Randi and O'Reilly?

[Nihilanth]

EDIT: Sorry if this posts twice, but I don't think it will. It didn't seem to take the first time.

Did I read the little addendum to the commentary correctly? Did it actually say that James Randi might be appearing on the O'Reilly Factor? If so...God's/Eris'/howling-darkness-of-oblivion's sake, WHY!?!

The show isn't a forum for rational ideas. It's an excuse for Raging Bill to scream at whoever is seated in front of him. I mean, if whatever they're going to talk about is something Mr. Hypertension agrees with, then fine. They can sit and talk about how right they are. But if it's not, then it's just going to be O'Reilly screaming without letting Randi get a word in edgewise. I mean, I appreciate that Randi's got the guts to go on the show, but there's brave and there's just damned RECKLESS.

Anyone know what he's going on the show for, if he is?

Oh, but the CNN thing is cool.

[Questioninggeller]

I'm in favor of O'Lielly's audience learning about critical thinking.

[Nihilanth]

Right, but what I'm saying is that O'Reilly's audience isn't going to be learning about ANYTHING. Poor Randi's gonna be cut off every time he opens his mouth. And, I hate to generalize, but it SEEMS that most of the people that make a habit of watching the show aren't exactly open to new ideas.

Of course, I could be jumping the gun. I don't pay much attention to Bill O'Reilly; I find him way too unpleasant. Perhaps in addition to being a loudmouth jackass, he's also a paragon of skepticism. In which case him and Randi will get along just fine. But I doubt it.

[Solus]

Randi is much smarter than O'Reilly and Randi has even made people look like fools on their own shows, I'd love to see the same for Bill. Still, I can't recommend going on that man's show. He has all the power to edit and such so if you don't agree with him he'll made his sheep audience dislike you even more. If Randi doesn't do well. It just gives Randi and the JREF a bad image to millions who have never heard of him, not that it really matters.

When I was younger I watched his show. Billy will make a joke out of the segment. I wouldn't say this for many but maybe Randi can pull it off but just going in there and talking without some plan isn't going to work.

[Nihilanth]

Yeah, exactly. If Randi somehow manages to get his two cents in, O'Reilly'll just edit the hell out of it or just cut the segment short, like he did with that son of the guy who died in the WTC. Seriously, I think it's a bad idea considering the cards are stacked against him.

[Solus]

Yeah, exactly. If Randi somehow manages to get his two cents in, O'Reilly'll just edit the hell out of it or just cut the segment short, like he did with that son of the guy who died in the WTC. Seriously, I think it's a bad idea considering the cards are stacked against him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgOLjHIwCs&mode=related&search=

Here's Bill going nuts at kid whose father died in 9/11. That's what happens when you disagree with Bill. This video reminds me of how low Bill is, yelling at the kid to shut up. :boggled:

Randi better be prepared...

[JLam]

I may eat my words here, but I think Bill may be sympathetic to Randi. I really do. That's assuming he's talking about the Hornbeck case. That's what we're talking about, right?

Bill is kind of a right wing kook, but I don't see him buying into psychics.

We'll see.

[billyb1012]

I agree with JLam. At this writing, the appearance, if it happened, is past, and I missed it, but for all the things I dislike about O'Reilly politically, I can't see him coming down on the side of Sylvia Browne when the other choice is James Randi.

[Nihilanth]

What? Already past, you say? Damn my eyes, I wish I had TV. Anyone here know what happened? Did it degenerate into a fistfight? If so, I'd hate to say, but I think O'Reilly would win that one. Crazy beats rational anyday.

[ottle]

I don't think it's happened yet. He and Robert Lancaster were on Anderson Cooper last night (which was excellent) but I don't think he's been on O'Reilly yet.

I think it is possible to get your point across on O'Reilly even if he does bluster away. Lori Lippman Brown talked about doing just that at TAM yesterday. She's been on the show several times and I think O'Reilly has been criticized for letting her views come across.

She also said she got the most vile hate mail she'd ever received after going on his show.

[fuelair]

He wasn't on O'reilly - I taped all three of the shows mentioned (suggestion made that Brown - a product from Uranus Corp. - might be brought up - a distinct possibility digestive systemwise - on Larry King show) and only AC that I noticed.

[TheChadd]

I hate Bill Oreilly, but as long as randi steers clear of religion I imagine they'd probably get along. Randi (I'm sure) disagree's with 9/11 conspiracy theorists as does Bill, however for different reasons. I doubt Bill buys into ALL psychic nonsense etc...

I imagine if politics is brought up there would be major differences, I imagine if religion is brought up there would be major differences, but if he's merely being brought on to talk about skepticism when it relates to psychics/9/11 whatever... then I think it'll be fine.

But would it hurt skeptics more to be seen as aligned with Bill, or to be shut down by him?

[Number Six]

Randi would be out of his mind to turn down an invitation to the O'Reilly show. The audience is huge. And what's this about all the editing? I thought most of those interviews were live and as is. What O'Reilly does do sometimes is spin by not giving others an adequate change to state their views but all the guest has to do is point that out to the audience and it greatly lessens the effect.

All the people that won't go on O'Reilly because they think he's mean are crazy because he's going to be a lot more mean if they don't go on and let O'Reilly bash them unopposed. All it takes is somebody that is articulate and can think on his feet. The problem with O'Reilly is that he often steers clear of those kinds of guests and instead books dopes or sycophants. I'd absolutely love to see Randi get a slot on the show although I wouldn't bet on it happening.

[Just thinking]

I doubt that I'm alone having the opinion that when people avoid answering simple direct questions (not trick questions, of course) it's because they realize that the truth is something they would rather not expose. That's why I think Randi would show up, if invited. For example, recently when one of OJ's attorneys was asked if he himself felt that OJ committed the famous double murder, he kept answering a different question. Whether one likes O'Reilley or not, truth is I have seen some guests actually make him change his opinion on some topics -- the problem is, I all too often see people on his show that cannot argue their way out of a paper bag; and at no time have I seen anyone use the claim that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to present the proof of argument. Of course, if Randi accepts and Bill chooses not to have him on, Randi can add another clock alongside Sylvia's -- so my money's on his having Randi show up. And I don't think it would turn into the big O'Reilley bash many think here would happen -- my question is, what basically is it that is prompting this meeting of the minds?

[ChrisPowers]

What prompted his invitation (or offer) to appear on The O'Reilly Factor is the fact that Sylvia Browne was approached about the Shawn Hornbeck situation on The Montel Williams Show a while back, where she proceeded to say that a dark skinned (but not Black) man with long, dark, dreadlocks was responsible for kidnapping him, and that Shawn was "no longer with us". O'Reilly just had a segment on the Hornbeck story today (January 23, 2007) where he mentioned this incident in disgust.

For all you O'Reilly haters on here who love to talk about how dishonest and evil he is without ever having watched his program outside of the cherry-picked clips on YouTube, or for those who base their opinion of him on what you managed to glean from the Daily Show or David Letterman, here's the exact presentation from O'Reilly on tonight's program, word for word:

[shows clip of Sylvia Browne referenced above]

"Now you can imagine how the Hornbeck family who was listening to that garbage felt after hearing it. Yet Ms. Browne continues her career and Montel Williams continues to put her on the air. Now, we called Montel; he has no comment. [pointing at camera] That's not gonna cut it, sir. It's your responsibility. That's GARBAGE.

On the serious reporting front, Newsweek magazine..."

You get the drift. O'Reilly is a warrior against this sort of thing, and many of you should be ashamed for dismissing him so readily. Of course he and Randi won't see eye-to-eye on everything. Thank goodness for that. But to completely discount the man because of what you read on smear web sites is to do yourself a disservice. I expected better from the JREF Forum members.

[thaiboxerken]

O'Reilly is a nutball, and most of us come to that conclusion by watching his show, not from websites.

[ChrisPowers]

I see, so you speak for the majority of the members of this site, or just for the majority of those from this site who dislike Bill O'Reilly? Regardless, can you tell me exactly how you can say with confidence that "most" of that group came to the conclusion that he is a "nutball" by watching his show?

[thaiboxerken]

I see, so you speak for the majority of the members of this site, or just for the majority of those from this site who dislike Bill O'Reilly? Regardless, can you tell me exactly how you can say with confidence that "most" of that group came to the conclusion that he is a "nutball" by watching his show?

For those that dislikehim. I know because they've posted as much.

[ChrisPowers]

We'll forget for a second the incredibly unlikely scenario that you've managed to observe enough of the opinions of all the members of the JREF Forums who dislike O'Reilly and have posted whether or not they're basing that opinion on having watched his show to be able to definitively say what "most" of that group thinks.

I am still of the opinion that the majority of those who purport to dislike him do so as a result of things they've seen, heard, and read about him outside of his actual show. They'd consider themselves traitors, or they'd be embarrassed to watch the program when "everybody knows" he's dishonest and a cheerleader for Bush, etc.

Obviously, this is my opinion and I could very well be wrong. We have a difference of opinion; please do not continue to respond unless you have something constructive to say. I'm not looking to get into a tit for tat argument on the Internet about something so inconsequential.

[BillyJoe]

I expected better from the JREF Forum members.I'm sorry mummy, I won't do it again.

[ChrisPowers]

Admitting your mistake is the first step toward healing.

[cyborg]

We'll forget for a second the incredibly unlikely scenario that you've managed to observe enough of the opinions of all the members of the JREF Forums who dislike O'Reilly and have posted whether or not they're basing that opinion on having watched his show to be able to definitively say what "most" of that group thinks.

Yes, I would think it incredibly unlikely that a 8000+ poster who has been here for six years would have even a slight clue.

That just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Number Six]

I saw the O'Reilly bit on Sylvia Browne and it was beautiful. Give O'Reilly grief when he deserves it. I do that myself too. But he gets nothing but kudos for unequivocally and forcefully denouncing Sylvia and the shills that promote her.

[Just thinking]

I saw the O'Reilly bit on Sylvia Browne and it was beautiful. Give O'Reilly grief when he deserves it. I do that myself too. But he gets nothing but kudos for unequivocally and forcefully denouncing Sylvia and the shills that promote her.

I like to be fair too. Sure, Bill is a deeply religious person, and I get bent out of shape with his "You're going to hell for not believing" bit ... but he has been critical of Bush on many counts and has brought to light a good many people (judges, prosecutors, etc.) that have done terrible disservices to communities.

[Just thinking]

Admitting your mistake is the first step toward healing.

Oh ... and welcome to the forum!

Glad to have another (Jerseyite) on board.

[ChrisPowers]

I saw the O'Reilly bit on Sylvia Browne and it was beautiful. Give O'Reilly grief when he deserves it. I do that myself too. But he gets nothing but kudos for unequivocally and forcefully denouncing Sylvia and the shills that promote her.

Precisely my point, Number Six. For all the O'Reilly / Fox News bashing and Anderson Cooper / CNN admiring that I've seen in these forums, which pundit really laid into Sylvia Browne and Montel Williams (something that Randiites have been clamoring for for years).

The thing about O'Reilly is that--agree with him or not--he has the balls to say what's on his mind and he's not going to pull punches to come off as "politically correct". I mean that as no insult to Anderson Cooper; I think he has a fine show. But ask me whose bad side I want to be on, and I'll take Cooper any day over O'Reilly.

Let's just hope this is the start of something more, and not just a 30 second snippet. O'Reilly should tear into these psychics the way he tore into Ward Churchill and Mike Nifong.

[Just thinking]

... Let's just hope this is the start of something more, and not just a 30 second snippet. O'Reilly should tear into these psychics the way he tore into Ward Churchill and Mike Nifong.

Hey .. that got me thinking. What if all those here who agree with Bill on ripping apart Sylvia and Montel send Bill a letter congratulating him on his anger, and exposing such characters. He has a huge audience -- why not give him some positive re-enforcement as to prod him along in that direction?

Can you imagine a letter from Randi along those lines?

[ChrisPowers]

Oh ... and welcome to the forum!

Glad to have another (Jerseyite) on board.

Hey, thanks man. I'm actually not really new. I've been a member since the forums first appeared here. But I never posted much, so I stopped rejoining every time they switched servers or message boards or whatever.

In fact, I was coming to Randi's site before there even was a forum or an online newsletter. Better yet, I remember when Randi had no web site. How disappointed I was!

[ChrisPowers]

Hey .. that got me thinking. What if all those here who agree with Bill on ripping apart Sylvia and Montel send Bill a letter congratulating him on his anger, and exposing such characters. He has a huge audience -- why not give him some positive re-enforcement as to prod him along in that direction?

Can you imagine a letter from Randi along those lines?

Totally. I sent my e-mail last night. I figure, the more people he thinks will be interested, the more likely he is to focus on the story. Decency and journalistic integrity aside, all television programs need ratings in order to exist. We would be wise to use that fact to our advantage as best we can.

I urge others to do the same.

[Almo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YgOLjHIwCs&mode=related&search=

Here's Bill going nuts at kid whose father died in 9/11. That's what happens when you disagree with Bill. This video reminds me of how low Bill is, yelling at the kid to shut up. :boggled:

Randi better be prepared...

O'Reilly is such a scumbag. :mad:

[Just thinking]

O'Reilly is such a scumbag.

Ok, let's examine what's said and how. First off, Bill makes a point that Jeremy equates the USA with the terrorists, and claims that such an analogy offends him -- in a calm respectful tone. And why not? -- such a statement doing that to some should be no surprise. But Jeremy is shocked that Bill is offended. Shocked? -- please, that would be ridiculous.

Then his rant goes into the old illegitimate 2000 election routine -- you know, the one that James Carville claimed would be proved a fraud after all those ballots were going to be recounted fairly and show Al Gore as the true winner. James? James? -- are you there? How's that tally going? Oh well, I'm sure we'll hear back soon.

Then after some polite banting about how his (Jeremy) father too believed the 2000 election was a fraud, Jeremy recants his claim on the US being a terrorist organization.

Then he goes on blaming Bush Sr. (after losing his argument about why we should not have hit the Taliban) for 911 in that we trained armies in Afghanistan -- hence, anything they do is our fault. Just because I train someone to use a gun who then goes out and commits murder does not make me a murderer or accessory to his crimes -- anymore that the pilots that trained the hijackers how to fly are accessories to 911.

Then, as Bill stopped himself from saying things too nasty in respect to Jeremy's father, Jeremy rudely interrupts, which gets Bill to tell him to shut up.

Sorry -- Jeremy's Dad's death does not give him a free pass to say whatever he likes on someone else's program.

[TheChadd]

Yea and of course calling the US a terrorist organisation should immediately, without question, lose you the debate - Right? Can you explain to me the justification for the aggressive US actions against cuba for the past 50 years, for starters.

[thaiboxerken]

We'll forget for a second the incredibly unlikely scenario that you've managed to observe enough of the opinions of all the members of the JREF Forums who dislike O'Reilly and have posted whether or not they're basing that opinion on having watched his show to be able to definitively say what "most" of that group thinks.

Would you like me to start a poll then? I've only been in this forum for a few years, so I guess I wouldn't have had time to observe posts about O'Reilly.

[Mr. Scott]

O'Reilly has admitted* that what he does on his show is "an act." I've personally observed him freely using logical falacies and intellectual dishonesty. His show is not live, but heavily edited to partisan objectives. If Randi and O'Reilly stick to what a cruel fraud Sylvia Browne is, Randi will do fine. If, however, Randi make statements that are out of step with the Republican party line, then O'Reilly will stop at nothing to destroy him.

My opinion, based on actually watching O'Reilly's show.

"I'm effete. I'm not a tough guy. This is all an act."

link (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2806692&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312)

[BillyJoe]

The only Bill O'Reilly I know is a cricketer. It seems I should be glad of that.

[trader08]

O'Reilly has admitted* that what he does on his show is "an act." I've personally observed him freely using logical falacies and intellectual dishonesty. His show is not live, but heavily edited to partisan objectives. If Randi and O'Reilly stick to what a cruel fraud Sylvia Browne is, Randi will do fine. If, however, Randi make statements that are out of step with the Republican party line, then O'Reilly will stop at nothing to destroy him.

My opinion, based on actually watching O'Reilly's show.



Colbert retorted as though his mirror-image of O'Reilly had been broken: "If you're an act, then what am I?"

If you haven't seen this, check it out on youtube. I never understood Colbert (never actual sat down and tried to follow Colbert's show until this) until I saw their cross interviews. It's very funny.

And to "Just Thinking", I don't think the argument is that if you teach a person to shoot a gun, it's not your fault when they kill someone. I'd hope that's obvious.

What Jeremy is against is with the US policy of taking sides not for the betterment of the country, but for financial gains, (weapons and oil are big businesses) and then cutting when the **** hits the fan. Therefore it's not as simple as these fundamentalist killed our people and now we must kill them (which seems to be O'Reilly's simplistic and irrational views).

Jeremy is trying to think rationally after his father's tragedy and this Ahole decides he knows best and belittles this person's respect for his own father.

That's atleast how I saw it.

[Buckaroo]

With friends like these...

Bill O'Reilly is a deliberate liar and a demagogue, both qualities that are diametrically opposed to our values as skeptics. While I understand why Randi would choose appear on such a show (and I don't entirely disagree), I nevertheless think JREF should tread carefully in associating with such a character.

And I won't even go into the sexual harrassment suit...

[brooklyn44]

Would you like me to start a poll then? I've only been in this forum for a few years, so I guess I wouldn't have had time to observe posts about O'Reilly.

Surely Thaiboxerken, you can't possible state anything about the hundreds upon hundreds of us who have strong opinions about Bill O but never hit the send button to share them with you.
The active posters do not necessarily reflect ALL of us JREF members.
(By the way i abhor bill o'lielly (sic) and at the same time would have loved to see Mr. Randi make mince meat of him)
b44

[Sugriva]

With friends like these...

Bill O'Reilly is a deliberate liar and a demagogue, both qualities that are diametrically opposed to our values as skeptics. While I understand why Randi would choose appear on such a show (and I don't entirely disagree), I nevertheless think JREF should tread carefully in associating with such a character.

And I won't even go into the sexual harrassment suit...
<spits falafel lunch into his napkin and throws it away....>
:eek:

[Buckaroo]

<spits falafel lunch into his napkin and throws it away....>
:eek:

:D

[Bull13]

Got to give kudos to old forehead boy for jumping down Montel and Sylvias throats and breaking out thier backsides like poison oak.

[Jeff Wagg]

Just a quick note..

O'Reilly contacted us at TAM, and Randi WOULD have gone on the show.

Randi is under no illusion as to what the show is really like. However, O'Reilly was going to be taking Sylvia down, and that helps our cause. Strange bedfellows? Yes. But in this case, it would have been worth it. In the end, Bill decided not to have Randi on.

[Mercutio]

Just a quick note..

O'Reilly contacted us at TAM, and Randi WOULD have gone on the show.

Randi is under no illusion as to what the show is really like. However, O'Reilly was going to be taking Sylvia down, and that helps our cause. Strange bedfellows? Yes. But in this case, it would have been worth it. In the end, Bill decided not to have Randi on.

So is this the end of this particular window of opportunity? Not "delayed", but "cancelled"?

[Axiom_Blade]

Bill O'Reilly?
I heard that guy likes to get kinky with loofah sponges and falafels. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html)

[Buckaroo]

Just a quick note..

O'Reilly contacted us at TAM, and Randi WOULD have gone on the show.

Randi is under no illusion as to what the show is really like. However, O'Reilly was going to be taking Sylvia down, and that helps our cause. Strange bedfellows? Yes. But in this case, it would have been worth it. In the end, Bill decided not to have Randi on.

Thanks for that, Jeff. I have no doubt Mr. Randi knew exactly what he was doing, and had fully weighed the pros and cons of appearing. But I'm still kinda glad he didn't make it on. :relieved:

[Gr8wight]

Bill O'Reilly?
I heard that guy likes to get kinky with loofah sponges and falafels. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html)

...not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Jeff Wagg]

So is this the end of this particular window of opportunity? Not "delayed", but "cancelled"?

As it stands right now:

We don't expect to hear back from O'Reilly.

Anderson Cooper said he'd reschedule.. but that was before Larry King agreed to have Randi on tonight. Since they're on the same network, I wonder what interplay there has been. Unless something dramatic happens, my gut feeling is that this is the last appearance we'll have.

We may, however, create something dramatic. ;)

[BillyJoe]

We may, however, create something dramatic. ;)Yes, the new philosophy....
Don't just wait for something to happen, make it happen!

(if that's what you mean)

[JanisChambers]

I will agree that going on the Bill show is useless, He is pretty much a Mad man, unable to see anything beyond his subjective reality, however if there is anyone who could make that man turn red (or even purple) I would love to see it. However, given the violent nature of the frustrated theist, I fear for Mr. Randi's life.

[SkepticSteph]

So is there a tread about Randi's appearance on Larry King? I missed it, and then stayed up until 2 AM and sat through some drivel about Anna Nicole's baby's daddy to see him! He did an awesome job!

[Reno]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73435

[SkepticSteph]

Thanks Reno!

And to think I could have waited and had the whole interview on the forum!

Well, at least I am aware that Anna Nicole's baby daddy really just wants to be a part of the baby's life and wants NO PART of the child's wealth. RIGHT.

[Number Six]

Thanks Reno!

And to think I could have waited and had the whole interview on the forum!

Well, at least I am aware that Anna Nicole's baby daddy really just wants to be a part of the baby's life and wants NO PART of the child's wealth. RIGHT.
This might be derailing, and I was thinking of starting a separate thread on this topic anyway, and maybe I will...but...I don't know if being in this kids life will enrich this guy or not but I doubt it'd do too much for him financially. I mean, I don't see how he's in this for the money. I am on this guys' side, assumig he's telling the truth, and the fact that Anna Nicole won't take the test says to me that he probably is telling the truth. If it's his kid how can she possibly justify not letting him be part of the child's life? It's ironic that that there are so many kids whose fathers could have all the access they want but they don't care and then this guy comes along and wants access but can't have it.

[Reno]

I wonder if he'd be so desperate for access if she still lived in a trailer park and was still paid in single dollar bills.

[ChrisPowers]

O'Reilly has admitted* that what he does on his show is "an act." I've personally observed him freely using logical falacies and intellectual dishonesty. His show is not live, but heavily edited to partisan objectives. If Randi and O'Reilly stick to what a cruel fraud Sylvia Browne is, Randi will do fine. If, however, Randi make statements that are out of step with the Republican party line, then O'Reilly will stop at nothing to destroy him.

My opinion, based on actually watching O'Reilly's show.

Hmm, do you think maybe there's a chance he was being facetious when he referred to his performance as an "act" and called himself "effete" while on The Colbert Report? Because, if you really think that amounts to an admission that he's a phony, I might also like to point out to you that Jonathan Swift was not actually admitting to cannibalism when he wrote A Modest Proposal and Lou Costello actually did know Who was on first.

Of course, your "Republican party line" comment puzzles me since, as you do watch the show, you're aware of how many positions he has that are in direct opposition to that "party line" and just how often he criticizes President Bush and defends Democrats when they're being unfairly attacked. Certainly you've witnessed that on many occasions as you sat on the couch wearing your Factor Gear with your 'No Spin Zone' pennant in hand.

[vissud]

Where the interview could go wrong (if it ever happens), is if Bill goes on one of his "secular progressives are ruining the country" bit. Forget his "republican" tendencies. He's conservative, a loudmouth, and not really running a no-spin zone, but he's not a shill for the Bush administration.

[ChrisPowers]

With friends like these...

Bill O'Reilly is a deliberate liar and a demagogue, both qualities that are diametrically opposed to our values as skeptics. While I understand why Randi would choose appear on such a show (and I don't entirely disagree), I nevertheless think JREF should tread carefully in associating with such a character.

And I won't even go into the sexual harrassment suit...

That's interesting. I would say that shunning a person because their political viewpoint doesn't agree with yours is diametrically opposed to my values as a skeptic, but then, what do I know--I have so glaringly few posts on the JREF Forum.

Of course, as a civilized and erudite community, we can all agree that resorting to personal attacks is reprehensible and demonstrates desperation on the part of the accuser. Oh wait...

[Reno]

but then, what do I know--I have so glaringly few posts on the JREF Forum.

What does the number of posts you make have to do anything?

[Gurdur]

... O'Reilly is a warrior ...
Very funny. That one will keep me laughing for a fortnight. :D

[MadOverlord]

I for one would love to see JR go on Colbert or The Daily Show.

Randi vs. Colbert would be simultaneously hilarious and educational.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

What does the number of posts you make have to do anything?

Is there still the rule on this forum that you can't have an avatar unless you have a certain number of posts?

[Buckaroo]

That's interesting. I would say that shunning a person because their political viewpoint doesn't agree with yours is diametrically opposed to my values as a skeptic, but then, what do I know--I have so glaringly few posts on the JREF Forum.

Did I say anything about his political viewpoint? I said he was a liar and demagogue, qualities which have nothing to do with one's politics. Furthermore, this "accusation" is far from unfounded (I'd be happy to provide evidence, if you like), and has a direct bearing on our values as skeptics, so your objection that it's a personal attack rings hollow.

Of course, as a civilized and erudite community, we can all agree that resorting to personal attacks is reprehensible and demonstrates desperation on the part of the accuser. Oh wait...

You're right. Maybe we should use O'Reilly as our role model. Oh, wait...:rolleyes:

[DuckTapeFileMan]

The trouble with O'reilly is that he is a "you're either with us or against us" type of guy which is something that I can't see J.Randi going along with. They would make rather uncomfortable bedfellows.

[BillyJoe]

They would make rather uncomfortable bedfellows.Yeah, back to back with their bum cheeks touching to make sure the other doesn't turn over...

[Suggestologist]

I remember that Ron Barrier (?) the American Atheist's spokesguy, was on O'Reilly a few years ago.

[Mr. Scott]

Hmm, do you think maybe there's a chance he was being facetious when he referred to his performance as an "act" and called himself "effete" while on The Colbert Report? Because, if you really think that amounts to an admission that he's a phony, I might also like to point out to you that Jonathan Swift was not actually admitting to cannibalism when he wrote A Modest Proposal and Lou Costello actually did know Who was on first.

O'Reilly being facetious about being "effete" doesn't seem to be the format of the show. Most guests on Colbert are serious, and in fact tend to leak the truth even when seeming to be facetious. For example, when Depak Chopra was interviewed, Colbert asked him,"Are you a prophet?" to which Chopra answered "Yes, but it's spelled P-R-O-F-I-T." Dawkins was on Colbert and was awesome, laughing a few times at Colbert's clowning but Dawkins' remarks were serious and accurate. The format of Colbert's interviews is the guest is straight and Colbert is the clown. It makes no sense that O'Reilly would have said these things faceciously. Did he chuckle and say "just kidding" afterwards? Not his style.

Of course, your "Republican party line" comment puzzles me since, as you do watch the show, you're aware of how many positions he has that are in direct opposition to that "party line" and just how often he criticizes President Bush and defends Democrats when they're being unfairly attacked.

I watch the show as little as possible, but it's in Fox's and O'Reilly's play book to only throw an occasional softball criticism at the right, such as "they're don't stand up to the Democrats enough," and save the hardballs for enemies of the administration. Check out O'Reilly's interview with the son of a WTC casualty to view his style, where he tells his crew, "shut his mike off" when the guest stands up to repeated rude interruptions by O'Reilly (see Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004) (http://imdb.com/title/tt0418038/))

Physical evidence has surfaced (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html) that Fox News, run by former Republican campaign strategist Roger Ailes, is for all intents and purposes, a propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

Since Randi has called Republicans "stupid" in his commentary, IIRC, he'd be smart to romance Fox News with hesitation.

[Mauberly]

This thread is what scares me about this site. I cannot believe that anyone with a serious opinion watches Cooper, O'reilly or any of the others. Both shows are for... whatever. If you don't know keep watching, it is where you belong. New York Times Book review intelligence, it fools many but is no more informed than your Uncle Jack who has never left the woods. It just sounds better.

[BillyJoe]

We don't have them here in Australia, but I feel the same about all the current affairs programs on the commercial networks. You're dumber after watching them. Seeing as I can't afford to get any more so, I avoid them like the plague.

[Just thinking]

Yea and of course calling the US a terrorist organization should immediately, without question, lose you the debate - Right?

Yes ... as it posits an erroneous starting point. Sort of like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Can you explain to me the justification for the aggressive US actions against Cuba for the past 50 years, for starters.

Sure ... as soon as you post the US organization(s) (and the evidence) that brainwash children to go strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in public gatherings. Oh, and let's not leave out the televised be-headings.

Oh .. and why are you equating aggressive as terrorist? The two are not synonymous.