the forum. The JREF does not have complete control over which adverts are shown; this has been raised as a concern by members more than once before. The JREF has made the decision that the benefits outweigh the possible appearance of endorsing certain brands of woo.


As far as the JREF 'image', and an association with professional TV sports culture goes, be it pounding someone in a ring, or any other steroid fueled spectacle... let's just say I'm skeptical about the benefits of the whole thing.

Again, you are not answering the question at all, unless you think that the JREF should not publish endorsements from any professional sportsmen regardless of their outlook and opinions, which seems an extreme position. Did you actually read the article about the MMA artist?

[zooterkin]

This topic has come up at least a half dozen other times over the past 6 years. Anyone interested in reading previous discussions can click the forum ads (http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=forum+ads) tag at the top of this page. (Or you can click the link in this comment.)

Although it should be noted that the first example (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54612) complaining of inappropriate ads was actually an April Fool when precisely the sort of ads being complained of were put on the forum as a joke (two years before it happened for real).

[OnlyTellsTruths]

If you have a problem with Penn and Teller's episode exposing the Martial Arts for the woo-woo it is, take it up with them.


Comparing MMA to Martial Arts is like comparing... Olympic Wrestling to WWE Wrestling... (I can't really think of a good analogy, just believe me, they are different.)

[Klimax]

What's the limit in this case?

Mods?

Manual blacklisting. No admin AFAIK has access to those controls - only JREF staff.

[SezMe]

While I am certainly willing to get butthurt about nothing at the drop of a hat, I must say that as a habitual user of ad-blocking web browser plugins, you seem to have a PEBKAC problem.
Yeah, my first thought was why don't you have ad-blocking installed.

What's PEBKAC?

[Darat]

What's the limit in this case?

Mods?
As FL:

Advertising on the Forum has nothing to do with the Mod Team so it's not actually a matter for what this section is meant to deal with - it's a JREF issue. I'll move this thread to the JREF section.

[DrDave]

Yeah, my first thought was why don't you have ad-blocking installed.

What's PEBKAC?

User error

Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair.

[Klimax]

Yeah, my first thought was why don't you have ad-blocking installed.

What's PEBKAC?

Why would somebody need adblocking software? Isn't Restricted zone+hosts sufficent?

:D

[Cuddles]

Penn and Teller must be rolling in their graves.

Wait, Penn and Teller are dead?

And the front page topic on JREF itself is an 'MMA expert'

A few people have asked, but you still don't seem to have answered why exactly you think this is a problem. The whole point of the interview is that he is fighting against the woo that exists in martial arts. Why would you consider that a bad thing?

[aggle-rithm]

Wait, Penn and Teller are dead?


No. But if they were alive, they would be rolling in their graves.

[notheist]

Little control when using Google Ad Sense. Google tries to match ads to the subject of the page be it pro or anti woo. Click on the ad and the advertiser pays per click. Conversely JREF get some of that money. Or do like most do, ignore the ad. Or, turn JREF into a pay to use site, no ads. Simple.

[Foster Zygote]

Breach of rule 12 removed.

If you have a problem with Penn and Teller's episode exposing the Martial Arts for the woo-woo it is, take it up with them.

If you agree with Pat Robertson and what he stands for, then defend it here.

That doesn't address what Wolfman wrote at all.

[jadebox]

Little control when using Google Ad Sense. Google tries to match ads to the subject of the page be it pro or anti woo. Click on the ad and the advertiser pays per click. [...] Simple.

Ads which don't really match the site are often the most effective. For example, someone looking for some "wooful" product might land on one of the JREF pages and, not being interested in learning the real facts about the product, will see an ad for the product and click on it.

I'd, of course, prefer that the woo-friendly visitor discover the truth, but, if they aren't interested in reality, at least they may help support the JREF by clicking on an ad.

-- Roger

[383LQ4SS]

If you have a problem with Penn and Teller's episode exposing the Martial Arts for the woo-woo it is, take it up with them.

If you agree with Pat Robertson and what he stands for, then defend it here.

I think you may be a bit ignorant of MMA in general.

MMA has done more to dispel woo in one area faster and more completely than anything I can actually think of. It is a continuous and open MDC challenge that does not require lengthy negotiations on protocol. :D

One of my favorite "experiments" can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I

The reality of these experiments hits hard!

[zooterkin]

Comparing MMA to Martial Arts is like comparing... Olympic Wrestling to WWE Wrestling... (I can't really think of a good analogy, just believe me, they are different.)

I'm not really sure I understand the analogy, since MMA is just one of many Martial Arts. Some Martial Arts can include a fair amount of woo, but that depends to a large degree on the teacher. Where one teacher may invoke Chi as the explanation for why something works, another may use biomechanics for the exact same technique.

[Almo]

Wait, Penn and Teller are dead?

Haven't you seen Penn and Teller Get Killed?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I'm not really sure I understand the analogy, since MMA is just one of many Martial Arts. Some Martial Arts can include a fair amount of woo, but that depends to a large degree on the teacher. Where one teacher may invoke Chi as the explanation for why something works, another may use biomechanics for the exact same technique.

I said it was a bad analogy in the quote! :D

Also, I was referring to MMA strictly in the UFC sense.

You take the good things from every different discipline, use what works, and you throw the rest away

[Giordano]

I like to think of it as ironic when the woo seller ads end up here. Surely it is the last place these companies wanted to advertise in return for the money they are paying for ad placement.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Wait, Penn and Teller are dead?


Perhaps he's thinking of that other comedy due, Rosencranz and Guildenstern.

[RobDegraves]

Maybe I'm missing the banners or something but I didn't see anything about Regent University.

Also...

If you have a problem with Penn and Teller's episode exposing the Martial Arts for the woo-woo it is, take it up with them.

I'm pretty sure that Penn and Teller have more important things to do than discuss martial arts with me. However...

1. I'm a big fan of Pen and Teller. I've seen them in person, talked to them once (which was awesome) and bought several of their videos and books.

2. I've seen the martial arts episode and though I have enjoyed and agreed with a lot of what they said in previous episodes, I didn't agree with this one.

3. I teach Karate and Ju-Jitsu, generally in a woo free atmosphere. :)

I disagree with their rationals for their conclusions and I think the episode was deliberately loaded with flakes in order to demonstrate their point in an artificial fashion.

Hopefully I don't have to agree with everything they say to be a fan. ;)

[arthwollipot]

Manual blacklisting. No admin AFAIK has access to those controls - only JREF staff.Jeff used to do it manually. See an ad, block that ad. As far as I know, since Jeff left JREF, no-one else has been doing this.

[rjh01]

The current one on the index page looks suspect. It offers everyone a job paying good money. They do not specify doing what. However they charge you $29.95 per month.

Edit. Headline "Make money from home"

[MNBrant]

I have been getting adobe creative suite 6 for students and teachers for weeks now. My computer is boring. I think if you post outlandish stuff you make it angry.

[BStrong]

I must be out of the loop - what's wrong with MMA?

[crimresearch]

I must be out of the loop - what's wrong with MMA?
IMO... For the purposes of being 'The Face of JREF', the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic.

[zooterkin]

For the purposes of being 'The Face of JREF', the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic.

I'll repeat my earlier question. Did you actually read the article about the MMA artist?


ETA: What does the triune brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triune_brain) have to do with anything?

[carlitos]

IMO... For the purposes of being 'The Face of JREF' a snob, the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic.
fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.'

[jaydeehess]

I must be out of the loop - what's wrong with MMA?

apparently its "steroid fueled" and too violent for the OP

The university ad likely is the result of a previous search or visit to the website of some other university. Let's remember that its a mindless computer program that inserted the ad

[crimresearch]

fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.'
No, you simply fabricated a strawman fallacy to avoid dealing with a challenge to your superstitious faith in TV.

[crimresearch]

apparently its "steroid fueled" and too violent for the OP

The university ad likely is the result of a previous search or visit to the website of some other university. Let's remember that its a mindless computer program that inserted the ad
So called 'reality TV' spectator sports is simply too *fake* for the OP.

But my being skeptical certainly shouldn't stop you from enjoying it, now should it?

[carlitos]

No, you simply fabricated a strawman fallacy to avoid dealing with a challenge to your superstitious faith in TV.

This makes no sense. Superstitious faith in TV about what?

If you think MMA is fake, you can easily test this claim just like that Japanese guy did in the link posted earlier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I). Good luck!

ETA - Spectator sports are not "so called reality TV," so there's your strawman.

[crimresearch]

This makes no sense. Superstitious faith in TV about what?

If you think MMA is fake, you can easily test this claim just like that Japanese guy did in the link posted earlier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I). Good luck!

ETA - Spectator sports are not "so called reality TV," so there's your strawman.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=8197108#post8197108

Yeah.... it doesn't get more 'real' than this.

But if you want to derail this thread into an internet tough guy challenge, start your own thread. This one is about whether JREF has an image to maintain, and if so, what/who fits that image.

I don't think that Pat Robertson, or for that matter Sylvia Browne (should she decide to purchase advertising on that feed), are a good fit.

I don't think that MMA prowess, or any other facet of TV ratings popularity should be a factor over whether Steven Hawking or Brock Lesnar gets featured on the next JREF front page.

I'll concede your point that any MMA fighter could whip Hawking... and I'd ask, so what?

I hear that Charlie Sheen is a pretty skeptical guy.

[Klimax]

Equating Pat Robertson to Silvia Brown is quiet a stretch considering there so far no bases for it...

(At best.)

[crimresearch]

Equating Pat Robertson to Silvia Brown is quiet a stretch considering there so far no bases for it...

(At best.)
Do tell.

[carlitos]

So called 'reality TV' spectator sports is simply too *fake* for the OP.

But my being skeptical certainly shouldn't stop you from enjoying it, now should it?

You seem to be (intentionally?) missing the point.

No one calls spectator sports "reality TV."

MMA is not "fake," in the sense that many martial arts are woo-ish about chi power or whatever. It's just guys fighting.

But if you want to derail this thread into an internet tough guy challenge, start your own thread. This one is about whether JREF has an image to maintain, and if so, what/who fits that image.
I am not starting an internet tough guy challenge, and don't understand why you have all of these straw man arguments.



I don't think that Pat Robertson, or for that matter Sylvia Browne (should she decide to purchase advertising on that feed), are a good fit.
Noted. However, that's how the google search algorithm works, and if you just stay signed in, you see no ads at all. Problem solved!

I don't think that MMA prowess, or any other facet of TV ratings popularity should be a factor over whether Steven Hawking or Brock Lesnar gets featured on the next JREF front page.
Obviously, that's a false binary, but I think that I get your point. You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point?

Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking?

I'll concede your point that any MMA fighter could whip Hawking... and I'd ask, so what?
You are conceding a point that I did not make. Again, with the straw men.

I hear that Charlie Sheen is a pretty skeptical guy. :confused:

[Beerina]

I'm not really sure I understand the analogy, since MMA is just one of many Martial Arts. Some Martial Arts can include a fair amount of woo, but that depends to a large degree on the teacher. Where one teacher may invoke Chi as the explanation for why something works, another may use biomechanics for the exact same technique.

That's the issue. "Martial Arts" is crammed to the gills with woo and prestidigitaton-like trickery. Chi, coal walking, board punching, brick punching, these things overlap and use tricks.

MMA, though I don't watch it, is an active pro, real sport akin to boxing or Olympic wrestling. And unlike pro wrestling.

[zooterkin]

That's the issue. "Martial Arts" is crammed to the gills with woo and prestidigitaton-like trickery. Chi, coal walking, board punching, brick punching, these things overlap and use tricks.
As I said, some Martial Arts have Chi and such-like often attached (but not always, and not always for particular types. I've attended judo, karate, Pencak Silat and Wing Chun classes, and none of them had any supernatural elements in the way they were taught); it seems a bit perverse to use the general term "Martial Arts" as a synonym for "Martial Arts which involve woo", when it has a perfectly good meaning already.

MMA, though I don't watch it, is an active pro, real sport akin to boxing or Olympic wrestling. And unlike pro wrestling.

MMA is just one more Martial Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts), which happens not to have much woo attached to it. And I still don't understand the OP's point. Why is it bad to have someone from a field (Martial Arts, of whatever sort) which can have, as you point out, woo and trickery attached, taking a skeptical and evidence-based approach?

[crimresearch]

Obviously, that's a false binary, but I think that I get your point. You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point?


Nope. That's a strawman.

[crimresearch]

As I said, some Martial Arts have Chi and such-like often attached (but not always, and not always for particular types. I've attended judo, karate, Pencak Silat and Wing Chun classes, and none of them had any supernatural elements in the way they were taught); it seems a bit perverse to use the general term "Martial Arts" as a synonym for "Martial Arts which involve woo", when it has a perfectly good meaning already.


MMA is just one more Martial Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_martial_arts), which happens not to have much woo attached to it. And I still don't understand the OP's point. Why is it bad to have someone from a field (Martial Arts, of whatever sort) which can have, as you point out, woo and trickery attached, taking a skeptical and evidence-based approach?
As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts, and they didn't stop with the mystical energy stuff, they also focused on the whole culture of selling 'deadly warrior secrets' and the hype that surrounds the business end.

In order to separate people from more of their money, the levels of deception employed rival any faith healer that Randi ever debunked. Teacher worship, lineage games, origination myths, secret manuals, potions, retention exercises... it is the stuff of carnies, and it goes back centuries.

So when I hear how *your* grandmaster (general 'you') is the only true grandmaster in the world, and nothing at all like the thousands of other rival grandmasters, other folks may be willing to suspend disbelief, empty the teacup that is their mind, and 'eat bitter'.

And as far as I can see, MMA is simply the televangelist branch of that particular faith based discipline with trophies and title matches replacing the trappings of the temple.

I don't know, I guess I'm just too... skeptical or something to make a good grasshopper.

[JJM 777]

I like to think of it as ironic when the woo seller ads end up here. Surely it is the last place these companies wanted to advertise in return for the money they are paying for ad placement.
I vaguely remember Randi commenting in some SWIFT years ago about a banner on JREF website which led to a silly hoax, that it is part of the E to lead people to encounter such idiocy and tackle it. Personally I am not sure what to think about this issue, I vote blank.

[Foolmewunz]

As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts, and they didn't stop with the mystical energy stuff, they also focused on the whole culture of selling 'deadly warrior secrets' and the hype that surrounds the business end.

In order to separate people from more of their money, the levels of deception employed rival any faith healer that Randi ever debunked. Teacher worship, lineage games, origination myths, secret manuals, potions, retention exercises... it is the stuff of carnies, and it goes back centuries.

So when I hear how *your* grandmaster (general 'you') is the only true grandmaster in the world, and nothing at all like the thousands of other rival grandmasters, other folks may be willing to suspend disbelief, empty the teacup that is their mind, and 'eat bitter'.

And as far as I can see, MMA is simply the televangelist branch of that particular faith based discipline with trophies and title matches replacing the trappings of the temple.

I don't know, I guess I'm just too... skeptical or something to make a good grasshopper.

Have you ever actually seen MMA?

[Checkmite]

I've seen MMA, on TV and Internet, multiple times. And while its not "fake" in the sense that the fighters obviously really are fighting and trying to win, there's plenty to get the skeptic senses tingling on a lighter level. Starting with the fighters being introduced and special attention paid to their different chosen "styles"; yet as soon as the fight starts it almost immediately devolves into the exact same indiscriminate grapple-punching.

[Foolmewunz]

I've seen MMA, on TV and Internet, multiple times. And while its not "fake" in the sense that the fighters obviously really are fighting and trying to win, there's plenty to get the skeptic senses tingling on a lighter level. Starting with the fighters being introduced and special attention paid to their different chosen "styles"; yet as soon as the fight starts it almost immediately devolves into the exact same indiscriminate grapple-punching.

I find that's one of the highlights of most legitimate martial arts fighting. Only in totally fixed venues (like heavyweight wrestling) and in fantasies (movies and TV) do you see those lovely poses and stances and perfect flying kicks and chops. Two capable fighters trying to beat the crap out of each other generally look like a couple of kids fighting,... just hurting each other more.

[383LQ4SS]

I've seen MMA, on TV and Internet, multiple times. And while its not "fake" in the sense that the fighters obviously really are fighting and trying to win, there's plenty to get the skeptic senses tingling on a lighter level. Starting with the fighters being introduced and special attention paid to their different chosen "styles"; yet as soon as the fight starts it almost immediately devolves into the exact same indiscriminate grapple-punching.

You probably haven't seen enough to spot the difference.

In addition...I don't think the "styles" that are announced mean much of anything these days. And I certainly dont think "special" attention is given to styles. Many avoid classification at all. Generally there are strikers and grapplers. You can subdivide a bit from there. But a persons "style" many times is just the point of entry they were introduced to combat sports. Many guys get their start in wrestling. Some in Judo. Many in Brazilian ju-jitsu, kick boxing etc etc.

Either way...any person who claims to have a "style" that has special properties or powers is instantly exposed. IMO it would be the claims of woo that would be important not a label for where that particular person received the majority of training.

[crimresearch]

Have you ever actually seen MMA?
Yes.

Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows?

Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King.

[383LQ4SS]

Actually...watch the very first UFC. They did pay attention to styles. That was one hell of a wake up call for many a woo practitioner!

[Foolmewunz]

Yes.

Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows?

Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King.

Mine was a legitimate question - don't you say you don't watch television? I was curious how you'd have seen MMA without television. Why would you think I've never seen P&T, though. Do you think we're incapable of keeping up with you level of skeptic research?

Hint: All professional sports is a racket in some form or another. If David Beckham came out in support of critical thinking should we dismiss him as just a part of the football "racket". I mean look at the match fixing, racism, hooligan violence, et al. How about Lance Armstrong? Surely bicycling is a clean cut sport.

Or how about we condemn all academicians because of the rampant publish or perish syndrome and the various researchers who've knowingly submitted bogus research and bogus results.

Okay, we get it. You want a higher class of spokesperson. By that, I take it you'd eliminate all athletes. Meh? I don't much care - I like sports and if someone who's popular in their field can expand the people who are paying attention, well... good.

[crimresearch]

Mine was a legitimate question - don't you say you don't watch television? I was curious how you'd have seen MMA without television. Why would you think I've never seen P&T, though. Do you think we're incapable of keeping up with you level of skeptic research?

Hint: All professional sports is a racket in some form or another. If David Beckham came out in support of critical thinking should we dismiss him as just a part of the football "racket". I mean look at the match fixing, racism, hooligan violence, et al. How about Lance Armstrong? Surely bicycling is a clean cut sport.

Or how about we condemn all academicians because of the rampant publish or perish syndrome and the various researchers who've knowingly submitted bogus research and bogus results.

Okay, we get it. You want a higher class of spokesperson. By that, I take it you'd eliminate all athletes. Meh? I don't much care - I like sports and if someone who's popular in their field can expand the people who are paying attention, well... good.
If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out. My choices aren't stopping you in the least.

And if the end result is the inability to do anything more than parrot strawmen, and string together fallacies like that, I'll stick to my approach, thanks.

[GrouchoMarxist]

Yes.

Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows?

Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King.

Why besmirchify Don King?

[Foolmewunz]

If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out. My choices aren't stopping you in the least.

And if the end result is the inability to do anything more than parrot strawmen, and string together fallacies like that, I'll stick to my approach, thanks.

Ah, yes, because asking you how you know about MMA if you don't watch television is easily translated into: "Because I, Foolmewunz, get my entire worldview from Desilu Productions."

Uh, no,.. actually it doesn't. It is an enquiry, which you did not answer, as to how you know (or want us to believe you know) so much about MMA, since it's essentially a television-created "sport'. Do you attend matches regularly? Hang around at Gold's Gym and talk to the up-and-coming talent? Do research work for the President's Council on Physical Fitness? How would someone who eschews the glass teat learn about it?

If not so predictable, I'd find it ironic that you accuse me of creating a strawman when you've clearly, not for the first time, created one yourself in dodging the question by accusing me of getting my worldview from television.

[crimresearch]

Ah, yes, because asking you how you know about MMA if you don't watch television is easily translated into: "Because I, Foolmewunz, get my entire worldview from Desilu Productions."

Uh, no,.. actually it doesn't. It is an enquiry, which you did not answer, as to how you know (or want us to believe you know) so much about MMA, since it's essentially a television-created "sport'. Do you attend matches regularly? Hang around at Gold's Gym and talk to the up-and-coming talent? Do research work for the President's Council on Physical Fitness? How would someone who eschews the glass teat learn about it?

If not so predictable, I'd find it ironic that you accuse me of creating a strawman when you've clearly, not for the first time, created one yourself in dodging the question by accusing me of getting my worldview from television.
If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer.

And then, instead of engaging in rational discourse, you chose to fabricate strawmen and play trite internet commando games in an apparent bid to derail.

Now, do you have anything relevant to the thread topic that is either correct or useful?

[carlitos]

OK, so more than one of us are getting this impression of crimresearch's complaint, and have asked for clarification without success.

...You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point?




Okay, we get it. You want a higher class of spokesperson. By that, I take it you'd eliminate all athletes. Meh? I don't much care - I like sports and if someone who's popular in their field can expand the people who are paying attention, well... good.

Could crimresearch possibly, pretty please with sugar on top, clarify the objection to an MMA person speaking about skeptical issues at the JREF?

If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out.


Have you ever actually seen MMA?
Yes.

Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows?


As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts,
:i:

Penn and Teller are on television, yes?

Anyway, more seriously:

Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking?

[crimresearch]

OK, so more than one of us are getting this impression of crimresearch's complaint, and have asked for clarification without success.





Could crimresearch possibly, pretty please with sugar on top, clarify the objection to an MMA person speaking about skeptical issues at the JREF?






:i:

Penn and Teller are on television, yes?

Anyway, more seriously:

Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking?
If you want to see P&T BS sans TV or commercials, YouTube is your friend.

I've made my point quite clearly. I find the stated concerns over protecting JREF's image on the internet to be inconsistently applied on the factors I cited. And I'm not aware of a shortage of either advertisers, or spokespersons for skepticism, that would limit the choices to only those under discussion.

Feel free to make your points about your sacred cows being gored, in the Personal Issues/Rants section of the forum.

[zooterkin]

I've made my point quite clearly.
No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending.

[crimresearch]

No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending.
Your assertion in direct contradiction to facts in evidence, is so... uncompelling.

[carlitos]

Feel free to make your points about your sacred cows being gored, in the Personal Issues/Rants section of the forum.
Sacred cows? I can't even watch MMA. It's way too violent for me, and I really like boxing. Several of us have gotten the same (apparently wrong) impression from the words you have posted here, so respectfully the communication problem appears to be at your end. I'll drop it.

Being snooty about "television" when you watch youtube is pretty funny though. Thanks for that. Some of the 9/11 truthers do that - tell me I'm brainwashed by the "media" when they get their info on youtube. Precious.

[Foolmewunz]

If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer.
And yet, curiously, when I asked the question.... You Did Not Answer. You replied with a condescending strawman about me choosing to get my information from television.


And then, instead of engaging in rational discourse, you chose to fabricate strawmen and play trite internet commando games in an apparent bid to derail.

Now, do you have anything relevant to the thread topic that is either correct or useful?

Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube. :eye-poppi That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch.

Useful? That depends, of course, on what one considers useful. Since I'm not sure that my goal in life is to support your ridiculous contentions, I think some may have found my comments useful.

Relevant? I stated my piece. I think having "celebrity" spokespersons for critical thinking and skepticism is a good thing. If those persons happen to come from (to me) fringe sports, so what?

Ya know what I think? I think you made a mistake in your OP and you're backing and filling with the pseudo-elitist approach to it just being unseemly. Not actually knowing what MMA was, you assumed it was "MA", i.e. Martial Arts and with your vast education (which is apparently from YouTube), you associated it with the lengthy research Penn & Teller and their bit on the nonsense surrounding all the Asian and pseudo-Asian martial arts. (And here's the irony... I think P&T are great. I recognize them as entertainers, though and I'd never use them as a primary source for anything other than The Penn & Teller Story.)

[Cuddles]

Now, do you have anything relevant to the thread topic that is either correct or useful?

Do you?

[crimresearch]

And yet, curiously, when I asked the question.... You Did Not Answer. You replied with a condescending strawman about me choosing to get my information from television.



Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube. :eye-poppi That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch.

Useful? That depends, of course, on what one considers useful. Since I'm not sure that my goal in life is to support your ridiculous contentions, I think some may have found my comments useful.

Relevant? I stated my piece. I think having "celebrity" spokespersons for critical thinking and skepticism is a good thing. If those persons happen to come from (to me) fringe sports, so what?

Ya know what I think? I think you made a mistake in your OP and you're backing and filling with the pseudo-elitist approach to it just being unseemly. Not actually knowing what MMA was, you assumed it was "MA", i.e. Martial Arts and with your vast education (which is apparently from YouTube), you associated it with the lengthy research Penn & Teller and their bit on the nonsense surrounding all the Asian and pseudo-Asian martial arts. (And here's the irony... I think P&T are great. I recognize them as entertainers, though and I'd never use them as a primary source for anything other than The Penn & Teller Story.)
I answered your Yes/No question 'Yes'. That's the reality. To that, you've offered nothing factual on the topic.

You can make up things I never said, and pretend I didn't say what I did, all you want... I don't think it demonstrates what you hope.

What is does do, is try to derail this thread and avoid actual rational discourse about the topic by replacing it with personal issues.

[crimresearch]

Sacred cows? I can't even watch MMA. It's way too violent for me, and I really like boxing. Several of us have gotten the same (apparently wrong) impression from the words you have posted here, so respectfully the communication problem appears to be at your end. I'll drop it.

Being snooty about "television" when you watch youtube is pretty funny though. Thanks for that. Some of the 9/11 truthers do that - tell me I'm brainwashed by the "media" when they get their info on youtube. Precious.
A good way to clear up the 'communication problem', would be to address what I actually said, instead of making up things I never said and claiming I believe them.


I'm sure you'll do your part to fix the problem on your end.

[RayG]

Why would somebody need adblocking software? Isn't Restricted zone+hosts sufficent?

:D

Where do I find those settings?

RayG

[Checkmite]

You probably haven't seen enough to spot the difference.

Is that like not being practiced enough at listening to notice the difference between regular speaker cables and gold-plated SuperCables?

In addition...I don't think the "styles" that are announced mean much of anything these days.

My point.

[carlitos]

I'm sure you'll do your part to fix the problem on your end.
Indeed.

I'll drop it.

[Klimax]

Where do I find those settings?

RayG

Restricted zone:
Not in Firefox,Chrome or anything else AFAIK...
It is IIRC Internet Explorer specific. (tools-internet options-security)

hosts file is in <system drive>:\windows\system32\drivers\etc

(manual adding possible or through 3rd party apps as passive protection)

[Justin]

Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King.

This is like saying that Enron is clear evidence that all business is crooked. Unless you have actual evidence that MMA competitions are being faked, there's no reason to engage in rampant speculation just because you happen to dislike the sport.

There are plenty of sports that I find bore me unto tears (Golf, I'm looking at you), but I would still be plenty happy to have famous golfers stand up in favor of skeptical thinking.

So, too, with MMA (a sport I'm not a fan of, either.) Frankly, I find it refreshing to find out that an athlete in a sport generally stereotyped as being populated by idiots is, in fact, an advocate for rational thought.