TAM 6 Suggestion Thread

[DiskoVilante]

I guess the main problem with TAM 5 were the A/V problems! I hate it when that happens...we're in the 21st century!
I was wondering if the laptops were tested with the A/V equipment before speakers gave their talks? If not, why?
I think it would be a good idea to have only one laptop used throughout all the talks. All speakers should be asked to provide their PowerPoint files, videos, and other media before TAM so that they can be tested.
And don't forget to test that laptop also.

EDIT: DJ dB's post below gave me an idea. Why not have two laptops that are known to work with the A/V equipment. One laptop is for presenting and the other is for any editing the speaker wants to do before their presentation.
There also should be some standardized file format for presentations and video.

I can't remember anything else that bothered me. That's probably because TAM 5 was so friggin' AWESOME! :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[DJ dB]

I know at least one of the presenters was still working on his graphics minutes before his lecture, so I'm thinking early testing's probably not gonna happen at this stage.

The audio guy was a bit too laissez-faire for my tastes, too.

I'm an A/V engineer in Vegas, BTW.

[DiskoVilante]

The presenters could be required to have their presentations ready a day before their presentation. Would that be too much to ask?
And if they reaaaallllyyyy have to edit their presentation, they should do it on the 2nd backup laptop.

[Wowbagger]

Some of the A/V issues were not the fault of the laptops. For example: Randi's videos from South Korea could have been edited better beforehand.

[Overman]

Some of the A/V issues were not the fault of the laptops. For example: Randi's videos from South Korea could have been edited better beforehand.

That presentation was a freaking joke.

They can't take the time to edit that video? Instead they just sit there and fumble with it, looking like fools, while the audience of 500+ wonders what they are paying for...?:confused:

Other than the AV problems and my above bug I really liked everything!:)

[Patsy]

I have a suggestion for TAM6. Hold in in, oh, I don't know, how about Tucson :whistling

[phyz]

A/V should be simple enough from a laptop: RGB-out and Stereo out. Are there a lot of variations out there? I work on a Macintosh PowerBook and am always able to pipe video into a projector. The PB has a DVI-out, but a simple DVI-to-RGB solves the problem. Audio: 1/8" mini stereo jack.

The show of Randi's Korean show suffered--severely--from lack of preparation. The content was excellent, but the fumbling was excrutiating.

Wiseman's preso suffered from the audio issue--which was clearly the fault of The Riv or JREF or someone not Wiseman. But he also suffered from a DVD interface issue that was solved upon restart. That was the fault of the DVD or the computer. And Wiseman has to shoulder some level of responsibility for that (Hal's pleading apology notwithstanding).

I'm certainly not in favor of standardizing on PowerPoint. I am in favor of standardizing on RGB out and stereo out.

Giving a talk is a big deal. And for those of us who don't do them on a regular basis, it's hard to believe how fast the time goes when you're in the spotlight. If you do not have an innate sense of how much you can cover in the alotted time, you need to practice the talk. You will almost always want to tell the audience more than your time will allow. So you must cut things out. It's not easy, but it must be done.

I'm a fan of the wireless USB clickers with built-in timers. They advance your preso, and they tell you the time remaining (on the clicker) and they vibrate at two minutes. Gershenfeld used one.

[slingblade]

I apologize for complaining, even a little, but the names on nametags really needed to be bigger. While it's fun to see where people are from, I'd forego the location line, myself, in favor of putting names in a much bigger font.

I'm not really sure I care where you're from, if I can't figure out first who you are. ;)

[DiskoVilante]

I apologize for complaining, even a little, but the names on nametags really needed to be bigger. While it's fun to see where people are from, I'd forego the location line, myself, in favor of putting names in a much bigger font.

I'm not really sure I care where you're from, if I can't figure out first who you are. ;)

Good point. They should also leave more space for the avatar stickers.

[DRBUZZ0]

That presentation was a freaking joke.

They can't take the time to edit that video? Instead they just sit there and fumble with it, looking like fools, while the audience of 500+ wonders what they are paying for...?:confused:

Other than the AV problems and my above bug I really liked everything!:)


Oh for christ sake people. Is it really that big a deal? This seems to be the *worst* example of organization and structure falling apart at TAM and that....ain't bad.

Okay... agreed that Randi's presentation was based on some less-than-optimally organized DVD's and that it may have even been a bit haphazard AV-wise.

And the gentleman who had the "Funniest Joke" presentation seemed to get a bit upset about the AV issues, but I still thought it was a great presentation, none-the-less.

There are some relatively simple and understandable reasons why AV issues are going to crop up. Everyone uses different software. Some laptops have VGA out and some have DVI. Some DVI can be connected to VGA with a simple adapter and some required a conversion box. Audio can be mono, stereo and line-level or amplified/microphone. And sometimes it doesn't say what the i/o format of a laptop's sound card is. And drivers can get messy anyway... mpeg codecs may not be defined in both video outputs and resolutions and scan rates varry.

It's the nature of the beast. It happends. it probably could have been managed better... But I don't think it's as big a deal as some made it out to be.


Next year my suggestion: have a VGA/DVI output for the laptop to hook up to, with a converter box to allow for both. Have a couple audio inputs and put a little dish to the side with a couple simple adapters. Also, have a USB sound card which works with generic non-install drivers, just incase...

Have everyone try their connection before hand (if possible) and have an extra pre-configured laptop, for those who brought software and not hardware... It should run windows, because that's the most common. Have powerpoint... because that's most common. But also open-office-presenter and others.

But I doubt even that would get rid of *all* the problems

[IllegalArgument]

The problem was Randi-Swiss's presentation, compared to the other presentations it was poorly organized.

I did find out that Swiss only received the source video two days before, so I'm probably being overly critical.

[DiskoVilante]

Next year my suggestion: have a VGA/DVI output for the laptop to hook up to, with a converter box to allow for both. Have a couple audio inputs and put a little dish to the side with a couple simple adapters. Also, have a USB sound card which works with generic non-install drivers, just incase...

Have everyone try their connection before hand (if possible) and have an extra pre-configured laptop, for those who brought software and not hardware... It should run windows, because that's the most common. Have powerpoint... because that's most common. But also open-office-presenter and others.

But I doubt even that would get rid of *all* the problems

Agreed. I'm writing this down.

[Frogberto]

I apologize for complaining, even a little, but the names on nametags really needed to be bigger. While it's fun to see where people are from, I'd forego the location line, myself, in favor of putting names in a much bigger font.

I'm not really sure I care where you're from, if I can't figure out first who you are. ;)

Actually, that is a VERY good suggestion. I'm glad that we didn't have to wear two badges - one for the forum name and one for our "real" name, (the stickers were a great idea, in other words), but stickers plus a larger font would be perfect.

[aofl]

I apologize for complaining, even a little, but the names on nametags really needed to be bigger. While it's fun to see where people are from, I'd forego the location line, myself, in favor of putting names in a much bigger font.

I'm not really sure I care where you're from, if I can't figure out first who you are. ;)

I would also like the name tags to be not so flimsy. By the end of TAM, one end of the elastic cord just started popping out randomly and I almost lost the thing. Since there were other conferences going on at the same time at the Riv there were examples of much better name tags on display. Hopefully we can get some like those next time.

A

[Hal Bidlack]

Please keep these coming, we are reading them.

hal

[Geek Goddess]

Please keep these coming, we are reading them.

hal

They teach you that in the AF? ;)


I was happy with everything, except the problems like everyone had with the smoking/non-smoking rooms, which everyone realizes was not something JREF can control, and the AV problems, which frustrated everyone equally, no doubt. I think that everything was well done. I go to an 80-year-old annual conference that usually has about 2000 attendees, and other than the slightly more upscale hotels (but everyone is on expense account that goes to it), JREF's organizational skills are commendable. Nothing ever goes perfectly, but I think you guys pulled off a fantastic job.

I thought the lunches were nicely done. Some sort of protein, even some sliced cheese or yogurt, would have been nice for breakfast, if that doesn't run the bill up too much. It would be nice if a sponsor could be found to keep coffee in the back (even the hotel coffee) during breaks.

[Cleon]

Could we NOT have so much pimping of Libertarianism next year? Given all the presenters, especially Shermer, there seemed to be this not-so-subtle indication that Libertarianism is the Official Political Perspective of Skepticism. Which, of course, is far from the case--when Shermer asked how many were Libertarians, a minority of those in the room raised their hands.

I was really bothered by this--and from conversations with others, I'm definitely not alone on this. I'm not saying speakers should be prevented from talking politics, and I'm certainly not saying that people who are famous for their politics (Parker, Stone, P&T, etc) should be prevented from coming, but I really dislike the way that out of all the voices on stage, one particular political perspective kept being pushed. Those who didn't share that philosophy either A) actually stuck to the theme of the conference and kept their politics to themselves or B) in the only case of a different view being put forward was insulted by one of the other panelists.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. Just...Next year, please leave the politics to situations where it's relevant (creationism being pushed by certain conservatives, for example). That's all I'm asking.

[DRBUZZ0]

Please keep these coming, we are reading them.

hal

No! Stop reading them! Hal... go sit, in a comfortable chair. Ideally, a recliner. Put on a smoking jacket or something like that. Hell... do it in the buff if it'll be more comfortable (but spare us the details).

Then put on some good music and have a nice drink. I don't know if you are a drinking man, but if not, then just get some really good gourmet soda, like birch beer or maybe some good fruit juice mix.. Whatever suits you. Maybe put on a movie, or open a very light-reading book.

Do you have any realization of just how well TAM went? I mean, our biggest complaint was one of the presentations got temporarily lost trying to navigate a DVD and that the audio hookup had a few glitches.

I have no doubt that you are a superhuman, but just the same...


And by the way... Thanks again for all the effort you put in to this.

[athon]

I tend to normally avoid these sorts of critiques, because it feels so negative when really I was incredibly happy with most of the TAM features.

TAM initially seemed to be something of a fundraiser for the JREF, while acting as a means for people to network and discuss ways of raising the public awareness of skepticism. However, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated, TAM now ranks as one of the most popular gatherings for skeptics and critical thinkers. As such, it must be professional and comparible with other conferences of the same calibre.

Jamie's 'Randi' video session, while in some ways entertaining, was not a professional presentation by anyone's definition. Like several other presentations, it felt more like a stumble through a progression of images than a real 'presentation'. For instance, compared with Richard Wiseman's superb talk -- which was entertaining and well paced -- it was amateur at best. I tend to feel sometimes TAM is a 'friends of Randi chat-session'. I do understand that the event is rather inexpensive when compared with other conferences, and these people are doing Randi a favour by dropping in and doing a Q&A, yet I believe that TAM has now reached a level where it can be far more proactive, and offer far more than just a meet and greet with celebrity skeptics.

I also felt the audio problems detracted from the professionalism of the event, so too the few moments when presenters went overtime.

Recommendations: workshops need to be interactive. From what I understand, the media workshop was rather good, however the education workshop -- while interesting -- was (IMO) not worth the money spent on it.

I'll address this in further detail in the future when I sit and think on some suggestions for educational workshops in the future.

I know the above seems rather critical, and feels negative. But in truth, I see TAM as an event which does so much good for the skeptical community, and indeed as we approach a great change in how the greater community sees skepticism and critical thinking, we must use it for everything it offers.

Athon

[Brown]

Although people have nopt mentioned potential future guests, allow me to mention this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=544) and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60692).

Potential guests include:
Buzz Aldrin
John Young
Gene Kranz
John Allan Paulos (whom I recommend after every TAM)
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Brian Greene
Ibn Warriq
Paul MacCready
James Alcock
James Oberg
Ann Druyan
Bill Nye
Story Musgrave
Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
Stephen Fry
Dean Edell
Dr. Temple Grandin
Karla McLaren
Douglas Hofstadter
Eric Idle
Dr. Oliver Sacks
Burt Rutan
Linus Torvalds
Jared Diamond
Alan Alda
Sam Harris
Criss Angel
Wally Schirra
Geoffrey Miller
Jon Ronson
David Zarefsky
David Willey
Paul Kurtz
George Carlin
Ted Rall
Stephen Pinker
Stephen Hawking
Adam Corrola
Edward O. Wilson
Salman Rushdie
Phil Donahue
"The Infidel Guy"
Dr. Kevin Ausman
Susan Blackmore
Vic Tandy
Jon Ronson
Charles Paxton
Adam Hart-Davis
Marc Abrahams
Derren Brown
Ray Hyman
Alton Brown
Elizabeth Loftus
Massimo Pigliucci
Lawrence M. Krauss
John Stossel

...and more. I can't say I've listed all the suggested names, and I certainly don't have insight into who they all are, but if we want to ask some of these folks to come to TAM, now it the time to do the askin'.

[Margaret K]

Got home this morning to Brisbane, Australia after an all night trip in cattle class (aka economy or coach) on a packed plane.
I was a bit overawed by the sheer size of it all (TAM that is, not the plane) --- 800 plus attendees.

I really appreciated getting the certificate of attendance in the conference pack. As a teacher, a copy will be filed with my tax return at the end of the coming financial year. Those lovely words - tax deduction!!!! Who knows, if I save up, I might even be able to consider coming along next time around!

Anyway, what I think would have been a good thing to have in the pack would have been a list of attendees. This could easily have been generated as a spreadsheet (arranged alphabetically by surname?) with the same info as appeared on the name tags - name, where from, and if one exists JREF forum name and avatar! I'd really like to have known just who was there and where we all came from.

Also why not investigate using lanyards next time around with TAM7 printed on them instead of the elastic bands with the staples on the end for the name tags. After the conference, attendees would have a handy souvenir which they could use for keys, mobile phones.....

Cheers
Margaret K
(Darwin K Bear's friend)

[Wowbagger]

I've got a few suggestions, unrelated to A/V stuff:

1. The Riv was not bad, at all. But, Perhaps a hotel somewhere in the middle section of The Strip would be nice.

2. Jamy Ian Swiss is not a bad mentalist, but I think he's better doing close-up stuff.

3. The registration system should warn you if you got tickets to two things that are taking place at the same time. (I accidentally bought my P&T ticket for Saturday, instead of Friday, which took place at the same time as Jamy's show.)

4. More posters in the "poster session".

I was going to suggest they have TAM in Florida, but it looks like they are already planning a "mini" one, there. I, for one, hope they do.

[DRBUZZ0]

Although people have nopt mentioned potential future guests, allow me to mention this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=544) and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60692).

Potential guests include:
Buzz Aldrin
John Young
Gene Kranz
John Allan Paulos (whom I recommend after every TAM)
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Brian Greene
Ibn Warriq
Paul MacCready
James Alcock
James Oberg
Ann Druyan
Bill Nye
Story Musgrave
Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
Stephen Fry
Dean Edell
Dr. Temple Grandin
Karla McLaren
Douglas Hofstadter
Eric Idle
Dr. Oliver Sacks
Burt Rutan
Linus Torvalds
Jared Diamond
Alan Alda
Sam Harris
Criss Angel
Wally Schirra
Geoffrey Miller
Jon Ronson
David Zarefsky
David Willey
Paul Kurtz
George Carlin
Ted Rall
Stephen Pinker
Stephen Hawking
Adam Corrola
Edward O. Wilson
Salman Rushdie
Phil Donahue
"The Infidel Guy"
Dr. Kevin Ausman
Susan Blackmore
Vic Tandy
Jon Ronson
Charles Paxton
Adam Hart-Davis
Marc Abrahams
Derren Brown
Ray Hyman
Alton Brown
Elizabeth Loftus
Massimo Pigliucci
Lawrence M. Krauss
John Stossel

...and more. I can't say I've listed all the suggested names, and I certainly don't have insight into who they all are, but if we want to ask some of these folks to come to TAM, now it the time to do the askin'.



I do like some of these ideas for those to invite. I think Dr. Tyson would be especially good, and I have suggested this before. He's both a brilliant scientist and someone who has a great public persona and has strong and somewhat irreverent opinions on science and education.


Dr. Dean Edell seems like a natural choice as well, and I think he'd fit in great.

However, there are a few which I am not sure would work out well. Stephen Hawking, for example, is brilliant, but his condition with ALS syndrome is quite bad and it is limiting in his ability to travel and make appearances. It is difficult to take questions, because it takes time for him to formulate responses with his communicator. So, while I would love to have him attend, I think he probably needs to limit where he appears pretty drastically.


Also, I'm not sure that Linus Torvalds would have much interesting to say for the non-techie crowd, although I would LOVE to meet the man.

[aofl]

Although people have nopt mentioned potential future guests, allow me to mention this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=544) and this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60692).

Potential guests include:
.
.
.
"The Infidel Guy"
.
.
.
...and more. I can't say I've listed all the suggested names, and I certainly don't have insight into who they all are, but if we want to ask some of these folks to come to TAM, now it the time to do the askin'.

Dude, the Infidel Guy was there, though he was staying at the MGM.

Maybe next year we can get him on stage?

A

[Loon]

I was a bit put off by the amount of celebrity Q&A. I understand that there are reasons for this (and I thought the Mythbuster's Q&A was entirely appropriate and fit in very well, also they had some prepared material), but it seems like a lack of content. Perhaps we could have Penn and Teller do something other than a Q&A (or just show up as attendees?)

Maybe the mythbusters could do a segment at TAM next year? I don't know the logistics or legality of such a thing, but it *would* be a neat tie-in.

Would it be possible to load all of the presentations onto one laptop so that we don't have to keep switching computers and so that issues only have to be solved once?

I'll second GeekGoddess about the protein at breakfast. This was an issue at the Stardust, too. I also recognize that this could cause a very significant increase in costs. Would it be possible to get a menu beforehand so we can know if we need to pack our own yogurt?

I'll also echo athon about the workshops. I didn't attend one this year, but I did the two previous years and found them disappointing.

It also seemed that there was less on offer at the merchandise tables this year. I don't know if that's an accurate perception, but it sort of made me vaguely unhappy. And you wouldn't like me when I'm vaguely unhappy.

Also, Cleon is right about the libertarian bit.

[Overman]

I talked to Wagg and he thought he was going to ditch the whole 'theme' idea and instead just get as many badass speakers in any field that he can.

I thought this was a great idea.

One of the better speeches there was on those MediaLabs, I really enjoyed that presentation, but I didn't really see how it was related to skepticism...

(Wagg cleared this up for me, but I won't post that here!)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Please keep these coming, we are reading them.

hal

How about having a Jefferson actor, instead of that dreadful Hamilton fellow? ;)

Seriously, I enjoyed Hal's presentation, and told him so. Hal, I know you mentioned that a Jefferson guy got you into this. Any chance of getting him to come for a Jefferson/Hamilton smackdown?

We could even get Sherman Hemsley (George Jefferson) as a guest referee! :p

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Could we NOT have so much pimping of Libertarianism next year?

I agree, but I think they were specifically pimping "libertarianism", not "Libertarianism". There is a BIG difference.

[Horatius]

I'll also echo athon about the workshops. I didn't attend one this year, but I did the two previous years and found them disappointing.



Perhaps next year they could trim the workshops a bit, and add in some more submitted papers. Some of the papers we had this year were the best talks we had (IMO, of course), and really connected with on-the-ground skeptics. From what I understand, we had more papers submitted than we had time for, and this would alleviate that somewhat.

Also, if they were held on the Thursday, I think more people could attend. I met a few people who had to leave early, and missed it all.

[Oxymoron]

What about the East Coast? Like, NYC?????? :clap:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Anyway, what I think would have been a good thing to have in the pack would have been a list of attendees. This could easily have been generated as a spreadsheet (arranged alphabetically by surname?) with the same info as appeared on the name tags - name, where from, and if one exists JREF forum name and avatar! I'd really like to have known just who was there and where we all came from.

I agree with this. Also add contact info (email, phone#, etc) for those who don't mind sharing it. (as long as creepy guys don't use it to stalk Skepchicks)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

1. The Riv was not bad, at all. But, Perhaps a hotel somewhere in the middle section of The Strip would be nice.

Agreed, but you are probably talking a lot more $$$.


2. Jamy Ian Swiss is not a bad mentalist, but I think he's better doing close-up stuff.

Agreed.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I talked to Wagg and he thought he was going to ditch the whole 'theme' idea and instead just get as many badass speakers in any field that he can.

I thought this was a great idea.

I agree, and I think I might have said the same thing to Jeff or someone else at the party (I don't recall, for obvious reasons). Forget trying to get speakers who sort-of-kind-of match the theme. I don't know that anyone really cares about that (at least I don't). Just get the best speakers. Period.

[ottle]

Dude, the Infidel Guy was there, though he was staying at the MGM.

Maybe next year we can get him on stage?

A

Yeah, I got to talk to him a bunch - he was very cool. Also The Friendly Athiest (Hemand Mehta) - they pointed him out during Lori Lipman Brown's presentation. Next year, we should have him talk about selling his soul on ebay. :)

[Overman]

Best Suggestion Ever

Overman can perform a free concert one of the nights...

:D

[Fun2BFree]

Robert Buckman--Dr. Robert Buckman, medical oncologist, best-selling author of "Can We Be Good Without God" and President Emeritus of the Humanist Association of Canada, hosts a bi-weekly thinking group on philosophy, science and religion. Right now the group is working on a Faith Hazard Index.


http://www.thelavinagency.com/canada/robertbuckman.html

[Dinsdale Piranha]

That presentation was a freaking joke.

They can't take the time to edit that video? Instead they just sit there and fumble with it, looking like fools, while the audience of 500+ wonders what they are paying for...?:confused:

Other than the AV problems and my above bug I really liked everything!:)

Agreed. It shows a lack of preparation and could be interpreted as a lack of caring about the presentation.

This is particularly surprising since the presenter was Jamy Ian Swiss. If Jamy saw a magician showing the same lack of preparation in a magic presentation, he'd mercilessly bust that magician's balls.

Oh for christ sake people. Is it really that big a deal? This seems to be the *worst* example of organization and structure falling apart at TAM and that....ain't bad.

In this case, yeah, it is.

This isn't a mere technical glitch and, considering the presenter, it's sloppy work and disappointing to the audience.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

At some point I'm going to send the JREF an official proposal for this TAM6 theme:

The Science of the Paranormal

It's time to take a look at how parapsychologists and paranormalists use science. We need an intro statistics course. We need lectures on experiment design. We need to look at specific claims and how they (ab)use science. Wiseman touches on this topic every year; it's time to let him go wild.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree, and I think I might have said the same thing to Jeff or someone else at the party (I don't recall, for obvious reasons). Forget trying to get speakers who sort-of-kind-of match the theme. I don't know that anyone really cares about that (at least I don't). Just get the best speakers. Period.
That's fine with me, too.

~~ Paul

[Chaos]

- I agree with Cleon on the Libertarianism thing

- Could we please invite a speaker who does not consider all religious people (or all people of one particular religion) to be by default the incarnation of EVIL, who is not afraid to say so, and who is willing and at least marginally able to hold his own in a panel discussion against Penn Jilette and/or Christopher Hitchens?

- Could we maybe ditch at least Hitchens altogether? There has to be somebody out there who can argue that side of the discussion in a sane, civil and open-minded way; giving the job to a Pat Robertson sound-alike doesn´t help our cause in any way.

- Could we please have a panel discussion about the whole skepticism and religion stuff in which there are actually people with two or more different opinions (and I don´t mean different degrees of "religion=evil" fanaticism), and conduct this panel discussion in a way where both sides are actually heard? (See my second suggestion)

- we need more paper presentations

- we should not concentrate all paper presentations in one place, especially not one where some people are already leaving; it should be possible to begin or end each half-day of the conference with a paper or two

- get all the A/V bugs worked out; more knowledgeable people than me have already said pretty much all about it

- we need to see more of Hal Bidlack in a whig and tights (okay, maybe that one is not that urgent...)

[IllegalArgument]

Could we NOT have so much pimping of Libertarianism next year? Given all the presenters, especially Shermer, there seemed to be this not-so-subtle indication that Libertarianism is the Official Political Perspective of Skepticism. Which, of course, is far from the case--when Shermer asked how many were Libertarians, a minority of those in the room raised their hands.


I had an interesting conversation with TriangleMan and several Canadians.

They were very unclear about what libertarianism even was. It appears to be a USA only thing.

TriangleMan had several humorous comments about "free" trade, especially when dealing with the USA, when the USA was clearly in the wrong and refused to comply.

Yes, please if we are going to have politics, let's get some folks from the major parties as speakers.

Also, I will continue my campaign to get Nicholas Taleb as a speaker.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I had an interesting conversation with TriangleMan and several Canadians.

They were very unclear about what libertarianism even was. It appears to be a USA only thing.

I know in past years Patricio has complained that he doesn't always understand what they are talking about when they get into US politics and news events. We need to remind the speakers that not everyone at the conference is from the US.

Yes, please if we are going to have politics, let's get some folks from the major parties as speakers.

NO, NO, NO!!! A thousand times NO!! Let's not ruin this conference by inviting politicians.

[IllegalArgument]

- I agree with Cleon on the Libertarianism thing

- Could we please invite a speaker who does not consider all religious people (or all people of one particular religion) to be by default the incarnation of EVIL, who is not afraid to say so, and who is willing and at least marginally able to hold his own in a panel discussion against Penn Jilette and/or Christopher Hitchens?


Ditto on this, Scott Atran would be my suggestion. Poor Hal last year was outnumbered 5? to 1 on the religion panel.


- Could we maybe ditch at least Hitchens altogether? There has to be somebody out there who can argue that side of the discussion in a sane, civil and open-minded way; giving the job to a Pat Robertson sound-alike doesn´t help our cause in any way.


Hitchens should be invited again, he is at least a dissenting opinion on the Iraq war. He wasn't very articulate this year.


- Could we please have a panel discussion about the whole skepticism and religion stuff in which there are actually people with two or more different opinions (and I don´t mean different degrees of "religion=evil" fanaticism), and conduct this panel discussion in a way where both sides are actually heard? (See my second suggestion)


See above

A suggestion about Q&A, taking some of the questions as written I think would be a good idea. Hal has a lovely speaking voice and would cut down on the more rambling questions. Which would allow more Q&A time.

[Overman]

I so want a squirell that jams a blues harp.

[IllegalArgument]

NO, NO, NO!!! A thousand times NO!! Let's not ruin this conference by inviting politicians.

I would actually like to hear from a congressional staffer, who for instance was the science advisor. We would get to hear how these decisions are made and what the public can do help.

Currently, we are getting libertarian political views, which as a party holds barely any offices.

Yes, I'm sure it would be hard to get an Republican speaker, but maybe it wouldn't, can't know till you try.

Asking speakers to let their politics at the door would probably not go over well.

[FaisonMars]

I enjoyed Peter Sagal's presence more than I thought I would, and although he went through his talk very fast (was he nervous?), I thought it was very relevant to the theme. I would recommend Ira Glass and Terry Gross for future speakers, since they have skeptical themes on their shows all the time.

I liked the Penn and Teller, Matt and Trey, and Adam and Tori Q&A sessions, but they felt more like fan service than anything having to do with skepticism (some people did ask some good questions on the subject).

At most academic meeting I've gone to recently, you have to deliver the AV for your talk to the session chairman on a CD or USB drive (or ftp) by at least the night before if not sooner, and it's all on one computer and extensively tested before the session. Swapping of laptops wastes time and leads to compatibility problems.

I loved the meeting, but I HATED Las Vegas. It's one of the most depressing places I've ever visited. Why not have the meeting someplace fun, like Boston, Madison, Seattle, or Austin? Especially if it's moving to June. Or how about a Jan. meeting in the South/West (maybe Vegas for people who like it) and a June meeting in the North/East?

[Overman]

TAM6 IN CHICAGO!!!

It is right in the middle, so closer for most, great city!

[IllegalArgument]

I loved the meeting, but I HATED Las Vegas. It's one of the most depressing places I've ever visited. Why not have the meeting someplace fun, like Boston, Madison, Seattle, or Austin? Especially if it's moving to June.

Las Vegas is much cheaper than most of the alternatives. Cheap airfare, hotels, and guests like Penn and Teller all make it a good place to have the conference.

I do agree that it can be depressing, nothing like watching people sit there like zombies on the slot machines.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would actually like to hear from a congressional staffer, who for instance was the science advisor. We would get to hear how these decisions are made and what the public can do help.

Decisions get made on which will get the politicians the most votes and/or money, NOT on which decision is the right thing to do. We don't need to invite a staffer to explain that. In fact, they would lie and deny it.


Currently, we are getting libertarian political views, which as a party holds barely any offices.

But I would argue that there is currently no party that represents libertarians (at least as defined by the speakers).

[Foster Zygote]

I suggest TAM6 be held in beautiful Greenville, South Carolina. We could schedule a group tour of Bob Jones University.

[IllegalArgument]

But I would argue that there is currently no party that represents libertarians (at least as defined by the speakers).

Fair enough, but small or large "L" libertarians do not hold a lot of direct power currently.

[Cleon]

I suggest TAM6 be held in beautiful Greenville, South Carolina. We could schedule a group tour of Bob Jones University.

The only way Greenville could accomodate a group the size of TAM is if we took over Bob Jones University. (Which, for all its faults, has the greatest initials of any college in the US. Ever.)

Now, the Marriott Marquis in downtown Atlanta would be much better...Not to mention ideally named for a certain aficionado of a certain domesticated species of bovid...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fair enough, but small or large "L" libertarians do not hold a lot of direct power currently.

True.

[Brown]

Seriously, I enjoyed Hal's presentation, and told him so. Hal, I know you mentioned that a Jefferson guy got you into this. Any chance of getting him to come for a Jefferson/Hamilton smackdown? The "Jefferson Guy" is Clay Jenkinson, and Hal has mentioned that he and Clay have done Hammy vs. Jeffy bits.

Such a presentation would be--I expect--quite an eye-opener for everyone, especially for USA residents who need a refresher in their own history.

By the way, Clay was crowned (literally) as the best Thomas Jefferson on a Colbert Report aired last year.

[hilliag]

I enjoyed Peter Sagal's presence more than I thought I would, and although he went through his talk very fast (was he nervous?)...

> I sat with him and his wife, Beth, at dinner Saturday night, and he tends to speak fast. He might have been a tad faster in his talk just to get everything in.
Best moment? After I got a prized photo with Phil Plait, he asked me if I would get a picture of him with Adam Savage -- who was equally flattered Phil would want a photo with him!
Now back to the job, and I see we have run a story this morning on "quantumpathic cellular therapy." (Sigh) I don't have my 15 posts in yet to supply a link, so go to azcentral dot com and search for Faherty. It'll be the first hit.

[SkepticScott]

The Science of the ParanormalYes Paul, that's a great theme!
He wasn't very articulate this year.I agree with you, and also think this was the best he's ever been.
By the way, Clay was crowned (literally) as the best Thomas Jefferson on a Colbert Report aired last year.Where did the original place in the ranking? :)

Keep posting please, we are reading this thread!

[Chaos]

I second the Hamilton-vs-Jefferson suggestion.

I´ve said it to Hal already: before Friday night I didn´t know anything about Hamilton except that he´s on the 10-dollar-bill; I was still able to greatly enjoy his talk greatly - Hal´s humorous style doesn´t exactly hurt, either.

I would also suggest that this event is free, not just for paying customers. As I said, I enjoyed it greatly, and I consider it more than worth the price of admission (it would have been that, even without the Jill&Julia added to it), but some things might be too important to be pay-per-view on a conference you pay money to attend, anyway.

[Marquis de Carabas]

(Which, for all its faults, has the greatest initials of any college in the US. Ever.)
At least until I move to Wichita to found the First and Second Universities of Central Kansas.

[DiskoVilante]

I was a bit put off by the amount of celebrity Q&A. I understand that there are reasons for this (and I thought the Mythbuster's Q&A was entirely appropriate and fit in very well, also they had some prepared material), but it seems like a lack of content. Perhaps we could have Penn and Teller do something other than a Q&A (or just show up as attendees?)

Would it be possible to load all of the presentations onto one laptop so that we don't have to keep switching computers and so that issues only have to be solved once?

I'll second GeekGoddess about the protein at breakfast. This was an issue at the Stardust, too. I also recognize that this could cause a very significant increase in costs. Would it be possible to get a menu beforehand so we can know if we need to pack our own yogurt?


Yes to less Q&A. If the Q&A has no theme to it, then don't do it. The P&T one was okay because I hear Teller speak and was about to jump off the walls, but objectively it was a waste of time (aside from Teller yelling 'CANTANKEROUS B**CH' to that woman).

YES to all presentations on one laptop...but we need a backup and a test laptop, so I say we have two laptops running that are known to work with all the media files.

More protein would have been good. But I don't suggest yogurt, maybe some nut mixture? Like almonds and maybe some peanut butter?

I talked to Wagg and he thought he was going to ditch the whole 'theme' idea and instead just get as many badass speakers in any field that he can.

I thought this was a great idea.

One of the better speeches there was on those MediaLabs, I really enjoyed that presentation, but I didn't really see how it was related to skepticism...

(Wagg cleared this up for me, but I won't post that here!)

I suggest we keep a general theme to the TAMs it makes it seem like we do more. Calling all the meetings just TAM# might put off potential attendees.
But I do agree, having a theme and not sticking to it well is very disappointing, but Paul's suggestion below is an excellent one.

What about the East Coast? Like, NYC?????? :clap:

Too cold...how about Pasadena? Or some medium sized city that we could take over.

I agree with this. Also add contact info (email, phone#, etc) for those who don't mind sharing it. (as long as creepy guys don't use it to stalk Skepchicks)

What's up with guys stalking Skepchicks? I didn't notice any of this...I'm the one who's supposed to be stalking. Ask my friends, it's true.

At some point I'm going to send the JREF an official proposal for this TAM6 theme:

The Science of the Paranormal

It's time to take a look at how parapsychologists and paranormalists use science. We need an intro statistics course. We need lectures on experiment design. We need to look at specific claims and how they (ab)use science. Wiseman touches on this topic every year; it's time to let him go wild.

~~ Paul
YES YES YES YES YES YES...And I could do a presentation on the physics of ESP. I wrote a paper on this for English 101.

Las Vegas is much cheaper than most of the alternatives. Cheap airfare, hotels, and guests like Penn and Teller all make it a good place to have the conference.

I do agree that it can be depressing, nothing like watching people sit there like zombies on the slot machines.

Vegas made me very depressed/feel out of place. But it's a good city to have TAM in.

The only way Greenville could accomodate a group the size of TAM is if we took over Bob Jones University. (Which, for all its faults, has the greatest initials of any college in the US. Ever.)


Are you forgetting the South Harmon Institute of Technology? Or are we dealing with real universities...and I'm not suggesting in any way that BJU is a real university.

[DRBUZZ0]

VERY VERY VERY common problem I have seen MANY times:

People are very busy. They want to dedicate the time they have to preparing a presentation and often don't have much time before hand.

The result is that they have a laptop and it's... er... well they have issues.

Often sounds like

"Why is there nothing?"
"Right click desktop and go to properties and do you see a second monitor under 'settings'"
"Yeah. It's grayed out"
"Click extend to this monitor"
"Okay hold on. Um. Now I cannot see my other desktop"
"Wait. What is the resolution"
"Okay.. um turn it to 1024 by 768... or if that doesn't work try lower"
"Okay, but now... how do I get powerpoint up on this"
"Um.. which monitor is the primary?"
"I think I have to restart"
"Okay, make sure you know which is which..."


I know it sounds stupid. It sounds simple. It is relatively simple, but it's a bit iffy when it happends up on stage and eats performance time.

My advice: Have a PC monitor by the side and a pair of speakers. Have 'em connect up and make sure they're outputting video and it's controlable. Only takes a few minutes, but it's faster and easier BEFORE the fact.

Also: Many laptops have VGA video out. Some have only DVI. A few heed a dock to output video. Most have analog audio out. Some may have a digital coaxial out. ect ect...


Hence... Never underestimate the power of a big ole box of adapters and such.

And maybe a pre-configured PC laptop with powerpoint and such for those who didn't bring their own.

The reason I anticipate them bringing their own, is that many have their own preferences for ow the controls are set up or use weirdass software.



And incase you're wondering: YES, I have been involved in this sort of thing before!

[DRBUZZ0]

- Could we maybe ditch at least Hitchens altogether? There has to be somebody out there who can argue that side of the discussion in a sane, civil and open-minded way; giving the job to a Pat Robertson sound-alike doesn´t help our cause in any way.


I still don't quite get why everyone comes down on this guy so hard. Is it because he dares say that one belief may actually not be entirely equal to others? Or that it's a religion, which people like to call "of peace" which he talks about? Or is it because not everyone in the movement actually kills people?

I mean, seriously. If he were up there railing on Nazis or Blackbeard's pirates or the Decemberists or the Jonestown leaders, would people get so mad?

I can tell you that I know an officer of the Luftwaffe who jointed because "he wanted to fly" and fought because he didn't like his city being bombed.


But I guess?? what? It's bad to be emotional about a movement which seems to do a lot of blowin-up and a lot of stoning and a lot of hating? Why? Because they have a crescent moon instead of a swastica or a jolly rogers? Or because some in the movement like to talk against violence? Hell, Ramal totally opposed genocide.

I suppose the issue is that he's not Vulcan enough? To hate is an illogical thing. But unfortionately, blowing up buildings seems to cause that response in me. Yes I hate Islam. I loath it, like the filth that I see it for. There is nothing I hate in the world more than Islam. And I don't care if you say that makes me as bad as they are, because it's less about morality than it is self preservation. And no I don't hate muslims. I hate the movement. I hate the disease, not those who carry it. Or certainly not all, or even most.

[Checkmite]

- Could we please invite a speaker who does not consider all religious people (or all people of one particular religion) to be by default the incarnation of EVIL, who is not afraid to say so, and who is willing and at least marginally able to hold his own in a panel discussion against Penn Jilette and/or Christopher Hitchens?

...

- Could we please have a panel discussion about the whole skepticism and religion stuff in which there are actually people with two or more different opinions (and I don´t mean different degrees of "religion=evil" fanaticism), and conduct this panel discussion in a way where both sides are actually heard? (See my second suggestion)

I volunteer!

...assuming I make it to TAM6. Which I think I may.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I volunteer!

...assuming I make it to TAM6. Which I think I may.

You better! I had hoped to discuss my Egyptian Archaeology studies with you!

[articulett]

At some point I'm going to send the JREF an official proposal for this TAM6 theme:

The Science of the Paranormal

It's time to take a look at how parapsychologists and paranormalists use science. We need an intro statistics course. We need lectures on experiment design. We need to look at specific claims and how they (ab)use science. Wiseman touches on this topic every year; it's time to let him go wild.

~~ Paul

Maybe he and Simon can perform from their show? Yes--we need more Wiseman--he is brilliant. And so fun! Wiseman gone wild--now that would be a treat.

[SezMe]

How about having a Jefferson actor, instead of that dreadful Hamilton fellow? ;)

We had that Jefferson actor at our local group and it was one of the best sessions we've ever had. In fact, after the formal presentation was over and he came out of character, it turned out he was quite interesting in his own right.

Highly recommended.

[Checkmite]

You better! I had hoped to discuss my Egyptian Archaeology studies with you!

A year ago, you, Patricio, and I spent no less than 6 hours together, and we didn't bring up Egypt even once. Not even in the Luxor. What were we on?

[ravdin]

I was thinking that we've done politics and media (TAMs 4 and 5, respectively), and it would be really cool to discuss how science/skepticism are treated in popular culture. There's a tremendous amount of supernaturalism in movies and TV these days, and it clearly sells really well. And why take the trouble to write a sensible plot for your movie when you can throw in one deus ex machina after the other?

[ravdin]

Could we NOT have so much pimping of Libertarianism next year?

I say: more politics, please! It's important to recognize that just because we're godless doesn't make us godless commies. We need to remind ourselves that TAM is not an echo chamber where we just reinforce our own narratives. A bit of healthy disagreement and debate is a good thing- isn't that why we're interested in skepticism in the first place?

For the record: I raised my hand, as a proud small "l" libertarian.

[Cleon]

I say: more politics, please! It's important to recognize that just because we're godless doesn't make us godless commies. We need to remind ourselves that TAM is not an echo chamber where we just reinforce our own narratives. A bit of healthy disagreement and debate is a good thing- isn't that why we're interested in skepticism in the first place?

It's not a "debate" if only one side is heard.


For the record: I raised my hand, as a proud small "l" libertarian.

The fact that you agree with the political view presented does not make its inclusion a good thing.

[CFLarsen]

First:

TAM5 was the best, ever!

F**kin' A, guys!

The only real gripe I have was the loooong corridors. Especially for us volunteers (I want to be called "CREW", dammit), who had to walk a lot. Next time, we're going to need motorized scooters.

I guess the main problem with TAM 5 were the A/V problems! I hate it when that happens...we're in the 21st century!

...but the presentations were (mainly) on Macs..... :D

I think it would be a good idea to have only one laptop used throughout all the talks. All speakers should be asked to provide their PowerPoint files, videos, and other media before TAM so that they can be tested.
And don't forget to test that laptop also.

Yeps. One laptop runs everything, and everything is tested a week before TAM starts. That way, the only thing that needs to be tested at the Riviera is whether the output works. If it does, everything's peachy.

Some of the A/V issues were not the fault of the laptops. For example: Randi's videos from South Korea could have been edited better beforehand.

Technically, that's not an A/V issue.

I apologize for complaining, even a little, but the names on nametags really needed to be bigger. While it's fun to see where people are from, I'd forego the location line, myself, in favor of putting names in a much bigger font.

I'm not really sure I care where you're from, if I can't figure out first who you are. ;)

No, no, no! They need to be smaller. Bigger name tags means we can't ogle chest areas....*snort*

Please keep these coming, we are reading them.

All 97% of them?

(scurries away)

Could we NOT have so much pimping of Libertarianism next year? Given all the presenters, especially Shermer, there seemed to be this not-so-subtle indication that Libertarianism is the Official Political Perspective of Skepticism. Which, of course, is far from the case--when Shermer asked how many were Libertarians, a minority of those in the room raised their hands.

I was really bothered by this--and from conversations with others, I'm definitely not alone on this. I'm not saying speakers should be prevented from talking politics, and I'm certainly not saying that people who are famous for their politics (Parker, Stone, P&T, etc) should be prevented from coming, but I really dislike the way that out of all the voices on stage, one particular political perspective kept being pushed. Those who didn't share that philosophy either A) actually stuck to the theme of the conference and kept their politics to themselves or B) in the only case of a different view being put forward was insulted by one of the other panelists.

I could go on, but I'll stop there. Just...Next year, please leave the politics to situations where it's relevant (creationism being pushed by certain conservatives, for example). That's all I'm asking.

I agree.

It looked as if libertarianism is an inevitable result of skeptical thinking. I think that presents a huge problem for skepticism. The instant skeptics are associated with a particular political party/ideology, we are dead.

I tend to normally avoid these sorts of critiques, because it feels so negative when really I was incredibly happy with most of the TAM features.

Me too. It was still the best TAM ever, even surpassing TAM4. TAMs just keeps getting better and better and better.

TAM initially seemed to be something of a fundraiser for the JREF, while acting as a means for people to network and discuss ways of raising the public awareness of skepticism. However, as has been overwhelmingly demonstrated, TAM now ranks as one of the most popular gatherings for skeptics and critical thinkers. As such, it must be professional and comparible with other conferences of the same calibre.

TAM is still primarily a fundraiser for JREF. KittyNH nailed it, while we were in the Magic Shop: We are here (well, there) for Randi. That we have a fanTAMstic (there, I coined it) time is almost a side effect. A very pleasant side effect, though. :)

Got home this morning to Brisbane, Australia after an all night trip in cattle class (aka economy or coach) on a packed plane.
I was a bit overawed by the sheer size of it all (TAM that is, not the plane) --- 800 plus attendees.

I really appreciated getting the certificate of attendance in the conference pack. As a teacher, a copy will be filed with my tax return at the end of the coming financial year. Those lovely words - tax deduction!!!! Who knows, if I save up, I might even be able to consider coming along next time around!

There are scholarships. Talk to Paulie the Greek.

Anyway, what I think would have been a good thing to have in the pack would have been a list of attendees. This could easily have been generated as a spreadsheet (arranged alphabetically by surname?) with the same info as appeared on the name tags - name, where from, and if one exists JREF forum name and avatar! I'd really like to have known just who was there and where we all came from.

Each paper that has to go into the folders is a major thing. Although we've managed to streamline the process pretty well by now, it still is a huge workload to assemble the folders. Perhaps a mail from JREF to all attendees with the spreadsheet, ca. about a week before TAM starts?

Also why not investigate using lanyards next time around with TAM7 printed on them instead of the elastic bands with the staples on the end for the name tags. After the conference, attendees would have a handy souvenir which they could use for keys, mobile phones.....

Good idea!

1. The Riv was not bad, at all. But, Perhaps a hotel somewhere in the middle section of The Strip would be nice.

Personally, I don't give a Sylvia's ass about where we hold TAM - it could be at the local dumpster, for all I care. The problem is that we need a place where we can both stay and be together for the sessions. I don't think there are all that many hotels off-Strip that can hold 800-1000 people in one room.

3. The registration system should warn you if you got tickets to two things that are taking place at the same time. (I accidentally bought my P&T ticket for Saturday, instead of Friday, which took place at the same time as Jamy's show.)

It can't be that difficult to check the calendar... :p

How about having a Jefferson actor, instead of that dreadful Hamilton fellow? ;)

Seriously, I enjoyed Hal's presentation, and told him so. Hal, I know you mentioned that a Jefferson guy got you into this. Any chance of getting him to come for a Jefferson/Hamilton smackdown?

We could even get Sherman Hemsley (George Jefferson) as a guest referee! :p

Or an Aaron Burr? :D

I agree, but I think they were specifically pimping "libertarianism", not "Libertarianism". There is a BIG difference.

.....which is?

(and off we gooooooooooo........)

At some point I'm going to send the JREF an official proposal for this TAM6 theme:

The Science of the Paranormal

It's time to take a look at how parapsychologists and paranormalists use science. We need an intro statistics course. We need lectures on experiment design. We need to look at specific claims and how they (ab)use science. Wiseman touches on this topic every year; it's time to let him go wild.

~~ Paul

I'll support this heartily. And get us the people, too! Give me Schwartz! Give me Puthoff! Give me Targ! Give me Radin! Give me Tart!

ARRRR! ARRRR! ARRRR!

I know in past years Patricio has complained that he doesn't always understand what they are talking about when they get into US politics and news events. We need to remind the speakers that not everyone at the conference is from the US.

That's OK. Even Americans aren't always too knowledgable about that either...

NO, NO, NO!!! A thousand times NO!! Let's not ruin this conference by inviting politicians.

Unless they are invited to explain why they cut back on science and education, or defend creationism in schools...

I loved the meeting, but I HATED Las Vegas. It's one of the most depressing places I've ever visited. Why not have the meeting someplace fun, like Boston, Madison, Seattle, or Austin? Especially if it's moving to June. Or how about a Jan. meeting in the South/West (maybe Vegas for people who like it) and a June meeting in the North/East?

I agree that Vegas is only fun (in a perverted sense) the first time, but - really - we would have fun anywhere. It's not the place that makes TAM fun, it's the people.

Fair enough, but small or large "L" libertarians do not hold a lot of direct power currently.

0% and decreasing.

I would also suggest that this event is free, not just for paying customers.

Good idea. It could draw attention to TAM in a subversive way.

I still don't quite get why everyone comes down on this guy so hard. Is it because he dares say that one belief may actually not be entirely equal to others? Or that it's a religion, which people like to call "of peace" which he talks about? Or is it because not everyone in the movement actually kills people?

I don't mind Hitchens at all. It's great to get a jolt from time to time. Are we there to listen to what we want to hear only?

Again:

TAM5 was the best, ever!

[ravdin]

It's not a "debate" if only one side is heard.

Agreed. So perhaps next time you could submit a presentation about how your skepticism has led you to believe in the benevolence of centralized government control of the economy?

The fact that you agree with the political view presented does not make its inclusion a good thing.

That is also true. I'll point out the obvious corollary: just because you disagree with the view presented doesn't make its inclusion a bad thing (or its exclusion a good thing).

[Cleon]

Agreed. So perhaps next time you could submit a presentation about how your skepticism has led you to believe in the benevolence of centralized government control of the economy?


Assumption noted. The reason I wouldn't submit a presentation about my politics is because I don't think politics are appropriate.

This is a skepticism conference--science, paranormal, pseudoscience, etc. If you want a political debate, go to a political debate.

That is also true. I'll point out the obvious corollary: just because you disagree with the view presented doesn't make its inclusion a bad thing (or its exclusion a good thing).Fortunately, I haven't argued that libertarianism should be excluded because I disagree with it, so your point is meaningless. However, so far all you've done is submit that it should be included because you agree with it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A year ago, you, Patricio, and I spent no less than 6 hours together, and we didn't bring up Egypt even once. Not even in the Luxor. What were we on?

Well, because I hadn't studied it in depth yet! I just took an Egyptian Archaeology class this past semester.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

...but the presentations were (mainly) on Macs..... :D

True. But the ones that had problems were mainly Windows PCs....:D

[exarch]

The problem was Randi-Swiss's presentation, compared to the other presentations it was poorly organized.

I did find out that Swiss only received the source video two days before, so I'm probably being overly critical.

I heard differently. I heard it was sent (handed?) to him at least a month before. Maybe I heard wrong?

[IllegalArgument]

I heard differently. I heard it was sent (handed?) to him at least a month before. Maybe I heard wrong?

Maybe we both heard wrong!

[Jon the Geek]

True. But the ones that had problems were mainly Windows PCs....:D
This particular bit of skeptic woo tickles me. The problems had *nothing* (so far as I could tell) to do with the OS, but people still take them as an opportunity to genuflect at the alter of Steve Jobs. :)

[DiskoVilante]

Mac and PC both run okay nowadays. They both have problems, but there really isn't a better one. I use both Mac and PC and they both have about the same rate of screwiness.

[NewMusic_Jenn]

I agree with this. Also add contact info (email, phone#, etc) for those who don't mind sharing it. (as long as creepy guys don't use it to stalk Skepchicks)

Well said! I would love to see a box on the registration form that indicated "please check this box if you would like your name and email address included on the attendees list".

This was probably my only complaint about the event (which I thought was wonderful, engaging, fabulous and overall well executed) - I would have a great conversation with someone and then never see them again (OK, they might have well been running away when they saw me apporaching ;)). But seriously, with 800+ people in attendance there are a lot of bodies kicking around.

That's my two cents...

Jenn

[Brown]

A couple other names to consider:

Jeff McBride and Eugene Berger are two prominent magicians. They hold magic schools in Las Vegas. They both paid a brief visit to TAM2 (and I got my photo taken with them), but I do not know whether they were asked to return.

Jeff is an excellent stage magician, known for his use of masks, and Eugene seems to do well with less flamboyant, but equally amazing, effects.

[Wowbagger]

TAM5 was the best, ever!
I think I can actually agree with this, for the most part!

Technically, that's not an A/V issue.That's actually part of my point.

Personally, I don't give a Sylvia's ass about where we hold TAM - it could be at the local dumpster, for all I care. The problem is that we need a place where we can both stay and be together for the sessions. I don't think there are all that many hotels off-Strip that can hold 800-1000 people in one room. I didn't mean "off strip". I meant somewhere on the stip, but not at a far end. This is only a minor issue, of course. I only suggested it so it would be easier to get to more of the central attractions.

It can't be that difficult to check the calendar... :p The problem is not that I didn't check the calendar (I did). The problem is that I clicked the wrong option, somehow, and did not realize it. This is my bad, of course. I'm not blaming anyone else. But, it would be nice if the registration system was smart enough to put out a warning.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

- Could we please have a panel discussion about the whole skepticism and religion stuff in which there are actually people with two or more different opinions (and I don´t mean different degrees of "religion=evil" fanaticism), and conduct this panel discussion in a way where both sides are actually heard? (See my second suggestion)
The thing is, this year any discussion of religion was incidental to the theme. It was, if you will, simply an product of the gathering of a large group of skeptics, atheists, loud mouths, etc. If you think this was discomforting, you should have been at TAM3. (Were you?)

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that the panel discussion should actually be a debate, not a mutual patting of backs.

~~ Paul

[DiskoVilante]

What happened at TAM 3 about religion?

[IllegalArgument]

What happened at TAM 3 about religion?

TAM3 and TAM4 definately had a stronger atheistic theme.

The speaker panel was basically five(?) atheists and Hal, as the token deist, trying to discuss if you could be a skeptic and believe in god.

Also various comments during the talks, especially Penn, were pretty negative.

[DiskoVilante]

Damn, I wish I saw that.

[markb]

Wasn't it TAM2 where Penn called religious people "******* retarded"? I'm sure there's a thread on that somewhere around here.

[Hal Bidlack]

Wasn't it TAM2 where Penn called religious people "******* retarded"? I'm sure there's a thread on that somewhere around here.

please let me correct the record here, as this comment has been widely misquoted. It was at TAM2, during the panel portion. I was doing my Mr. Mic bit, running around with questions from the audience. In response to a question about religion, Penn remarked, in a clearly over the top theatrical manner, that folks who were not atheists were "brain dead retards." There was no F word at all. I immediately responded "well, as a brain dead retard, let's move to the next question," and Penn laughed. It was clear to me, as a non-atheist, that Penn was stating a strong opinion, but was also going for yucks. I responded in that same vein.

Penn has very strong feelings about religion, but this particular quote should not be taken out of the larger context, and should not be used to make Penn appear to be that which he was not. I took it as a joke, it was aimed primarily at me at that moment, and I think the legacy of that remark, and its often misquoting, is unfortunate.

So, my two cents. I like Penn, though we disagree, and he has always been kind and helpful to me. :)

[Chaos]

The thing is, this year any discussion of religion was incidental to the theme. It was, if you will, simply an product of the gathering of a large group of skeptics, atheists, loud mouths, etc. If you think this was discomforting, you should have been at TAM3. (Were you?)

That said, I wholeheartedly agree that the panel discussion should actually be a debate, not a mutual patting of backs.

~~ Paul

Yes, I was at TAM3. Which is why I am so pissed about Hitchens getting invited again and again.

I was also at TAM2. Which is why I am so pissed about Penn getting to spew his "religious people are retarded" crap again and again without even one word of protest from the vast majority of attendees, let alone Randi himself.

I was also at TAM4. Which is why I am so pissed at the way the "religion and skepticism" is handled every time. Hal got his talk in order to have a token deist voice, and then everything he said was ignored so Penn, Hitchens and the rest could jack off in public again.


I have come to the conclusion that neither Penn Jilette nor Christopher Hitchens are skeptics, AT LEAST not about religion. They are merely fanatical hatemongers - Hitchens driven by hatred of Islam and of "liberals", Penn by a desire to offend - who happen to hold an opinion that is shared by many skeptics.

[CFLarsen]

I have come to the conclusion that neither Penn Jilette nor Christopher Hitchens are skeptics, AT LEAST not about religion. They are merely fanatical hatemongers - Hitchens driven by hatred of Islam and of "liberals", Penn by a desire to offend - who happen to hold an opinion that is shared by many skeptics.

How do you feel about the Blasphemy Challenge that Penn took?

[Antiquehunter]

TAM 6 suggestions from my camp:

- Make it a longer event - perhaps with speakers making more than one presentation. That way, people can pick and choose their speakers if they are unable to stay for the whole event, however those that can get away for more than just 2 days have time to do even more learning. The last 2 TAMs have crammed WAY too much content into too short a time in my opinion. TAM VI could easily fill 4 days of speakers, without increasing the number of speakers - just giving more Q&A time and more speaking time.

- The fact that people love/hate various presenters shows that TAM is a well-balanced format. Sure - people's buttons are pushed by Penn, Hitchens, Ellen Johnstone etc... But hey - I didn't come to TAM for a love-in, I came to LEARN something. Sometimes, that means I'll disagree with someone - and usually that will mean that I'll invest some time and energy learning more about the topic...

- The performers (Banachek, Jamy Ian Swiss) were good - but I would've preferred to know that Banachek was doing essentially the same show as on the cruise. Jamy's mentalism act was pretty pale in comparison to his close-up act, but we're also a tough crowd. The highlight of the evening performers for me were Hal and Julia/Jill.

- A suggestion for all attending TAM next year - bring a friend or a loved one, especially one who is not necessarily a skeptic. I brought my devoutly religious father to the cruise, and my somewhat woo-ish partner to TAM V, and a friend to TAM IV who had no position. All three had an incredible time, and gained much insight and learning. While I was nervous every time that I would cause someone offense, in all three cases, everyone made new friends and really had their beliefs challenged - in a positive way. We hear a lot of people saying 'but you're preaching to the choir' (poor analogy) but hey - not EVERYONE in the audience is 'one of us' and how exciting would it be if there were MORE non-skeptics in the crowd. How about TAM VI has 800 skeptics and 500 potential skeptics wanting to learn more...???

- The forum now represents almost 25% of attendees - and this year, we had a detailed semi-official list of fun things to do. However, because there was no co-ordination of these events outside of the forum (such as posting Claus' calendar on the corkboard, or even a reminder to check the corkboard for unofficial events) no one outside of the forum was able to participate. I realize that logistics for a TAM are daunting, but I think that for the most part, everyone enjoyed the poker tourney, the party(ies), the dining out in groups at various venues, the sidetrips - but unless you were a part of the forum, you had no way to know what semi-official stuff was going on. I bet forumites got WAY more out of TAM as a result of our forum participation than non-forumites...

- Encourage speakers to provide handouts / summaries of their presentations. I would LOVE to have had some notes from Mr. FabLab dude, and from Hitchen's presentation for example.

- Get Dr. Shermer some presentation skills. I'm sorry, but dude - one simply does NOT in this day and age and in his position read powerpoint slides to a group of 800 people.

- Randi's presentation has been critiqued well previously, but I'll chime in here that having the video clips handed to Jamy 2 days before TAM isn't an excuse. If the presentation wasn't ready to roll, then he should've gone with plan A (assuming there was a plan A.) The content was very interesting, but the lack of preparation and disorganization was most off-putting. Kudos to Jamy for not totally losing it - I think I wouldv'e run off the stage in tears if I was in front of 800 people and loused things up that poorly.

- Hal did a great job - but I think more moderation of some specific question-askers could've been put in place. I'm thinking of two individuals specifically who were abusing microphone time and were not staying on topic.

- Less pitching of books. I recommend that people who have a book(s)/magazine to push should be limited to one slide with a plug, or one plug at the close of their talk. Phil Plait was very funny with his book plugs, others were less abashed at pushing their 'next projects'. I don't recall Hitchens mentioning his works at any time...

Thats it for now. And hey - GREAT job everyone, I had an AMAZING time, and the meeting was absolutely AMAZING!

-AH.

[CFLarsen]

- Make it a longer event - perhaps with speakers making more than one presentation. That way, people can pick and choose their speakers if they are unable to stay for the whole event, however those that can get away for more than just 2 days have time to do even more learning. The last 2 TAMs have crammed WAY too much content into too short a time in my opinion. TAM VI could easily fill 4 days of speakers, without increasing the number of speakers - just giving more Q&A time and more speaking time.

It isn't just the conference. It is also the time spent with people there. The few days are nowhere near enough. TAM is always a blur.

- The forum now represents almost 25% of attendees - and this year, we had a detailed semi-official list of fun things to do. However, because there was no co-ordination of these events outside of the forum (such as posting Claus' calendar on the corkboard, or even a reminder to check the corkboard for unofficial events) no one outside of the forum was able to participate.

Hmmm...that's not entirely true. While (e.g.) the Lotus of Siam was booked in advance, there were no restrictions on people showing up for the Forum Party or Game Night. What is a problem is that people can't find those who organize each event. Sure, I live at the book table, but how do you find Kochanski?

- Encourage speakers to provide handouts / summaries of their presentations. I would LOVE to have had some notes from Mr. FabLab dude, and from Hitchen's presentation for example.

Put them online. Easy access, cheap distribution.

- Get Dr. Shermer some presentation skills. I'm sorry, but dude - one simply does NOT in this day and age and in his position read powerpoint slides to a group of 800 people.

He's an academic. ;)

- Less pitching of books. I recommend that people who have a book(s)/magazine to push should be limited to one slide with a plug, or one plug at the close of their talk. Phil Plait was very funny with his book plugs, others were less abashed at pushing their 'next projects'. I don't recall Hitchens mentioning his works at any time...

And yet, we sell a hell of a lot of books at TAM. Some are even sold out quickly, which is why I tell everyone at the book table that IF THEY SEE A BOOK THEY CONSIDER BUYING, THEY SHOULD BUY IT RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE AVAILABLE LATER ON.

Thats it for now. And hey - GREAT job everyone, I had an AMAZING time, and the meeting was absolutely AMAZING!

Ayup. :)

[IllegalArgument]

He's an academic. ;)


Wiseman's an academic and he puts on a great lecture.

Shermer did exactly what you're not supposed to do, read the powerpoint line by line.

The optional class-seminar at TAM4 by Chip Denman(sic) expressed exactly this point. Shermer needs a lesson in presentations from Wiseman or Tufte.

At least Shermer didn't read his book this year.

[KingMerv00]

Yes, I was at TAM3. Which is why I am so pissed about Hitchens getting invited again and again.

I was also at TAM2. Which is why I am so pissed about Penn getting to spew his "religious people are retarded" crap again and again without even one word of protest from the vast majority of attendees, let alone Randi himself.

I was also at TAM4. Which is why I am so pissed at the way the "religion and skepticism" is handled every time. Hal got his talk in order to have a token deist voice, and then everything he said was ignored so Penn, Hitchens and the rest could jack off in public again.


I have come to the conclusion that neither Penn Jilette nor Christopher Hitchens are skeptics, AT LEAST not about religion. They are merely fanatical hatemongers - Hitchens driven by hatred of Islam and of "liberals", Penn by a desire to offend - who happen to hold an opinion that is shared by many skeptics.

Skepticism is about questioning your own beliefs. This means that you SHOULD hear things that make you upset. The anti-religion perspective is part of the show, love it or hate it.

Hitchens hates Islam. Penn dislikes religion overall but tends to be harsher than he means to be. Hal is a deist. Randi defended Hal's beliefs. Shermer is a quiet former-evangelical. I love that I hear all sides of the issue.

It was absolutely no secret that many in the crowd disagreed with Hitchens. Perhaps a majority. Any first-timer to TAM would have to be pretty dense to think that his view is the "official view" of JREF.

If he upsets you, I understand. You can choose not to attend his lectures or dissent in the appropriate manner. Critical thinking is worthless in a fog of censorship.

[KingMerv00]

As for my suggestion: Bill Nye.

Same request as every year...sigh

[Overman]

Also,

Cheaper workshops.

[Antiquehunter]

I personally side on the Penn/Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris view of religion - and my atheism is strongly rooted in a skeptical position. (One of 'weak atheism' - I'm open to the idea, but in the absence of evidence, I'm going with no god.) I know that Dawkins holds this same view, and I assume that Penn and Harris do as well, based on what I know of their beliefs from their writings/positions. Unknown about Hitchens, but I find him remarkably well-reasoned - prone to passion and perhaps a little quick to anger, yes, but he doesn't shoot from the hip with an undefensible statement.

The fact that we don't all agree on the opinions of all the speakers shows that we are doing a 'good' job of bringing a slate of compelling speakers to every TAM.

Personally, I thought Matt & Trey weaselled out of the Dawkin's question in their response, and no one pressed the issue during the Q&A - which disappointed me. (I'm referring here to the alleged My Space comments made by Matt - not the treatment of Dawkins in the episode.) I didn't think they added much to TAM apart from a good 'draw' and a couple of big names on the ticket. I'm not even convinced they are skeptics based on their answers - they may just be media gluttons who are friends of Penn. But, I wouldn't censure their appearance at another TAM - I would be interested to know more about what they believe and how this shapes their show.

[CFLarsen]

Wiseman's an academic and he puts on a great lecture.

He is a Brit. He knows Monty Python, so he has an advantage. ;)

Shermer did exactly what you're not supposed to do, read the powerpoint line by line.

The optional class-seminar at TAM4 by Chip Denman(sic) expressed exactly this point. Shermer needs a lesson in presentations from Wiseman or Tufte.

That could be helpful, yes.

[markb]

please let me correct the record here, as this comment has been widely misquoted. It was at TAM2, during the panel portion. I was doing my Mr. Mic bit, running around with questions from the audience. In response to a question about religion, Penn remarked, in a clearly over the top theatrical manner, that folks who were not atheists were "brain dead retards." There was no F word at all. I immediately responded "well, as a brain dead retard, let's move to the next question," and Penn laughed. It was clear to me, as a non-atheist, that Penn was stating a strong opinion, but was also going for yucks. I responded in that same vein.

Penn has very strong feelings about religion, but this particular quote should not be taken out of the larger context, and should not be used to make Penn appear to be that which he was not. I took it as a joke, it was aimed primarily at me at that moment, and I think the legacy of that remark, and its often misquoting, is unfortunate.

So, my two cents. I like Penn, though we disagree, and he has always been kind and helpful to me. :)

I guess I could have misrembered, after some time and reading posts on this forum. (I was at TAM2, and I really thought I remembered hearing him say that.) Anyway, I took it as a joke, too, but I can see how someone might be made uncomfortable. I do kind of remember getting an anti-religious vibe at that TAM, and some of the things that people applauded for even made me (an athiest) unconfortable. Either TAM5 was better in that regard, or I've gotten used to it. :)

[saganite]

- The forum now represents almost 25% of attendees - and this year, we had a detailed semi-official list of fun things to do. However, because there was no co-ordination of these events outside of the forum (such as posting Claus' calendar on the corkboard, or even a reminder to check the corkboard for unofficial events) no one outside of the forum was able to participate. I realize that logistics for a TAM are daunting, but I think that for the most part, everyone enjoyed the poker tourney, the party(ies), the dining out in groups at various venues, the sidetrips - but unless you were a part of the forum, you had no way to know what semi-official stuff was going on. I bet forumites got WAY more out of TAM as a result of our forum participation than non-forumites...


I agree this was a problem; it was difficult to keep track of going on even with access to the forums. I found it hard to keep in contact with some of the people I'd met, and trying to plug in a bunch of numbers into your cell phone or wrangling business cards gets difficult. I like the idea of the contact sheet, and then an activities list posted on the central bulletin board at the conference with additions made to it as necessary, room numbers, meeting locations, etc. Knowing that Girl 6 was hosting the pajama party, for instance, was no help to me because I didn't know Girl 6, where she was staying, or how to get in touch with her.

[CFLarsen]

Skepticism is about questioning your own beliefs. This means that you SHOULD hear things that make you upset. The anti-religion perspective is part of the show, love it or hate it.

Hitchens hates Islam. Penn dislikes religion overall but tends to be harsher than he means to be. Hal is a deist. Randi defended Hal's beliefs. Shermer is a quiet former-evangelical. I love that I hear all sides of the issue.

It was absolutely no secret that many in the crowd disagreed with Hitchens. Perhaps a majority. Any first-timer to TAM would have to be pretty dense to think that his view is the "official view" of JREF.

If he upsets you, I understand. You can choose not to attend his lectures or dissent in the appropriate manner. Critical thinking is worthless in a fog of censorship.

Indeed.

Heck, we should have woos at TAM. Let the fur fly! ARRR! ARRR! ARRR!

[DiskoVilante]

About cork boards: The main cork board should have been closer to the conference/dining area and not so far away near the entrance.

I've seen Bill Nye at the Skeptics Society. He's a good lecturer. If he does come to a TAM, I suggest we all go up to him, get on our knees, and bow down to him saying we're not worthy.

[BayAreaGuy]

That presentation was a freaking joke.

They can't take the time to edit that video? Instead they just sit there and fumble with it, looking like fools, while the audience of 500+ wonders what they are paying for...?:confused:

Other than the AV problems and my above bug I really liked everything!:)


Overman is right about all this. In fact, several of the presentations felt like we were looking at someone's summer vacation photos. If my students gave presentations like that, I'd fail them on the assignment (they don't, by the way).

It takes far less than TWO DAYS to edit video. I could have ripped the DVD, edited the video, and burned it back to DVD within a few hours, and I'm a complete amature! Also, what was the point of having the audio playing throughout their banter? I don't speak Korean, and I doubt if anyone else in the room did either, so they should have just muted the video and let Randi and Jaime talk.

Penn & Teller were also a huge disappointment. I didn't expect them to give a performance, but if they weren't going to talk about the subject "Skepticism and the Media," they why bother to put them on the bill? The same for Parker and Stone; just because a couple of South Park episodes bashed religion doesn't mean that they had something to offer. In fact, they told us point blank that they're not atheists and only did the episodes because they thought it was a good comedy platform.

The best (and most relevant) speakers were John Rennie from Scientific American, Christopher Hitchens (amazingly articulate and brilliant!), and Lori Lipman Brown. I thought Scott Dikkers was really funny (at least his material was), but felt sorry for him when Hitchens put him in his place so bluntly (not that I didn't agree).

Just my two cents.

[Math Maniac]

I second the idea of a longer event so that the presenters could hold a secondary "presentation" in order for interested participants to ask questions in a more intimate (hopefully) setting. This should have the secondary benefit of allowing some extra time to formulate a question.

I would either appreciate greatly reduced fees for the seminars or more materials handed out. I do not expect to get something for nothing as many of my colleagues feel (teachers), but the rather exorbitant fees for the seminar at TAM4 meant that I nor my wife (a teacher also) did not attend the education related seminar at TAM5.

I have not seen it mentioned before but the bag was extremely helpful and a nice addition to the materials given out at registration.

[DiskoVilante]

The bags were excellent. I got a defective one but I'm very happy with it. The Velcro straps are made out of the same furry material and don't cling, but it makes it special I think.

We have got to have Wiseman on again. I'm a bit disappointed with his presentation though...it seems to be the same one he uses everywhere. I saw him at the Skeptics Society here in Pasadena and he did the same lecture (sans computer problems).

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, I was at TAM3. Which is why I am so pissed about Hitchens getting invited again and again.

I was also at TAM2. Which is why I am so pissed about Penn getting to spew his "religious people are retarded" crap again and again without even one word of protest from the vast majority of attendees, let alone Randi himself.

I was also at TAM4. Which is why I am so pissed at the way the "religion and skepticism" is handled every time. Hal got his talk in order to have a token deist voice, and then everything he said was ignored so Penn, Hitchens and the rest could jack off in public again.


I have come to the conclusion that neither Penn Jilette nor Christopher Hitchens are skeptics, AT LEAST not about religion. They are merely fanatical hatemongers - Hitchens driven by hatred of Islam and of "liberals", Penn by a desire to offend - who happen to hold an opinion that is shared by many skeptics.
I was at TAM3 and enjoyed most speakers. Some speakers were better prepared than others, some were better presenters than others, some speakers had more interesting topics than others, etc. But there were only two speakers which I actually found were embarrassments to the conference and therefore to skepticism itself. Can you guess which two? Yep, Hitchens and Penn.

From what you and others relate, it seems they are still embarrassments. I understand that Penn has some sort of star status in the US and can only presume this is why he is invited back. A sad cowtowing to "star" attraction, but I guess JREF needs to go with whatever can bring in the masses.

But why is Hitchens asked back? I can't fathom it. Is he a star in the US?

[DiskoVilante]

Hitchens is so cool.
But I do understand why people are so critical of him. I guess his writing is better than himself live.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But why is Hitchens asked back?

Because he's a great speaker and a brilliant man.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And as for the Forum Party, I like the semi-secret exclusive aspect of it. I wouldn't have wanted 800 people going through the suite. If they want to attend a killer party, then they need to join the forum and get involved.

[CFLarsen]

And as for the Forum Party, I like the semi-secret exclusive aspect of it. I wouldn't have wanted 800 people going through the suite. If they want to attend a killer party, then they need to join the forum and get involved.

Although it's the Forum Party, it is also a great opportunity to lure get new people to sign up for the Forum.

If only Forumites can attend, we should set up security and check people for their membership. I just don't think that would go down well with those who were interested in joining. It certainly doesn't send a message of inclusiveness.

[DanishDynamite]

Hitchens is so cool.
But I do understand why people are so critical of him. I guess his writing is better than himself live.
Possibly true. I've never read anything he wrote. Live, he comes across as a pretentious a-hole with a personal agenda.

(In some ways he reminds me of Claus. :) )

[CFLarsen]

Possibly true. I've never read anything he wrote. Live, he comes across as a pretentious a-hole with a personal agenda.

(In some ways he reminds me of Claus. :) )

Why, thank you!

Møgunge...

[DiskoVilante]

Although it's the Forum Party, it is also a great opportunity to lure get new people to sign up for the Forum.

If only Forumites can attend, we should set up security and check people for their membership. I just don't think that would go down well with those who were interested in joining. It certainly doesn't send a message of inclusiveness.

How about we make it that forumites can invite only one guest to the party?

[DanishDynamite]

Why, thank you!

Møgunge...
I didn't say in what way they reminded me of you, did I? :)

[CFLarsen]

How about we make it that forumites can invite only one guest to the party?

Elitist.

[DiskoVilante]

It's okay to be elitist if it's true.

In this case it's true.

[Math Maniac]

Maybe there could be requirements (if you wanted such things) for certain forum events, such as number of posts (I'd miss just about everything) or length of membership....

I happen to think that it promotes less activity, but that's just me...and I haven't been that active so I am not a good judge anyway...

[Geek Goddess]

I brought my friend and his wife, and their daughters, to TAM. He is unlikely to get involved in the forum, as he runs a multi-million dollar business and barely has time to use the can. His wife is not the type that would read and post on a forum.

But they both had a great time, and didn't seem to think they missed anything by not being 'in' on some of the activities. Best Friend was so thrilled with meeting anyone and everyone, and didn't know/care about the forum, and plans to go to every TAM in the future, possibly work on a paper to submit for a future TAM, and will likely be donating money to the foundation. AH has some excellent comments about knowledge (or lack) of Forum activities, but I have at least two people's viewpoints that it was very enjoyable even without being part of an 'inner' group.

As far as having multiple presentations: my only real comparison is the techanical conference I go to every year (and have for 18 years). They have different sessions going on concurrently, and I frequently have to pick and choose among different ones I want to see. I always end up missing out on something. I liked that I was pretty much able to see everything that was presented.

[Cleon]

He is unlikely to get involved in the forum, as he runs a multi-million dollar business and barely has time to use the can.

Could you tell us what company that is, exactly? Because I never, ever, ever want to step foot anywhere near that man's office.

[Geek Goddess]

Could you tell us what company that is, exactly? Because I never, ever, ever want to step foot anywhere near that man's office.

:) I've seen it. You'd have to use a bulldozer to get the books and papers out. They'd never find your body.

[Brown]

Penn has very strong feelings about religion, but this particular quote should not be taken out of the larger context, and should not be used to make Penn appear to be that which he was not. I took it as a joke, it was aimed primarily at me at that moment, and I think the legacy of that remark, and its often misquoting, is unfortunate.True, but Penn was not the only one to express a strong opinion. During his presentation at TAM2, Jamy Ian Swiss likewise expressed very strong feelings about religion. As with Jillette, the context of Swiss's remarks indicated that it was all meant with a hint of humor rather than genuine malice, but one can certainly understand how folks who hold religious views might see the remarks as a slap in the face.

[Brown]

Hitchens is so cool.
But I do understand why people are so critical of him. I guess his writing is better than himself live.No, no, no, you have it all wrong.

There are really two people who pass themselves off as Christopher Hitchens. They are possibly identical twins, possibly clones, possibly duplicates from parallel universes. They look exactly alike and are both blessed with excellent writing skills and sharp tongues. But one of them is deluded about certain matters, and is under the impression that his own excrement does not have an offensive odor.

This "evil" Hitchens is responsible for saying dumb-ass things, typically in avoidance of the pending question. He makes over-generalizations and is unduly argumentative, often pretending to be dense in getting the point. He also has a reputation as a drunk.

The "good" Hitchens, by contrast, is a witty and articulate fellow, capable of making common sense sound delicious.

I'm not sure which Hitchens came to TAM5. Maybe both of them did.

But is sure would be nice if the "evil" Hitchens would grow a goatee.

[Kil]

About the forum thing, I am a member of many forums, but because I administrate a skeptic forum myself, (not by myself, mind you) I don’t really have a whole lot of time to run around to the other forums I am registered at. Really, I join other skeptic forums as a show of support, mostly.

Having said that, last year, at TAM4, I felt like a bit like an outsider. It didn’t ruin the event for me. Not even close. But I knew I was missing something. I could see it happening around me. I just really couldn’t do anything about it. Not then anyway.

I made an effort to become involved on this forum before the event to help solve that problem for me. And it worked to some extent. (I will never reach the number of posts that the regulars have here because I just don’t have the time to do that.) I doubt that there is a way to solve the problem entirely. (No, I am not willing to stop wearing SFN shirts to any event for skeptics.) People become friends on forums, I know that from experience, and TAM is a JREF event. So really, I am not complaining about it.

It’s just there, and so I did what I could do. I suspect I will be posting more here then I have in the past. The pace here is ridiculous, but also somewhat addictive I have found. Go figure…

Anyhow, I’m not really sure what the point of all that was except for maybe a just so’s ya know.

And yes, 800 people would have been too many at the forum party…

[xenxabar]

I am echoing what some have already said regarding the technical difficulties. As IllegalArgument said, the Randi and Jami Ian Swiss presentation (allegedly) had only two days to prep, and that’s what it looked like. I surmise that he was given the tapes and a combo DVD recorder/VCR, recorded all the tapes, and tried his best to get the chapters to correspond with the outline of the conversation on a single pass. If someone hasn’t already mentioned it, all DVDs should be played on a standalone DVD player (that has been tested) instead of using computers. That alone may account for at least half of the technical difficulties. Backup cables and a more attentive audio tech would help with the rest. All in all it was “on par” for level of the venue, IMHO.


I also agree with the idea of having the paper presentations spread out more through the conference. Part of the mission statement on the back of the membership card states, “…awarding prizes to deserving students who develop projects and essays based upon these claims…” I’m interpreting that to mean the people who present their papers on Sunday.


Since this is the biggest event of the year for the JREF, methinks it should bring in the most profit. However, I have heard that is not always the case. There are several suggestions for improvements that would require a higher registration fee and that would definitely be cost prohibitive to many would be attendees. Here are some ideas that might make TAM a more profitable event.


Spoon bending with Randi


Concept


The idea here is to have a small scale show with Randi where he would do a demonstration and maybe tell a story of Uri. The show would only be maybe a half hour.

Profit potential


Tickets would be relatively inexpensive lets say $20. That $20 would include as your admission ticket a spoon. Then there would also be raffle tickets sold $1 each or 6 for $5 and 10 winners would get their spoon bent by Randi or perhaps get the ones that he used in the demonstrations. I did a little research and spoons can be purchased in bulk from restaurant supply stores for a few dollars per dozen.


Scheduling


This is likely the most difficult challenge. Based upon this year’s schedule, one hour prior to that evening’s optional show may be the best option. It still gives people a little bit of time to get some food.

Carnival games


Concept


These would be simple quick games like throwing darts at balloons, tossing beanbags through a hoop, rolling giant dice (perhaps with famous skeptic or woo images on them). A great way to market this would be to have Todd Robbins do his carnival barking.


Profit potential


Each game would cost $3. Prizes would be small inexpensive (ideally ones that are sold for $1.50 normally) items such as the wristband, and like the traditional carnival game, multiple small prizes can be traded up for bigger/more valuable ones.



Raffle and/or Silent auction


Each day a new raffle or silent auction with prizes/items like TAM DVDs, books and Randi doll. Tickets could be as little as $1 each or 6/$5. For a raffle a bucket would be setup for each prize.


Add more (non-book) merchandise to the JREF tables:
Wristbands, bookmarks, buttons, lanyards, bent forks or spoons, Randi dolls (went over quite well)


Advertise

Advertise the Membership to the JREF include the 10% off merchandise as part of the plug (if that is still valid). Plug the merchandise tables and what they have for sale throughout the conference.


Sponsors

Sell tables or plugs (extra if you want Hal to dress up in tights, of course :D ).


That's my 2 cents, anyway. :)

[DiskoVilante]

@Xanxabar: Your 2 cents is more like $100.

[rustypouch]

Could we have it at the Excalibur?

Seriously, our very own Rebecca Bradley will have a great new book published by then, and she should speak.

[Elentar]

I loved TAM5, and dearly wish I had attended earlier TAMs. I felt completely at home with the people at the conference, and intend to go to every TAM from now on. :)

Some suggestions and comments:

Location: Keep in mind that Vegas is subsidized by all those zombies feeding the machines. You get cheap rooms and space because they expect you to squander a portion of your life savings there. Yeah, gambling is stupidity tax--but don't say this too loudly, or we won't get the deals that we do. Besides, with the Randi's magician background and friends, Vegas is a natural.

AV problems: Let's settle on a couple of formats (AVI, Mov, and Powerpoint?) and bring all materials on a USB key (2 Gigs, at $35, will hold a LOT of video.) You can run it straight from the key. Then run one laptop already fully tested with the AV system. No tapes, disks, or weird formats.

Topic: Maybe we could have three days with three different topics, rather than a single one. Or an overall topic but with digressions on different days.

Controversial Topics: I suspect that one source of friction, especially with a guy like Hitchens, is that many of the opinions were forced into sound byte formats by the limited time. I find this rather frustrating, as I would like to get a deeper and more varied treatment of these topics (I actually enjoy talking to people who strongly disagree with me--I want to find out why they believe what they do.) Someone like Hitchens will throw down the gauntlet, not to stop the discussion, but to start it in earnest, to get it past the polite, superficial stage and down to the bone. I enjoyed all the speakers, but to tell you the truth, there wasn't much that I haven't heard before (I suspect Peter Sagal of NPR was talking about this uniformity of opinion in his discussion of dominant narratives.)

On the topic of religion, for example, I can think of seven different gradations: hard atheist, agnostic, cultural spiritualist/empirical materialist, anti-religious deist, soft religious theist, hard religious theist, and fundamentalist. Most discussions on the topic seem to ignore all but two or three of these. Suprisingly, Richard Dawkins didn't (he specifically targetted those towards the fundamentalist end, and touched on nearly all of the other variations) yet most of his critics did make this mistake, even going so far as to actually deny that fundamentalism existed! So yes, there are simplistic atheistic arguments, but there are equally simplistic religious proponents. So if we're going to get someone for the religious side, can we try to get someone with a little depth? I'd love to hear something I haven't heard before.

[Quinn]

Speaker suggestion: Robert S. Lancaster. Not doing a paper presentation, but on the main stage with the big boys, where he belongs.

[Chaos]

How do you feel about the Blasphemy Challenge that Penn took?

Without further information on that, I can only offer the observation that this kind of this would satisfy his desire to offend.

Speaker suggestion: Robert S. Lancaster. Not doing a paper presentation, but on the main stage with the big boys, where he belongs.

Would be nice... but I think he´s too modest to do that.

[CFLarsen]

Without further information on that, I can only offer the observation that this kind of this would satisfy his desire to offend.

Here is Penn's clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxuQmvhfPhk)

Thoughts?

[Antiquehunter]

He chose to take the Blasphemy Challenge, while identifiably at TAM, not revealing any connection to the JRef. Its no big deal. Penn gave the Rational Response Squad a soundbite - and it was actually pretty polite and tame as far as Penn goes...

[Cleon]

Some non-Hitchens-or-god-related-ideas:

Bring Joe Nickell and/or other paranormal investigators back. Talks about how these things are investigated are a LOT of fun.

Cryptozoology--this is something that I've noticed a lot of people have a "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" attitude about. A panel discussion about cryptozoology--what's real, what's not, what's plausible, what's unrealistic--could be very interesting.

Organic and genetically modified foods--lots of BS here, as well as real science. I'd love to see some talks on the subject(s).

For an additional workshop, how about "Conjuring for Beginners," or maybe "Mentalism for the Mental?" Or even a workshop about cold reading techniques. Seems to me with all the big-name magicians running around TAM, this would work out well. Of course, big-name magicians
have long since moved past the point where they give lessons, but they might be willing to do it as a JREF fundraiser. And I'm sure there are plenty of up-and-coming or wannabe magicians in the JREF community willing to shell out some extra cash to be able to say they took magic lessons from someone like Jamy Ian Swiss or even the Amazing One himself.

[DiskoVilante]

Topic: Maybe we could have three days with three different topics, rather than a single one. Or an overall topic but with digressions on different days.


Excellent idea. It would make the lectures more interesting.



Here is Penn's clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxuQmvhfPhk)

Thoughts?

AWESOMENESS.
Too bad he wasn't too angry in it. Angry Penn is sometimes fun.

[Badger]

I've finally got a few thoughts together so here goes:

For TAM 6, I'd like to see some sort of additional conference room that could serve as a general meeting place or hangout. That way, when people don't knw where people are or want to find out what's going on or want a quiet place to talk or whatever, it's available.

My thought on a topic for TAM 6 is something along the lines of how to get the philosophy of critical thinking out there.

Most of us are rabble with mortgages, jobs, lives, kids, etc. and probably have limited resources to effect change. What I'd like to see are presentations and papers helping us understand "people who believe" (I'm thinking speakers of the Jacob Bronowski, Desmond Morris vein as they were two guys who shaped my thought processes early with the anthropological aspects of being a social mammal) along with information similar to what Ginger Switzer presented on Sunday, and more stuff about marketing, similar to what Rebecca did but also including tips on how to call BS by writing letters to editors and becoming a "skeptical columnist" in a local paper or mag.

Another aspect that I feel we could all participate in is some form of in-school presentations at science fairs or detention, or some afternoon in your kids class, and so would like to see information presented on communicating this stuff to kids and teenagers.

There you go. There's my 2 cents Canadian.

[SherlockJr]

For an additional workshop, how about "Conjuring for Beginners," or maybe "Mentalism for the Mental?" Or even a workshop about cold reading techniques. Seems to me with all the big-name magicians running around TAM, this would work out well. Of course, big-name magicians
have long since moved past the point where they give lessons, but they might be willing to do it as a JREF fundraiser. And I'm sure there are plenty of up-and-coming or wannabe magicians in the JREF community willing to shell out some extra cash to be able to say they took magic lessons from someone like Jamy Ian Swiss or even the Amazing One himself.

Love this idea. One of the unexpected side effects of my TAM5 attendance is that I've been digging out my old magic books, to brush up on mentalism techniques and tricks.

[DiskoVilante]

I've finally got a few thoughts together so here goes:

For TAM 6, I'd like to see some sort of additional conference room that could serve as a general meeting place or hangout. That way, when people don't knw where people are or want to find out what's going on or want a quiet place to talk or whatever, it's available.



The dining area seemed to be good for this purpose.
Or do you mean a hangout that is not during lectures and food time?

[KingMerv00]

Indeed.

Heck, we should have woos at TAM. Let the fur fly! ARRR! ARRR! ARRR!

I wouldn't be against Ms. Browne attending. Let her defend herself. She'd fail miserably of course. Just so long as the convention doesn't get jam packed with her type.

Hitchens is a brilliant speaker, an opponent to the supernatural, and presents a point of view that many skeptics share. Disagree with him if you must (as I do), but banning him is just an attempt to silence the skeptics you don't like.

Ultimately, the decision to allow him to speak should be up to the attendees. I'll start a poll thread asking just that question. It might not exactly be scientific, but it will serve some small purpose.

[Cleon]

Hitchens is a brilliant speaker, an opponent to the supernatural, and presents a point of view that many skeptics share. Disagree with him if you must (as I do), but banning him is just an attempt to silence the skeptics you don't like.

Bullcrap alert! Bullcrap alert! A-oooo-gah! Danger, Will Robinson!

Who, exactly, is talking about banning Hitchens from TAM? Unless I missed something important, nobody has floated this suggestion. As far as I'm aware, even Uri Geller isn't banned from TAM.

[KingMerv00]

Bullcrap alert! Bullcrap alert! A-oooo-gah! Danger, Will Robinson!

Who, exactly, is talking about banning Hitchens from TAM? Unless I missed something important, nobody has floated this suggestion. As far as I'm aware, even Uri Geller isn't banned from TAM.

Don't you think the "A-oooo-gah" is a bit much?

I should have said "not inviting him to speak at the podium" instead of "banning him". Sorry bout that.

[DiskoVilante]

Oh, I just rememberd.

WE NEED MORE COWBELL.

[xenxabar]

Speaker suggestion: Robert S. Lancaster. Not doing a paper presentation, but on the main stage with the big boys, where he belongs.Hear, hear!

[Chaos]

One more (hopefully, less controversial) suggestion:

For those speakers that agree, include their e-mail adress and/or website with the speaker bio. Some of us that didn´t get a chance to talk to some speakers would still like to give them some feedback.

[Dumb All Over]

Suggestion for a speaker at TAM 6--

Mike Rosen of KOA Radio.

[Soapy Sam]

Confusion & Communication.
As a first timer, I found it hard to know what was going on all the time, where and with whom.

On day 1, I was down as a volunteer. I asked several times in the lobby what I should do, but was told nothing was needed. As I had signed for the Education Workshop, I went to that. Later, when I spoke with Scott, it seemed he could have used me after all.

The problem for a newbie is not knowing who to ask, or where to find that person.. Maybe a five minute volunteer meeting at the start and end of each day, at a known location, would keep everyone in the loop?

Registration Packets and Tote bags.
It seems stuffing the information packets took a lot of time and trouble. Was it worth the effort?
I felt the tote bag and most of the papers in it were not necessary.
The speaker biography was interesting:
The evaluation and pledge sheets could be stacked in the conference room for anyone to take if wanted.
The glossy poster- prepared with considerable thought and expense- was the sort of advertising material which should have been circulated months earlier. This is a tantaliser- a selling tool; Giving this to someone who has already paid and arrived seems pointless.
The attendance certificate, while a bit of fun, again seems an unnecessary expense.

What was needed was a good timetable of events, including the "fringe events" given on Claus' list. This and the biography list could have been available from self-serve piles, at the registration desk and in the conference room , so the only queuing would be for tickets to evening functions.- which should also be on sale at the merchandise table. (Requiring a cash / charge facility). The entire, slightly chaotic registration queue, might be completely done away with.

I found the tote bag itself to be just surplus baggage, which I trashed rather than carry home.
A supermarket style throwaway plastic bag would have been adequate to carry the folders on day 1 and could carry similar advertising to the tote.

Merchandise.
By putting the title and logo of the particular TAM on tee shirts, the shirt itself is dated and probably will not sell well later. People buying tees seemed to prefer the older shirts with the JREF logo to the black ones with the "Skepticism and the Media" logo

Many of the books and authors on the merchandise table were unknown to me. When buyers asked for recommendations, I was stumped. Most of these books will be familiar to
some forum members. Maybe we could prepare a list of reviews? Likewise, people asked about the Julia Sweeney CDs. Julia is largely unknown outside the USA and I could answer no question on content.

At one point the three people on the book table were a Scot, a German and a Dane. Given the strong U.S. political element in some of the books, a few notes would have helped.

The merchandise table was physically separated from the cashdesk by the sound desk. There was nothing to stop anyone picking up books and simply walking out without paying. While I have no desire to handle cash, it would seem sensible to have a cash desk on each table, or have the cash desk on the merchandise table.

How do we measure success of TAM?
I think we might ask ourselves what is TAM actually for?
To meet like minded people?
To learn useful techniques for debating nonsense?
To acquire skills?
To hear the latest hitech stuff?
To have fun?
All the above
Or to raise funds for JREF?

Two memorable events for me were the MIT faclab talk and Hal Bidlack as Hamilton. I could happily have listened to twice as much of both- but were they relevant to the JREF "mission" or the conference theme? Likewise the magic shows or Jill and Julia. Are these fund raisers or consciousness raisers?

The Sunday individual papers had content which seemed to me most relevant to what JREF is about, but they were under pressure from time constraints. I'd like to see more time allotted to these.

Accommodation.
The Riviera complex is big and confusing. Not everyone was in one tower, even among those paying the TAM room rate. It would be better if everyone was in one tower and all shared one rate.It was unfortunate that Riviera rooms were advertised online, at rates as low as $48.80 via the Riviera's own and other websites, at the time people were registering for TAM. The web ad specified that the rooms available at the TAM rate were "luxury" rooms, yet the rooms in the Monte Carlo tower seemed far better fitted out than the Monaco, where a lot of TAM attendees stayed. I stayed at the Riv the night before flying home (Jan 26th). Room rate was higher (114 +tax), but I'm told the room was "two grades higher". Now as long as the door locks and there's a bed and shower, I don't much care about the grade. I do think it would be good if the Riv is clearer about what they are offering .
Despite booking months in advance, the hotel failed to give me a non smoking room on the night I arrived, though they could do so next day. They can't plan six months ahead but can guarantee a non smoking room at 12 hours notice? Seems odd to me.

Hotel telephone charges.
Do not use room phones for long distance calls. One four minute call to the UK cost $29 and an eight minute call cost $49. A $25 calling card from Walgreens permits roughly four hours of talk to a UK number from a payphone.
How expensive was the internet access?

As others have said, this reads like a list of complaints. I had a very good time at Tam and the points here are meant to simplify and streamline for the people who do all the real work - not to gripe about minor issues.


I'd also like to know more about the putting together of TAM. At breakfast on Monday , Hal was talking about this- but most folk had left by then.
How much does it cost to stage TAM? What cost per head? Which speakers / entertainers charge for their time, who comes free (if anyone)?

[TJ]

As Soapy Sam said, having the merchandise table so far from the cashbox was inconvenient, but it did keep it from getting overcrowded.

My suggestion has to do with the money-taking process itself. I spent almost 8 hours on various days taking money and charging credit cards,which was no big deal at all, to me. Where it got cumbersome, however, was when we had to write down a list of what every person bought.

I realize that this was necessary for Linda's inventory purposes and I wouldn't dream of getting rid of it, but I think it could be streamlined.

I we cold come up with a 'shorthand' way - a product code - to write instead of a long book title, etc., things could have gone much more smoothly. Any code would have been fine, just something to speed it up. R01, R02, R03, etc. for Randi's books, JS01 for Julia Sweeney's CDs...or whatever, just so that we could write R01 instead of Randi: The Mask of Nostradamus book. Even if they were just numbered 1-27 and coincided with the pricelist it would have been fine.

I also think the pricelist was a bit hard to read, but only because there were no lines on the sheet. Lines would have been great. Even better would have been lines and shading of every other line so that it was easy for the eyes to follow. Along with a product code.

I really like the idea of presentations on a USB flash drive too. That's a brilliant efficiency for the talks.

[sbernie87]

I think we should get Jon Stewart to come to TAM 6. I am not sure what his religious leanings are, but he (or at least his writers) is certainly critical. I know he leans to the left, and people might view him as an icon of liberal demagoguery, but i don't think that is the case. If you have ever seen him speak outside of the daily show, it is apparent that he is a well reasoned and intelligent individual, who would be an asset to TAM (assuming we could get him). Also, I think that Randi would make a great guest on the daily show, if that could be arranged.

[FaisonMars]

I think we should get Jon Stewart to come to TAM 6. I am not sure what his religious leanings are, but he (or at least his writers) is certainly critical. I know he leans to the left, and people might view him as an icon of liberal demagoguery, but i don't think that is the case. If you have ever seen him speak outside of the daily show, it is apparent that he is a well reasoned and intelligent individual, who would be an asset to TAM (assuming we could get him). Also, I think that Randi would make a great guest on the daily show, if that could be arranged.

Stewart is mostly a libertarian. I think he stays fairly balanced on the show in deconstructing and making fun of idiocracy on both the left and the right.

I strongly second the call for Stewart-- the shows they did on evolution were pretty funny. I would suggest Colbert as well... one would hope that his extreme parody of the O'Reilly types would increase skpeticism of the news media, esp. those cable shows.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I want to add something about the AV troubles at the meeting. These were, IMO, 100% due to the hotel/casino. I have attended countless meetings where swapping laptops takes seconds, and there are no issues at all.

The only way around that is to have all the speakers submit their talks beforehand, and that has a lot of trouble as well; I added something to my talk an hour before I gave it (the image of the woman holding cards that said "Woo the ladies"). The other thing is that speakers won't do it. They just won't.

So having the meeting at a place that has higher standards of professionalism would be a good start.

Non-smoking rooms would help as well. :-)

[Zep]

Athon and I have discussed and compared TAM experiences with other conferences and symposia we have attended. Like Geek Goddess, I have been involved in large technical symposia preparation for nearly two decades.

Given that my TAM experience was TAM4 only but that Athon has filled me in on more details from TAM5, the downside I am hesitant to note is that TAM seemed more like a large gab-fest for Randi and friends than a professional event, with about an even balance of positives and negatives.

POSITIVES

* The organisers worked their butts off, and did an exceptional job under the circumstances.

* The talent line-up for skepticism was, as usual, exceptional.

* The smaller venues - war stories, small presentations, etc - were fabulous and very well attended and received. Rob Lancaster came to our notice at TAM4 via this route.

* The Forum community is the backbone of TAM. It was great to be part of it and proud of it. We didn't even need to introduce each other, we just picked right up where we left off posting!

NEGATIVES

* The organisers need technical and organisational help to prepare an event of that magnitude from a distance. And a tiny handful of people, however devoted, will always struggle to run it on the ground. What might have been OK for earlier TAMs of ~200 attendees is not so good for the current TAMs of 800+ attendees. By comparison, for a 600+ attendee event here similar to TAM, we always have a team of 20 or more workers (who are actually volunteers), with specific tasks and proper run-sheets and so on, plus a large team of organised worker-bee volunteers. I'm sure plenty of forumites and others have similar experience with big event organisation - why not use it?

* Organised social gatherings, such as forum dinners and other "parties", seemed to have been bypassed by the organisers. They were, as far as I could tell, organised outside/before TAM. Why??! Opportunities going missing... E.g. Organise a more "formal" forum dinner as a pre-paid part of the whole event at a suitable venue you won't get thrown out of (!), entry by event placard, perhaps as the closing event of TAM. Get everyone to mingle and have fun, have places for new people to sign up on the forum, between courses have Randi give a nice speech and/or present a short magic act, present forum and TAM "prizes", etc, a good time to be had by all.

* Q&A and panel sessions rarely if ever work well, and often are a recipe for boredom and time-wasting for most involved. This drives attendees out of the presentations. There are better ways of achieving the same goals, depending on the venue.


To conclude, I'd like to suggest, with all due respect to the organisers then and this year, that perhaps at 800+ attendees it is getting beyond the capabilities of the JREF office staff and just interested volunteers to run a symposium of that size and nature. What may be better for all involved would be to either form a reasonably-sized task-specific team to organise the event, or get in professional event organisers to do it and liaise with them.

Further, more serious thought needs to be given to how the event is organised and run. Everyone sitting around in one place listening to hour after hour of speakers = incipient boredom, not inciting interest. You need to make the presentations more interesting than the surrounding attractions...

[Antiquehunter]

On the comments above re: Riviera incidental charges - the Riv is KNOWN for nickling and diming its guests. In fact, at www.cheapovegas.com (one of my favorite sites for Vegas info) they cite this as a major detriment. In fact, when checking in, the clerk TOLD me not to use the phone.

Another cheap way to stay in touch in Vegas - disposable pay as you go cellphones. A throw-away phone with $20 in credit (rechargeable, and useable in just about any major US city on the Cingular network) costs $39.99 in Vegas. Its perfect for me - and its cheap cheap cheap. No roaming charges, and while I don't think I'd use it for international calls, if you're going to be in town for a while and want to stay in touch, or if you travel around the US a fair bit, then its a good deal.

Of course, when you forget to plug it in and have handed the number out to friends but never answer it... :(

-AH.

[Zep]

Disposable phones now??? :eek:

[SezMe]

Speaker suggestion, especially if the topic involves science, would be the Chairman of the White House Advisory Council (or whatever its exact name is).

[CFLarsen]

One more (hopefully, less controversial) suggestion:

For those speakers that agree, include their e-mail adress and/or website with the speaker bio. Some of us that didn´t get a chance to talk to some speakers would still like to give them some feedback.

Good idea.

Did you get a chance to view the Penn clip?

As Soapy Sam said, having the merchandise table so far from the cashbox was inconvenient, but it did keep it from getting overcrowded.

At the previous TAMs, the merchandise table was even further away, which, unfortunately resulted in some people never paying for their stuff. The tables were moved closer together this year to prevent this.

My suggestion has to do with the money-taking process itself. I spent almost 8 hours on various days taking money and charging credit cards,which was no big deal at all, to me. Where it got cumbersome, however, was when we had to write down a list of what every person bought.

I realize that this was necessary for Linda's inventory purposes and I wouldn't dream of getting rid of it, but I think it could be streamlined.

I we cold come up with a 'shorthand' way - a product code - to write instead of a long book title, etc., things could have gone much more smoothly. Any code would have been fine, just something to speed it up. R01, R02, R03, etc. for Randi's books, JS01 for Julia Sweeney's CDs...or whatever, just so that we could write R01 instead of Randi: The Mask of Nostradamus book. Even if they were just numbered 1-27 and coincided with the pricelist it would have been fine.

Sounds like a good idea.

Non-smoking rooms would help as well. :-)

...don't set fire to them, then... :)

* Organised social gatherings, such as forum dinners and other "parties", seemed to have been bypassed by the organisers. They were, as far as I could tell, organised outside/before TAM. Why??! Opportunities going missing... E.g. Organise a more "formal" forum dinner as a pre-paid part of the whole event at a suitable venue you won't get thrown out of (!), entry by event placard, perhaps as the closing event of TAM. Get everyone to mingle and have fun, have places for new people to sign up on the forum, between courses have Randi give a nice speech and/or present a short magic act, present forum and TAM "prizes", etc, a good time to be had by all.

Cost is a huge issue with TAMs: It has to be kept as low as possible and a formal dinner would increase the cost with perhaps 80-100 bucks. Even $50 would be a substantial increase.

This year's reception was a very good idea. People got chow, but could also mingle freely. With dinner, you are kinda stuck to a very limited number of people.

Disposable phones now??? :eek:

Open window.

Throw out cell phone.

[Reed]

This doesn't appear to have been mentioned yet (at least by name), so let me throw in....

Encourage Birds of a Feather sessions.

A BoF session is an informal meet-up at a conference, where the attendees group together based on a shared interest and carry out discussions without any pre-planned agenda.

They require a centrally-located bulletin board to schedule time and topic as well as a space set aside for such a purpose. A hearty endorsement on the part of the conference organizers is essential too.

BoF are popular at tech conferences for a couple of reasons. First, the conference schedule can rarely anticipate what the hot topics will be at the time of the conference. Second, they provide a forum for those who wish to improve their speaking and presentation skills in a setting that is more intimate and interactive than the podium.

[SezMe]

Speaker suggestion, especially if the topic involves science, would be the Chairman of the White House Advisory Council (or whatever its exact name is).
Duh, what a crappy post. Here is what I meant:

Invite the Science Advisor to the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy. This post is presently held by John Marburger, III. He might be hard (impossible?) to get but we could settle for an underling.

[Geek Goddess]

Mary Roach, author of "Stiff", also wrote a book called "Spook: Science Takes on the Afterlife" in which she, a skeptical science writer, investigates how science has been evaluating all sorts of issues related to what people think happens to us after death. For instance, there is a chapter on mediums (which meshed nicely with the talk by Rennie on SciAm's debunking of mediums), a seminar she attended which was advertised to teach people how to read minds or communicate with the formerly alive, how scientists tried to measure the weight of the soul (by weighing people AS THEY DIED in tuberculosis sanitariums, for example), a write-up on the project to investigate NDEs. Ex: the hospital has a laptop, open, facing the ceiling, that shows very simple, large common figures (a bird, an apple), visible only to the ceiling. People who think they've had an out-of-body experience frequently claim to have floated above the emergency room, watching doctors work on their body, and describing what they saw. No one has ever been able to describe what was show on the laptop.

All of these she investigates from a skeptical perspective, and she's pretty funny. IF the theme runs towards the paranormal, she might make a nice addition.

[ottle]

On the whole forum thing (and I apologize if this has been said already): one thing I noticed this year that was different from last year is that the forum events were hardly announced at all this year. Last year, I wasn't on the forum but there were constant announcements about the events, especially the PJ party. It got my attention (even though I didn't attend any forum events last year) and was one of the reasons that I joined the forum before this year's TAM.

We need to announce them as 'forum-sponsored' events so that everyone feels welcome and that will help grow the community as well. This year, had I not been on the forum, I wouldn't have had a clue where everything was.

Now, I know that there is a limit to space for things like the forum party and having everyone show up would have been ugly but it's important to keep the group open and welcoming, not create more barriers and make people feel like we're being clique-ish... Maybe we just need a bigger room, although I know there have been plenty of discussions around the issues with that...

Other suggestions:

- Have an auction at the start of TAM and include things like time with the guests - dinner with Randi or Phil or Teller teaching you a slight-of-hand trick. You would make a LOT of money; I know, I've seen it in other conventions. It would take quite a bit of coordination, though, so I can see how it would be tough. Also, I bet you'd get a bunch of folks from the forum or other areas donating items for the auction.

- Would it be possible to spread it out over more days? I would have liked to give some folks more time - I know people were upset that Genie Scott took longer than her allocated time but I was really pleased and happy to listen to her for as long as she could go. Maybe have a morning session on Sunday for spillover and move the papers to Sunday afternoon?

- I think others have said this but there was a bit too much Q&A. Maybe we could submit some questions for the Q&A ahead of time so that we'd get a broader group who would be willing to submit and we could whittle down questions?

- I would guess that the bigger names, like P&T, Mythbusters and the South Park folks probably didn't have the time to put together a formal presentation. I would suggest that we put them on panel discussions instead. We seemed to have a lot more panels at TAM 4 and I think they were pretty interesting. I know a lot has been said about Hitchen's behavior at the one panel and it may not have been the most appropriate way to make his point but I would like to see a bit more debate in the panels and Q&A.

[krelnik]

TAM5 was my first, but I bought the TAM4 DVDs and have watched some of them. I also listened to some unauthorized audio recordings of TAM4 I found on the net.

I also agree with Cleon on the over promotion of libertarianism thing. I heard there was a bit of similar backlash against overly strident promotion of atheism at TAM4, and there seemed to be a good effort to be better about that this year.

About Vegas: I live on the east coast, and don't mind going to Vegas. Flights are usually pretty cheap (maybe that's because I live in another hub). A plus is there's lots of non-TAM stuff to do there. Someone said they found walking past the zombies at the slots depressing. I think you should find it a call to action: what better reinforcement can you ask for of the idea that we need more critical thinking in the general populace? These are (some of) the people we should be trying to help.

I also agree with Chaos that the papers seemed like they were ghettoized in that Sunday slot....it was clear that many people had left or were leaving already, and therefore didn't get an opportunity to see them. There was some GREAT practical stuff in the papers, much more useful than some of the "big name" podium talks.

I also agree that some of the "celebrity Q&A" sessions were less than useful. Granted, they're fun. Personally I'm a huge P&T and Trey&Matt fan, so I enjoyed their time on stage, even though I've heard much of it before. And to play devil's advocate against myself, I do realize the value in having some "stars" at the show to act as a draw, it helps get new folks to consider coming to the show.

That said, I'd like to see more sessions where we learn practical techniques that we can take home and put to use. How do you debate a creationist? How do you debunk a haunted house? How do you explain to someone that astrology is a waste of time? Maybe this could be boiled down into: more workshops.

And finally....

An impression I get is there are certain speakers who are sort of the "automatic" folks who are on the schedule, regardless of whether they have something new to say to the topic at hand. I'm not going to mention any names of course. And believe me, I understand how incredibly hard it can be to get folks booked for a show like this, so the temptation to just re-invite willing folks from last year is very strong. But its a bit annoying when someone gets up there and gives variation "n" on the same talk (or Q&A) they give every year, subtly altered to jam it into the conference theme. Especially so when it incorporates pimping for a book and/or is just material we can all go see out on the web.

Bottom line: *IF* there is a specified topic/theme at TAM, then I think the organizers should STRONGLY consider whether a particular "regular" is truly relevant to the topic. For those folks who are "old favorites" but don't fit the topic, have a second (smaller) room where they can do their regular thing for new attendees.

(I'll duck behind the sandbags now)

[exarch]

- Make it a longer event - perhaps with speakers making more than one presentation. That way, people can pick and choose their speakers if they are unable to stay for the whole event, however those that can get away for more than just 2 days have time to do even more learning. The last 2 TAMs have crammed WAY too much content into too short a time in my opinion. TAM VI could easily fill 4 days of speakers, without increasing the number of speakers - just giving more Q&A time and more speaking time.

I see only one problem with that. While I am already staying far longer than the three days the conference is happening, adding more days would increase the price of the conference as well. While plenty of people could perhaps afford to spend an extra $100 or two, most of the forum people can't. And they can barely get enough vacation days to arrive a day earlier or stay a day longer as it is. And that's when, from a forum p.o.v. (or at least from mine), the most fun is taking place: the day before and the day after.

Perhaps one thing that could be done is instead of having the paper presentations all on Sunday, is spreading those out on Friday and Saturday, and moving some of the speakers to Sunday. But either way, that would probably upset a number of people who already fly out on sunday just to be back in time for work on Monday. Having to miss a paper is not as disappointing as having to miss a speaker.

[DiskoVilante]

I see only one problem with that. While I am already staying far longer than the three days the conference is happening, adding more days would increase the price of the conference as well. While plenty of people could perhaps afford to spend an extra $100 or two, most of the forum people can't. And they can barely get enough vacation days to arrive a day earlier or stay a day longer as it is. And that's when, from a forum p.o.v. (or at least from mine), the most fun is taking place: the day before and the day after.

Perhaps one thing that could be done is instead of having the paper presentations all on Sunday, is spreading those out on Friday and Saturday, and moving some of the speakers to Sunday. But either way, that would probably upset a number of people who already fly out on sunday just to be back in time for work on Monday. Having to miss a paper is not as disappointing as having to miss a speaker.

I don't think we have to worry about this anymore since TAM will be in June now.
Right?

[Fitter]

I don't think we have to worry about this anymore since TAM will be in June now.
Right?
I'm confused, what does the month have to do with annual vacation days and getting back to work?

[Geek Goddess]

I don't think we have to worry about this anymore since TAM will be in June now.
Right?

Maybe for some teachers, but I had to go back on Sunday to be at work Monday. I plan to go to TAM every year, but that doesn't mean I can use up all of my vacation days on it.

[exarch]

And finally....

An impression I get is there are certain speakers who are sort of the "automatic" folks who are on the schedule, regardless of whether they have something new to say to the topic at hand. I'm not going to mention any names of course. And believe me, I understand how incredibly hard it can be to get folks booked for a show like this, so the temptation to just re-invite willing folks from last year is very strong. But its a bit annoying when someone gets up there and gives variation "n" on the same talk (or Q&A) they give every year, subtly altered to jam it into the conference theme. Especially so when it incorporates pimping for a book and/or is just material we can all go see out on the web.

Bottom line: *IF* there is a specified topic/theme at TAM, then I think the organizers should STRONGLY consider whether a particular "regular" is truly relevant to the topic. For those folks who are "old favorites" but don't fit the topic, have a second (smaller) room where they can do their regular thing for new attendees.

(I'll duck behind the sandbags now)

Let's not beat around the bush here.
I remember someone who used to work at JREF say something to the effect that if it wasn't for Shermer being there, we probably wouldn't have half the people attending that we do now. And I even think he does it for free, although I won't swear to that.
Anyway, it would be like not having Dawkins there just because you know he's going to be talking about his most recent book again.

TAM is first and foremost a fundraising event. That means that on some points, quality is sacrificed for quantity and profit. That sounds bad, but it's this influx of money that keeps JREF in business. No matter how much more interesting the conference could possibly be, its main purpose is debunking woo and challenging its purveyors. Not to make sure everyone has a good time in Vegas.

That said, it doesn't hurt if everyone has a good time in Vegas :D

Regarding announcements of forum activities. We didn't need to do that this year, as any announcements would just have added to the already numerous turnout of forum folks. Especially the pajama and forum party, which were being held in ordinary rooms, not special hospitality suites like last year, didn't need any more attention and affiliation with the JREF than they already had. Particularly with the Riv being penny pinchers trying to squeeze every guest for as much money as they could legally get away with.
And likewise, the pub crawl didn't really get good until a number of people had dropped off and the group became a managable size. Apparently, there aren't that many bars in Vegas who can handle a group of 50 people showing up all at once, go figure :rolleyes:

While it may appear to be elitist, it really isn't. It's just become a problem of too many people all wanting to do the same things.

[exarch]

I don't think we have to worry about this anymore since TAM will be in June now.
Right?

Well, with TAM now on the verge of splitting into TWO separate events, even someone like me with a European vacation-day schedule might end up running out of sufficient vacation days to do both. Especially since I simply can't stand the idea of spending loads of money on a flight to the US (my biggest expense) to then only stay there for the conference and head right back. If I'm going to be there, I want to at least take a bit of time to look around. With two JREF events, that's now going to become at least 3 - 4 weeks. And then I haven't even looked at the increase in expenses, like flights and hotels.

I'll probably do it anyway, since I think I would regret missing one of these events more than I'd regret spending a lot of money to be there. But it also means that I'll never be able to do both that and something as awesomely cool and once-in-a-lifetime like the Galapagos cruise next year.

[Bob001]

Just another thought about the Riviera: Like many others, I too landed in a smoking room after reserving a non-smoking room, and the clerk would have put me in a "standard" room if I hadn't asked about the upgrade for TAM5 (which I gather from other comments wasn't really much of an upgrade after all). It seems like it would be a bad business practice by itself to accept reservations that you can't or won't honor. But the Riviera's conduct was worse than that: They charged us for the first night immediately at the time the "reservation" was made. In effect, they sold us a product that they didn't have. Why isn't this out-and-out fraud? If 700 people reserved rooms two months in advance, the Riviera had the use of roughly $63,000 during that time without providing any service for it. Most hotels will charge for a no-show or a late cancellation, but I don't think demanding payment in advance is standard industry practice. And apparently the TAM "discounted" rate was higher than the internet rates available to anybody.

This whole business seems pretty sleazy. I can't believe that JREF can't find a better hotel for the next TAM, if the event has to be in Las Vegas. Maybe there are non-Strip hotels, maybe even non-casino hotels, that would welcome the business. And if the primary selection criteria for the host city are lots of flights and plenty of cheap rooms, let's not rule out Orlando, which also would be a shorter, less grueling trip for Mr. Randi.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The presenters could be required to have their presentations ready a day before their presentation. Would that be too much to ask?
....Yes. Speaking as a speaker, I was changing notes just before I spoke. First, no matter how well prepared you are, for me, I would re-write any paper I've ever written when I look at it again. That's just the way I am. And it is hard to get everything done on time. I put a lot of work into my presentation. It wasn't a topic I ever spoke on before.

But in this case, I noted example after example from the other TAM speakers. I thought it was important to try to give examples people could relate to right then and now. The drawback was I added a bit more than I had time for and I didn't have time to properly cut a bit back elsewhere.

As far as the AV stuff, I think the worst was the one person (you all know who) that couldn't figure out you need to fast fwd a dvd not skip ahead. I learned that trying to return to movie scenes. Perhaps I'm not the only one who can relate to that experience. Hit the advance button and the next thing you know you're at the end of the movie, but using fast fwd where the scenes are just sped up as opposed to skipping ahead is the only way to find the scene you are looking for. I wanted to wrench the controls and show him. Bet other people did too.

I will say though, Ray Hall did a great job organizing and checking that the Sunday presenters had their stuff ready. Maybe someone coordinating the AV materials for the other speakers would have helped.

[CFLarsen]

Regarding announcements of forum activities. We didn't need to do that this year, as any announcements would just have added to the already numerous turnout of forum folks. Especially the pajama and forum party, which were being held in ordinary rooms, not special hospitality suites like last year, didn't need any more attention and affiliation with the JREF than they already had. Particularly with the Riv being penny pinchers trying to squeeze every guest for as much money as they could legally get away with.
And likewise, the pub crawl didn't really get good until a number of people had dropped off and the group became a managable size. Apparently, there aren't that many bars in Vegas who can handle a group of 50 people showing up all at once, go figure :rolleyes:

While it may appear to be elitist, it really isn't. It's just become a problem of too many people all wanting to do the same things.

The real problem arises when we have to decide who can come along - and especially who cannot. Is it First-Come-First-Served? Or do we rank people depending on some criteria?

If we go for the former, we'll end up not having some people whom we would love having. Imagine a party without Moe, Rebecca, Loon or you? Not a nice thought.

However, if we go for the latter, we'll end up with an Approved List of Celebrities. Imagine a party of Moe, Rebecca, Loon and you - but no new faces, or only the faces you approve of? The rest, the newbies - they will feel unwelcome, like riff-raff. Not a nice thought either.

We need to address this and find a solution before such a situation arises.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just another thought about the Riviera: Like many others, I too landed in a smoking room after reserving a non-smoking room, and the clerk would have put me in a "standard" room if I hadn't asked about the upgrade for TAM5 (which I gather from other comments wasn't really much of an upgrade after all). It seems like it would be a bad business practice by itself to accept reservations that you can't or won't honor. But the Riviera's conduct was worse than that: They charged us for the first night immediately at the time the "reservation" was made. In effect, they sold us a product that they didn't have. Why isn't this out-and-out fraud? If 700 people reserved rooms two months in advance, the Riviera had the use of roughly $63,000 during that time without providing any service for it. Most hotels will charge for a no-show or a late cancellation, but I don't think demanding payment in advance is standard industry practice. And apparently the TAM "discounted" rate was higher than the internet rates available to anybody.

This whole business seems pretty sleazy. I can't believe that JREF can't find a better hotel for the next TAM, if the event has to be in Las Vegas. Maybe there are non-Strip hotels, maybe even non-casino hotels, that would welcome the business. And if the primary selection criteria for the host city are lots of flights and plenty of cheap rooms, let's not rule out Orlando, which also would be a shorter, less grueling trip for Mr. Randi.I agree. They claimed it was in the fine print non-smoking rooms were not guaranteed. Considering how many people did NOT get NS rooms that booked then, they knew darn well they weren't going to honor those requests. I was afraid if I sat on the couch or put my things on it the smell of smoke would stay with me.

And, security was poor when that couple started the f-u screaming war next door. I did not feel completely safe there. That was more important than the stinky room.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The real problem arises when we have to decide who can come along - and especially who cannot. Is it First-Come-First-Served? Or do we rank people depending on some criteria?

If we go for the former, we'll end up not having some people whom we would love having. Imagine a party without Moe, Rebecca, Loon or you? Not a nice thought.

However, if we go for the latter, we'll end up with an Approved List of Celebrities. Imagine a party of Moe, Rebecca, Loon and you - but no new faces, or only the faces you approve of? The rest, the newbies - they will feel unwelcome, like riff-raff. Not a nice thought either.

We need to address this and find a solution before such a situation arises.For popular events perhaps you could split the group in two. It might not work for a single destination but it could for something like a pub crawl.

You can't talk to 50 friends in a bar or restaurant at one time anyway.

[Lee Graham]

Of all the TAMs I've been to, TAM5 was the first (and the best :D). Serious, it was loads of fun!

My two cents for TAM6 suggestions:

People to invite:
Niel de Grasse Tyson
Robert Park
Dawkins (I know he was there before, but I missed it, bring him back!)
judge Jones III
someone from BBC's Horizon to talk about their experiences with that show (which is simply _the_ best science show out there)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

People to invite:
Niel de Grasse Tyson

Absolutley!

Robert Park

He was at TAM II(?)

[Stupendous Man]

Jon Steward

[Geek Goddess]

But the Riviera's conduct was worse than that: They charged us for the first night immediately at the time the "reservation" was made. In effect, they sold us a product that they didn't have. Why isn't this out-and-out fraud? If 700 people reserved rooms two months in advance, the Riviera had the use of roughly $63,000 during that time without providing any service for it. Most hotels will charge for a no-show or a late cancellation, but I don't think demanding payment in advance is standard industry practice. And apparently the TAM "discounted" rate was higher than the internet rates available to anybody.

Whoa - in the hotel's defense, charging for a first night in advance, for a conference, IS standard industry practice. I frequently go to business conferences, and that's always the case (and usually, the hotels are $250+ per night, there are 2000+ people, and essentially no one shares rooms - a LOT more money). My company reserves blocks of rooms when we have meetings, and they are required to pay for the first night for each person ahead of time.

I'm not in the hotel industry, but this makes sense: if they run at capacity, and have a big block of rooms reserved, then experience no-shows, they've lost the ability to rent those rooms out for that night. You don't want empty rooms when you are turning people away. I was standing at the registration desk while waiting on something, and I heard them tell several people, who apparently just walked in, that they had no unreserved rooms.

As far as smoking: many hotels figure a smoker can stay in a non-smoking room and just go outside, while a non-smoker doesn't want a smoking room. Considering that, the Riviera's experience must be that they have a lot more smokers than non-smokers. Is that - the Riviera is a lower-end hotel (compared to the strip) and it's clientèle tend to smoke more, or gamblers smoke more?

[FaisonMars]

People to invite:
Niel de Grasse Tyson


Yes, strongly seconded... he is an excellent speaker. In particular I would be interested in hearing people who are particularly active in science education such as Tyson and Larry Krauss.

[Lee Graham]

Yes, strongly seconded... he is an excellent speaker. In particular I would be interested in hearing people who are particularly active in science education such as Tyson and Larry Krauss.
Yes, yes! I second your Krauss suggestion. I knew I had forgotten someone in my list. It was Krauss. I saw him speak in Ottawa a few years ago. He was great!

[ranson]

Five pages and no one has suggested Anderson Cooper as a guest?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Five pages and no one has suggested Anderson Cooper as a guest?

I heard he is gay.

[Geek Goddess]

Five pages and no one has suggested Anderson Cooper as a guest?

His mother is Gloria Vanderbilt.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

His mother is Gloria Vanderbilt.

Is she gay too?

[ranson]

No more than Tobias.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoa - in the hotel's defense, charging for a first night in advance, for a conference, IS standard industry practice. ...I don't think that's what was meant. I think the issue is you paid for a room you thought was NS. The payment wasn't to reserve the room it was for the room meaning you should at that time have been told what you had paid for.

As far as the RIV, my guess is that have darn few NS rooms and they could say so when you book but know it would lose them business.

My issue is the dishonesty, but then that is the industry standard as well.

[exarch]

As far as the AV stuff, I think the worst was the one person (you all know who) that couldn't figure out you need to fast fwd a dvd not skip ahead. I learned that trying to return to movie scenes. Perhaps I'm not the only one who can relate to that experience. Hit the advance button and the next thing you know you're at the end of the movie, but using fast fwd where the scenes are just sped up as opposed to skipping ahead is the only way to find the scene you are looking for. I wanted to wrench the controls and show him. Bet other people did too.

I bet he's not the only one who's ever accidentally skipped ahead instead of fast forwarding. In fact, if the DVD player he was operating was anything like mine, then you have to keep the fast forward button pressed for a few seconds before it actually fast forwards, otherwise, it skips ahead. If anything, this was a perfect example of having people use their own hardware, rather than a generic setup that they can't operate.

[exarch]

The real problem arises when we have to decide who can come along - and especially who cannot. Is it First-Come-First-Served? Or do we rank people depending on some criteria?

First come first served. No doubt about it. It worked well this time. And it seriously reduced the ever increasing "herding cats" problem, where everyone is waiting for one person, then by the time they get back, two others have strayed off, etc...

Simple deadlines. Someone left? Too bad, but we're leaving now otherwise we won't be back in time. If they really want to join us, they can just call us and find out where we are.

Sometimes that means you have a pub crawl without Moe, although in this case it meant having a second, separate pub crawl with Moe and another group of people.

It beats standing around in the lobby for an hour until everyone is good and ready to go and have a one hour dinner at The Peppermill for example. 50% less wasted time.

[Geek Goddess]

I don't think that's what was meant. I think the issue is you paid for a room you thought was NS. The payment wasn't to reserve the room it was for the room meaning you should at that time have been told what you had paid for.

OK, I may have misunderstood. My reading of the comment was that the complaint was about charging for a room, at all, in advance. The lack of sufficient non-smoking rooms was very deplorable, One or two incidents might be unavoidable, but it happened over and over to people here. That's very poor customer services.

My issue is the dishonesty, but then that is the industry standard as well.

I travel quite a bit (although not near as much as some people here) and I typically find the hotel industry to be quite honest and accommodating. Most of my problems are resolved on the spot, and on the few occasions where they were not, or where I sent a letter on a problem, I'm accorded an apology and often a future free room or discount.

[CFLarsen]

First come first served. No doubt about it. It worked well this time. And it seriously reduced the ever increasing "herding cats" problem, where everyone is waiting for one person, then by the time they get back, two others have strayed off, etc...

Simple deadlines. Someone left? Too bad, but we're leaving now otherwise we won't be back in time. If they really want to join us, they can just call us and find out where we are.

Sometimes that means you have a pub crawl without Moe, although in this case it meant having a second, separate pub crawl with Moe and another group of people.

It beats standing around in the lobby for an hour until everyone is good and ready to go and have a one hour dinner at The Peppermill for example. 50% less wasted time.

Absolutely. The golden rule of good meetings: Don't reward those who are late while punishing those who were able to make it on time.

Regarding the Forum Party, you're facing other problems, though. With "First Come First Served", you will need doormen to not only keep track of how many people the room can hold (fire regulations), but also to turn people down, until other people leave.

[CFLarsen]

I travel quite a bit (although not near as much as some people here) and I typically find the hotel industry to be quite honest and accommodating. Most of my problems are resolved on the spot, and on the few occasions where they were not, or where I sent a letter on a problem, I'm accorded an apology and often a future free room or discount.

In my experience (so, discard it if you want! :)), it has everything to do with how you behave in front of the staff. If you calmly and politely explain what is wrong, they will most of the time accommodate you. The magic word is "please".

What they don't want is a screaming customer at the registration desk.

[FaisonMars]

Regarding the Forum Party, you're facing other problems, though. With "First Come First Served", you will need doormen to not only keep track of how many people the room can hold (fire regulations), but also to turn people down, until other people leave.

Ooh, a velvet rope and some bouncers would be classy. ;)

[CFLarsen]

Ooh, a velvet rope and some bouncers would be classy. ;)

Only if you are in. Only if you are in. ;)

[Ramboelmo]

I agreee and disagree with things in this thread but I would like to add rather then expand. I think volunteers could be exploited better... I mean utilized. As far as I am familiar with all volunteers were used during the event. What about sending out the packets to be packed up before hand and sent back to JREF. I also think there are other jobs that probably could be given to volunteers. You could even give someone Volunteer free entry and utilize them more. I thought some of the issue was most were paying customers and they didn't want to take up to much of their time. Scott did a great job organizing the Volunteers. Thanks!

I am not suggesting this but using it as an example, I think you could get enough volunteers to Organize the TAM event and have it run smoothly with the TAM staff just overseeing it. Now that is extreme but from my experience, first timer, at TAM 5 is that the people want to get involved and help out in any way possible. For example Mr. Randi gave his intro talk about the challenge and then after that talk lawyers were already telling him they would do free legal work.

With that said I Let me know what you need done and I will do my best!

[Ramboelmo]

I agreee and disagree with things in this thread but I would like to add rather then expand. I think volunteers could be exploited better... I mean utilized. As far as I am familiar with all volunteers were used during the event. What about sending out the packets to be packed up before hand and sent back to JREF. I also think there are other jobs that probably could be given to volunteers. You could even give someone Volunteer free entry and utilize them more. I thought some of the issue was most were paying customers and they didn't want to take up to much of their time. Scott did a great job organizing the Volunteers. Thanks!

I am not suggesting this but using it as an example, I think you could get enough volunteers to Organize the TAM event and have it run smoothly with the TAM staff just overseeing it. Now that is extreme but from my experience, first timer, at TAM 5 is that the people want to get involved and help out in any way possible. For example Mr. Randi gave his intro talk about the challenge and then after that talk lawyers were already telling him they would do free legal work.

With that said, Let me know what you need done and I will do my best!

[Dumb All Over]

Another speaker suggestion- Anderson Cooper.

[Bob001]

Just to clarify my original post: If the Riviera had said, "Yes, Mr. B, we are reserving deluxe non-smoking room No. 2468 for you and we are charging your credit card at this time," I probably would have considered that reasonable. But the Riviera essentially said, "We're taking your money now, and we will stuff you wherever we want when you show up." I don't think that's a level of service that I should have to pay for in advance. And as someone who travels pretty frequently as a casual tourist (but not professionally), my experience has been that most hotels and motels typically require credit card information to guarantee the reservation, and they will charge you for the first night (sometimes more) if you don't show up without giving proper notice. But they don't actually process a charge months in advance. (Obviously it's different if you are part of a prepaid tour group.) I completely agree that being polite and respectful to the harried clerk always gets the best results. But the clerk doesn't make hotel policy. If the non-smoking rooms are gone she can't pull one out of thin air. I just think JREF could do better than the Riviera. As a reference point, Trip Advisor, which compiles user reviews, ranks the Riviera down at No. 103 in popularity among 233 Las Vegas hotels of all sizes, considerably lower than Motel 6. It gives the average rate at the Riviera as $139. By comparison, among other convention-size hotels, the Orleans is No. 6 at $113, the Golden Nugget is No. 30 at $129, Bally's is No. 39 at $166, the Flamingo is No. 44 at $166, Stratosphere is No. 59 at $82, Harrah's is No. 62 at $172, Excalibur is No. 72 at $128, and the Imperial Palace is No. 90 at $116. (Of course, you can pay much more: Bellagio is No. 7 at $307, and the Venetian is No. 9 at $579). I'm just observing that the Riviera has plenty of competition, which I hope somebody will explore thoroughly for TAM6.

[Soapy Sam]

How to count books.
1.Weigh book.
2. Weigh box with books.
3. Divide result 2 by result 1.

For shipping, the unsold books had to be weighed. Having no scale, we guessed them.
Anyone local with a set of scales?

Counting items sold should be a snip using a laptop- for the number involved it doesn't even need a database; a one page Excel sheet would be fine.

[Reno]

We need to get this kid on our team. Maybe she'd do a presentation at TAM6 !


gEGTH1TqCck

[BayAreaGuy]

Could we NOT have so much pimping of Libertarianism next year? Given all the presenters, especially Shermer, there seemed to be this not-so-subtle indication that Libertarianism is the Official Political Perspective of Skepticism. Which, of course, is far from the case--when Shermer asked how many were Libertarians, a minority of those in the room raised their hands.

Amen, Cleon!

I was bothered by that, too. Like you, it's not that I mind people expressing their views (or at least, I think everyone is entitled to do so, even if it does bug me), but the attitude seemed to be that Libertarians were somehow more "enlightened" than the rest of us. Not only do I think that's ********, but it's rude to suggest it when you're given the stage. I seem to recall at least one presenter saying something like, "I assume most of the people in here are Libertarians," or something to that effect. I thought, "They are?!"

[BayAreaGuy]

We need to get this kid on our team. Maybe she'd do a presentation at TAM6 !

I wonder if she can also recite the parts that King plagiarized?
Personally, I have a huge problem with kids like this because the evidence suggests that they are coached by their parents in some pretty inhumane ways to get them to memorize that stuff.

[BayAreaGuy]

I bet he's not the only one who's ever accidentally skipped ahead instead of fast forwarding. In fact, if the DVD player he was operating was anything like mine, then you have to keep the fast forward button pressed for a few seconds before it actually fast forwards, otherwise, it skips ahead. If anything, this was a perfect example of having people use their own hardware, rather than a generic setup that they can't operate.

There shouldn't have been ANY fast forwarding or rewinding at all. Give me an hour or two and I can rip and edit a pile of DVDs into a single DVD, with the scenes edited and organized exactly the way you want them. With all the geeks Randi and his friends have access to, I'm sure one would have volunteered to do that. I know I would.

Still, not all my presentations/lectures are perfect, so I can't complain to terribly. I just seemed thrown together, and was very disappointing to those of us who wanted badly to hear Randi speak.

[DiskoVilante]

We need to get this kid on our team. Maybe she'd do a presentation at TAM6 !


gEGTH1TqCck


Oh heeelllllll noooooooo....
Imagine 45 minutes straight of that girl talking...my ears would bleed.
Even though her voice is cute...but 45 minutes of that is deadly.

[Phlebas]

How about Hugh Laurie? Intelligent, skeptical, pro-science, and a big enough star (at last) to let us see if we want big celebs :)

From his Internet Movie Database page:

"I grew up with an impatience with the anti-scientific. So I'm a bit miffed with our current love affair with all things Eastern. If I sneeze on the set, 40 people hand me echinacea. But I'd no sooner take that than eat a pencil. Maybe that's why I took up boxing. It's my response to men in white pajamas feeling each other's chi."

I'd go see him. But I would have gone to see him back when he was Prince George on Blackadder.

[scotts]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is Hal Bidlack. I really enjoy his hackish comedic stylings and hope he continues to be the mc for many more tams.

Like many other people have said I too would prefer to see Penn and Teller do something other than the q and a session.

[Brown]

Has anyone mentioned having Michael Close as a speaker or performer?

I'd like to have someone give a presentation about common street cons, like the pigeon drop. On Penn & Teller's show, they had Michael Close explain the pigeon drop. Common phone cons--such as tales that convince the recipient to divulge his Social Security number--could also be a topic.

What I've told my parents is: "Someone might call you up and say something, and what he says might sound perfectly reasonable. He might say he's a cop or a bank officer or anything at all, and what he'll say may make all the sense in the world. But if he wants your Social Security number or bank account number or PIN, don't give it to him, no matter how reasonable his request sounds!!" Every day, con artists are able to trick people into divulging this kind of info. I'd like to know some of the most common tricks, so that I can avoid them myself and help others do so.

[exarch]

I agreee and disagree with things in this thread but I would like to add rather then expand. I think volunteers could be exploited better... I mean utilized. As far as I am familiar with all volunteers were used during the event. What about sending out the packets to be packed up before hand and sent back to JREF. I also think there are other jobs that probably could be given to volunteers. You could even give someone Volunteer free entry and utilize them more. I thought some of the issue was most were paying customers and they didn't want to take up to much of their time. Scott did a great job organizing the Volunteers. Thanks!

Actually, stuffing packets only took us half a day. We actually had to stop early for lunch so the afternoon people would still have something to do.
And there were so many volunteers that Scott had to split them up, so that the packet stuffers didn't have to do anything else during the conference, and the booktable folks didn't have to stuff packets, etc...

What took way too much time (as usual), was putting the nametags along with the certificate in the folders, and the name stickers on the front (that was a last minute change by Linda). And even that went pretty smoothly once we'd worked out a good system/rythm, and we got it all done by around 5 or 6 PM I reckon.

I think none of the problems that showed up during the conference could have been solved by volunteers at all. On the contrary, that just might have made things worse.

[Brown]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is Hal Bidlack. I really enjoy his hackish comedic stylings and hope he continues to be the mc for many more tams.

Like many other people have said I too would prefer to see Penn and Teller do something other than the q and a session.I like Bidlack, too. It would be nice if, while being MC, he'd make sure his fly is zipped up; otherwise he might get the idea that people are laughing at his jokes.

At TAM2, Penn and Teller did a little performance. (And I ended up buying one of the major props that they used in their performance!) This was a really nice feature, and they seemed to enjoy putting on a little show. Lance Burton also did a little performance, as did Jamy Ian Swiss, Banachek and Ian Rowland. I can't remember anyone saying, "There was too much performing and not enough lecturing or Q and A!" I rather like the idea of a little show combined with a little straight talk. (One of the highlights of TAM3 for me was a little talk by Jamy Ian Swiss that combined his performance with making a point. Wow, did he ever make his point, and he made it memorably, too!)

Personally, I'd like to see Teller walk through a g**damn cow! (And I'd volunteer to be one of the extras that makes the effect work!)

[exarch]

There shouldn't have been ANY fast forwarding or rewinding at all. Give me an hour or two and I can rip and edit a pile of DVDs into a single DVD, with the scenes edited and organized exactly the way you want them. With all the geeks Randi and his friends have access to, I'm sure one would have volunteered to do that. I know I would.

But since we already covered that point and left it with "Ehrm ... well, ... I guess we don't really know for sure exactly how much in advance he got a hold of those tapes/DVDs" it doesn't serve much good to keep harping on it now. That point was covered, moving on.

It did seem like a perfect example of the reason why allowing people to use their own computer with their own presentation software is better than forcing everyone to create something in powerpoint and hand it in days in advance on a USB stick.

[Brown]

Personally, I'd like to see Teller walk through a g**damn cow! (And I'd volunteer to be one of the extras that makes the effect work!)Those unfamiliar with this effect can get a feel for it at this web site. (http://www.pennandteller.com/sincity/tvshow/cow.html)

[DiskoVilante]

Those unfamiliar with this effect can get a feel for it at this web site. (http://www.pennandteller.com/sincity/tvshow/cow.html)

That trick is rather cool...and I think I've figured out how it works.
I'd rather have Teller walk through a person...

[spiteme]

Liked the suggestion about the con tricks. We forget that we need to be skeptical in our own lives as well.

Some have requested a more positive god-person speaker, what about Bart Ehrman who wrote Misquoting Jesus?

As the meetings continue to grow, perhaps taking over some place in the Florida Keys. It worked for the circus folk in Gibsonton, why not us?

And I think Mr Bidlack needs to grow a ponytail. Let your freak flag fly!

[FaisonMars]

Some have requested a more positive god-person speaker, what about Bart Ehrman who wrote Misquoting Jesus?


Bart Ehrman is an excellent speaker (the series of lectures he did for the Teaching Company, www.teach12.com, are worth every penny), and I think it would be worthwhile to hear an actual religious scholar talk about religion for a change, instead of a biologist or a philosopher.

I would be particularly interested in hearing him talk about how conservative Christian students at UNC that take his classes react when they get evidence-based history instead of a Sunday-School Bible class that they might have been expecting.

[Reno]

Oh heeelllllll noooooooo....
Imagine 45 minutes straight of that girl talking...my ears would bleed.
Even though her voice is cute...but 45 minutes of that is deadly.

In my defence, my mum and dad just recently returned from a vacation in Lanzarote and as a little thank me gift for driving them to and picking them up from the airport, they brought me back a litre of 12 year old malt. By the time I found that youtube vid, I was half-jaikied. It could just have easily been kittens playing with balls of wool.

Sorry.

[delphi_ote]

The presenters could be required to have their presentations ready a day before their presentation. Would that be too much to ask?
Yes. People want to use their own equipment to do the presentations. They don't get into town until right before they have to give the presentations.

We're lucky to get the guests we get. Being nasty and restricting them is not a good idea.

[exarch]

And I think Mr Bidlack needs to grow a ponytail. Let your freak flag fly!

Give him a break. He's still growing out of his airforce buzz-cut.

[DiskoVilante]

Yes. People want to use their own equipment to do the presentations. They don't get into town until right before they have to give the presentations.

We're lucky to get the guests we get. Being nasty and restricting them is not a good idea.

Yep, we are very lucky to get the guests we get, but I don't see the big problem with using different equipment. If they're all using PowerPoint or Keynote then I don't see why the computer they're using matters.
But guests getting to town right before presentations is a problem. However, they don't arrive 10 minutes before their presentations do they? I'm sure there is enough time to test and tweak their presentations a bit before they're up to give their talk.
And it is not being nasty or restricting, it's quality control.

[Boo]

But guests getting to town right before presentations is a problem. However, they don't arrive 10 minutes before their presentations do they? I'm sure there is enough time to test and tweak their presentations a bit before they're up to give their talk.
And it is not being nasty or restricting, it's quality control.

Maybe not 10, more like 20-30 although 5-10 isn't uncommon.:boggled:



Boo

[delphi_ote]

Yep, we are very lucky to get the guests we get, but I don't see the big problem with using different equipment. If they're all using PowerPoint or Keynote then I don't see why the computer they're using matters.
But guests getting to town right before presentations is a problem. However, they don't arrive 10 minutes before their presentations do they? I'm sure there is enough time to test and tweak their presentations a bit before they're up to give their talk.
And it is not being nasty or restricting, it's quality control.
Yes, but other conferences don't do this. It's not the norm. If JREF cracks down and sets up restrictions, they'll look like Nazis.

Unfortunately, the desire to avoid the speakers thinking we're fascist has to be balanced at some level with the fact that people pay money to come to this conference. The technical problems (especially on the first day!) reflect badly on the organization.

Here's an idea. Maybe we could have a test system for the presenters to work out technical difficulties before their presentation (i.e. a quick technical dry run in another room on exactly the same presentation equipment before they jump up in front of the actual audience.) In that run down, we could have a couple volunteer technical experts to help the presenter debug and maybe even make notes for the guys doing the recording, audio, etc.

[DiskoVilante]

Yes, but other conferences don't do this. It's not the norm. If JREF cracks down and sets up restrictions, they'll look like Nazis.

Unfortunately, the desire to avoid the speakers thinking we're fascist has to be balanced at some level with the fact that people pay money to come to this conference. The technical problems (especially on the first day!) reflect badly on the organization.

Here's an idea. Maybe we could have a test system for the presenters to work out technical difficulties before their presentation (i.e. a quick technical dry run in another room on exactly the same presentation equipment before they jump up in front of the actual audience.) In that run down, we could have a couple volunteer technical experts to help the presenter debug and maybe even make notes for the guys doing the recording, audio, etc.

Nazis!? Having some quality control isn't that bad is it? But your idea is a good one. I do like it a lot. However, there are some problems that can't be fixed right before a presentation that might require more time. How about instead of having their powerpoints ready they send in all their media files before hand so that it can be determined if they would play on the equipment? Basically:
1. Send in your media files beforehand to check for compatability issues.
2. But we test the final presentation a short time before you give your talk.

I don't think problems with powerpoint and keynote are as big as media file compatibilty so I think this mixture might work better.

[delphi_ote]

Nazis!?
Nobody expects the random Godwining! HA!
However, there are some problems that can't be fixed right before a presentation that might require more time.
But the presenter would know about them. They wouldn't try to fix them and fumble around on stage. They'd either describe what was supposed to be there or skip that part. Then at least the audience isn't sitting around staring at their watches while the presenter panics and mumbles, "Oh my... uh... well, this should be here, but it's not working... uh... can someone help me?" Or maybe we could flip around the presentation schedule a bit if necessary.

[AZAtheist]

I haven't seen any discussion about a possible theme for TAM6. Skepticism and the Media was a great choice, BTW. This was my first TAM, did the others have themes? What were they?

[delphi_ote]

I haven't seen any discussion about a possible theme for TAM6.
Personally, I think we should focus on something optimistic. "Skepticism and Wonder", "Skepticism and Curiousity", "Skepticism and Optimism", "Skepticism and Hope", "Skepticism and the Future" or the like. I'm so tired of going to this event and being forced to defend our not being "a bunch of debunkers." We only get together once a year. Why focus on things that infuriate us? We have a ton of cool people coming. Why give everyone the sense that we're a bunch of grumps when we could easily counter it AND make the conference fun and uplifting? How about an omage to Sagan's cosmic wonder in our theme?

Our friendly Bad Astronomer has all kinds of exciting science at his disposal. Hitchens' rant about the technology of flying was optimistic. Penn always talks about what an optimist he is on his radio show, "The kids are alright." and "History just gets better and better." Skepticism is attracting a younger audince. That's something to be optimistic about. Randi kicked ass on Anderson Cooper. That's something to be optimistic about. If you can't be optmistic about the Dover Trial, something is wrong with you.

Enough, "The world is going to hell in a hand basket and everyone is stupid." That's not who we are. Let's have a meeting where we focus on how exciting and interesting a scientific outlook can be.

[Boo]

Perhaps instead of "Skepticism and....." it could be Amaz!ng Cosmos or something similar? Amaz!ng Science? Amaz!ng Education?



Boo

[AZAtheist]

Enough, "The world is going to hell in a hand basket and everyone is stupid." That's not who we are. Let's have a meeting where we focus on how exciting and interesting a scientific outlook can be.

delphi_ote, I didn't come away from TAM5 with this feeling at all. There were so many positive presentations.

Boo, I like that JREF is not solely about science and that there's a skeptical focus. It's not enough to just present science. We need to show how a scientific approach is superior to myth and make believe. We also need to be there as a counterpoise for people like Sylvia Browne.

When I meet with the local atheists, there is usually only one thing that we agree on. We all don't believe in god. Beyond that, we're all over the map in what we believe, who we vote for, and how we chose to live our lives. Without that unifying lack of belief, we'd have no reason to meet. JREF has skepticism. Without that, would there be a JREF?

[LostAngeles]

Personally, I think we should focus on something optimistic. "Skepticism and Wonder", "Skepticism and Curiousity", "Skepticism and Optimism", "Skepticism and Hope", "Skepticism and the Future" or the like. I'm so tired of going to this event and being forced to defend our not being "a bunch of debunkers." We only get together once a year. Why focus on things that infuriate us? We have a ton of cool people coming. Why give everyone the sense that we're a bunch of grumps when we could easily counter it AND make the conference fun and uplifting? How about an omage to Sagan's cosmic wonder in our theme?

Our friendly Bad Astronomer has all kinds of exciting science at his disposal. Hitchens' rant about the technology of flying was optimistic. Penn always talks about what an optimist he is on his radio show, "The kids are alright." and "History just gets better and better." Skepticism is attracting a younger audince. That's something to be optimistic about. Randi kicked ass on Anderson Cooper. That's something to be optimistic about. If you can't be optmistic about the Dover Trial, something is wrong with you.

Enough, "The world is going to hell in a hand basket and everyone is stupid." That's not who we are. Let's have a meeting where we focus on how exciting and interesting a scientific outlook can be.

Didn't someone on Sunday afternoon suggest, "Skepticism and Sex"?

Imagine the turn-out for that one...

We could talk abstinence-only programs, male enhancement, etc.

Boobs...

[SkepticScott]

Boobs...Flashing or non-?

Can I sign up for the "audience participation" part of that conference? :eye-poppi

[wundergeist]

We need an intro statistics course. We need lectures on experiment design.
~~ Paul

I think maybe a refresher on probability reasoning fallacies and human biases rather than intro statistics. I have sat through faculty lunches with people who _teach_ statistics and yet fall prey to all types of fallacies and mistakenly impute causality from... (no, not correlation, wait for it, it is worse)... two paired events.

(A chaired professor of statistics and econometrics once told me, after I mentioned my birthday, "I knew you were a <Zodiac sign>, you have all characteristics of the <sign>." She apparently didn't notice that I avoided the personal question about my b-day by saying November 31st...)

Also, experimental design per se is not a guarantee of good science: as Mr. Randi explains in some of his talks (youtube and google video have some), the problem is that experimental procedures are designed to minimize extraneous _stochastic_ effects, not to stop people who are faking (Uri who?).

Good experimental design is important, but I think that most problems involving science investigations of the paranormal (other than debunking!) are really not a matter of misunderstanding the protocol or misinterpretation of non-significant correlations. I believe the technical term for most of it is fraud (either by the investigators, or many times by the conjuror... er... the gifted person).

On an unrelated topic, may I suggest the SF Bay Area for a future TAM (or a mini-TAM)? It is a great environment that combines the highly technical with the new-agey.

WG

[CFLarsen]

Give him a break. He's still growing out of his airforce buzz-cut.

I've told that hippie to get a haircut.

[ohp]

Hopefully I won't be repeating anything, I've read through this thread quite quickly. In all, it was great, The people I met were wonderful, the presentations very entertaining. I also think I was much luckier with rooms than most people.

However, the negative things that stuck in my mind were:

TAM Stuff

Presentations: I know this has been covered, but on a general level, there should be a quality filter for presentations... a minimum of 60% pictorial and video content. Bullet pointed text should be banned!

Noise: During the paper presentations on Sunday, there appeared to be a lot of noise coming from outside - this should have been closed off, as it was impolite to the presenters, and distracting.

Chairs: The chairs were a little uncomfortable after an afternoon of sitting on them, but that's probably just because of my freakish proportions - I'll bring a cushion next time :)


Forum stuff

Meeting place: It'd be nice to have had a better (or perhaps more consistent) place to meet, I called in at the peppermill quite often, and nobody was there. I had assumed that people had just dissapeared off to do stuff and that I'd just missed them, but later found out they'd been at the bar in the hotel. Why was that not the meeting place? Well, perhaps I was just unlucky with timing.

Groups: Perhaps it might be an idea, for at least one unofficial event to have people split up into randomly assigned groups.. this would be ideal for things like a pub crawl, and people would get a chance to meet people they might not otherwise have approached. Perhaps some kind of treasure hunt would be in order, with varying routes for all the different groups. Tell you what, I'll start work on it straight away!

Infection control: I got a chest infection after going to the party (I suspect the alcohol content of some chinese liquor suppressed my immune system), managed to get back to the UK before I had to rely on travel medical insurance. Who was it? come on... own up! Next year I'll be wearing my hazmat suit :)

Vegas in General

Grand Canyon: Could be a little closer, the flight along the canyon wasn't long enough.

Green screen photo booths: Why would you want to go in the green screen booth at the bottom of the stratosphere, to have the image of the top of the stratosphere mapped into the background? can anyone explain this to me?

[DiskoVilante]

Green screen photo booths: Why would you want to go in the green screen booth at the bottom of the stratosphere, to have the image of the top of the stratosphere mapped into the background? can anyone explain this to me?

I suppose if you're afraid of heights this might be useful.

[Colorama]

The difference between a skeptic's paradise and hell? Well, in paradise we all sit around and talk about the good old time. In hell, we do the same except we all have a DAMN POWERPOINT PRESENTATION !

[TriangleMan]

Infection control: I got a chest infection after going to the party (I suspect the alcohol content of some chinese liquor suppressed my immune system), managed to get back to the UK before I had to rely on travel medical insurance. Who was it? come on... own up! Next year I'll be wearing my hazmat suit :)
The liquor was wollery's, I just assisted in distribution. :)

Oh and the chest stuff wasn't me. This is the first TAM (out of three) where I didn't come down with something during or after the conference.

[exarch]

I haven't seen any discussion about a possible theme for TAM6. Skepticism and the Media was a great choice, BTW. This was my first TAM, did the others have themes? What were they?

One suggested theme for TAM6 was something along the lines of "the science of psychics" (echoing last year's theme "science in politics and the politics of science"). I don't think the word suggested was "psychics" though, but something more generic.

Rather than having a conference about what skeptics are (or are not) doing, lets have one about what the con-persons out there are doing, how they're doing it, and then figure out how we can counter them, or test them.

[Boo]

After careful review of many of the photos how about " Skepticism and hair retention with and without facial hair":p



Boo

[xenxabar]

Here's a suggestion regarding the Q&A: provide some predetermined questions or topics. Since most of the "big draw celebrities" (P&T, Matt and Trey, etc.) are not likely to do a full presentation but just a Q&A session, why not focus the questions to get the most out of them? Perhaps have polls or some other way for people to come up a few questions or topics that would reflect the theme. That way those sessions may seem more beneficial to everyone. I'm by no means saying to exclude on the spot audience questions.

[TriangleMan]

Some comments Kochanski made in another thread got me thinking about having moderated debates at TAM. Setting aside time where two speakers would debate a certain issue for 45 mintures or so, then have Q&A afterward. I think they have similar things every so often at Caltech.

I think watching a debate between two well-versed speakers would be very informative and could be used on issues that are not so cut-and-dried in the skeptic world, where skeptics still fall on a wide range of opinion.

[delphi_ote]

Here's a suggestion regarding the Q&A: provide some predetermined questions or topics. Since most of the "big draw celebrities" (P&T, Matt and Trey, etc.) are not likely to do a full presentation but just a Q&A session, why not focus the questions to get the most out of them? Perhaps have polls or some other way for people to come up a few questions or topics that would reflect the theme. That way those sessions may seem more beneficial to everyone. I'm by no means saying to exclude on the spot audience questions.
I'll second that as a good idea. These questions would also "break the ice." When the big guys got up there and just opened up the floor, it took the audience a moment to react. Giving everyone a few seconds to ponder their questions might yield more inpsired questions.

[Zep]

I don't think we have to worry about this anymore since TAM will be in June now.
Right?[waves...] June/July is NOT our holiday season, December/January is. So many of us southern-hemispherians will be cramped for time.

[Zep]

I'll second that as a good idea. These questions would also "break the ice." When the big guys got up there and just opened up the floor, it took the audience a moment to react. Giving everyone a few seconds to ponder their questions might yield more inpsired questions.On a purely practical note, Q&A sessions with questions from the floor and a BIG audience often end up being remarkably slow and boring and repetitive. I.e. a waste of attendees' time and money. Add a bad sound system and it only goes downhill from there.

If Q&A's are still desired, having questions submitted beforehand ONLY (e.g. in a question box) is far more productive, and the session spins along reasonably well.

[CFLarsen]

One suggested theme for TAM6 was something along the lines of "the science of psychics" (echoing last year's theme "science in politics and the politics of science"). I don't think the word suggested was "psychics" though, but something more generic.

Rather than having a conference about what skeptics are (or are not) doing, lets have one about what the con-persons out there are doing, how they're doing it, and then figure out how we can counter them, or test them.

Oh, we already know what they are doing and how to counter them or test them. These people haven't come up with anything new for decades.

What I want is to challenge them at TAM. I want to go that step further: I want some answers. And, if they show up, I will get those answers. Yes, I will.

On a purely practical note, Q&A sessions with questions from the floor and a BIG audience often end up being remarkably slow and boring and repetitive. I.e. a waste of attendees' time and money. Add a bad sound system and it only goes downhill from there.

If Q&A's are still desired, having questions submitted beforehand ONLY (e.g. in a question box) is far more productive, and the session spins along reasonably well.

Well, yes and no.

Sure, it will speed up the process. But I don't want a situation where I have posed a few pertinent questions in advance, and then having people like Gary Schwarz or Dean Radin blabbering their responses without me being able to follow up on what they say.

That's the equivalent of being on Larry King Live or Oprah. That means they can get away with nonsense. We don't want that at future TAMs.

The way you propose a Q&A session may get some responses, but that's not what I'm after. I want answers. I can only get that, if I am allowed to challenge what they say.

Have a debate table, with pros and cons. Then, have some really good questions prepared for both sides - but allow for follow-up questions. Not ranters, but people who know how to cut through the s**t. And are not afraid to do it.

[delphi_ote]

What I want is to challenge them at TAM. I want to go that step further: I want some answers. And, if they show up, I will get those answers. Yes, I will.
Is a con-person going to come anywhere near a conference room full of us? No. Are new age ramblers like Deepak Chopra going to talk to us? No. Even if they would, would you pay to listen to him? Neither would I.

That leaves the small-fry, true-believer, mentally-unbalanced type woo woos. If we somehow lure them, TAM becomes a room full of 800 educated people heckling a person for having a psychological problem. None of us want that either.

[CFLarsen]

Is a con-person going to come anywhere near a conference room full of us? No. Are new age ramblers like Deepak Chopra going to talk to us? No. Even if they would, would you pay to listen to him? Neither would I.

I'd pay to ask people like Chopra the questions they don't get elsewhere. And of course follow up, when/if they don't answer properly.

There is a chance that one or two might pick up the gauntlet.

The invitation should definitely be made, each TAM. To Dean Radin. Gary Schwartz. Targ & Puthoff. The PEAR people. To the psychics, the Creationists, the astrologers, the healers.

At each TAM, a list of those who didn't want to come will be scrolled on the screen, for all to see.

[Borat mode]
Is nice!
[/Borat mode]

That leaves the small-fry, true-believer, mentally-unbalanced type woo woos. If we somehow lure them, TAM becomes a room full of 800 educated people heckling a person for having a psychological problem. None of us want that either.

Not "heckling". Asking them questions, and demand answers.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That leaves the small-fry, true-believer, mentally-unbalanced type woo woos. If we somehow lure them, TAM becomes a room full of 800 educated people heckling a person for having a psychological problem. None of us want that either.

Oh, I don't know. Could we throw fruit?

[Chaos]

*snip*
Not "heckling". Asking them questions, and demand answers.

Answers that you KNOW you are not going to get?

What the hell do you expect? Deepak Chopra or Silvia Browne breaking down in tears and admitting they´ve been frauds all along? Or, for that matter, nutcases like Interesting Ian or TaiChi admitting they´ve been wrong?

All you are going to get is more the same *********** BS they´ve been blathering all the time. You must be really naive to expect anything else.

Maybe you want to waste your time and your money for that, but my time and my money are too precious to me.

[CFLarsen]

Answers that you KNOW you are not going to get?

What the hell do you expect? Deepak Chopra or Silvia Browne breaking down in tears and admitting they´ve been frauds all along? Or, for that matter, nutcases like Interesting Ian or TaiChi admitting they´ve been wrong?

All you are going to get is more the same *********** BS they´ve been blathering all the time. You must be really naive to expect anything else.

Maybe you want to waste your time and your money for that, but my time and my money are too precious to me.

Well, since I don't expect them to break down in tears, I am not naive.

You are missing my point about having top woos at TAM. I know that I won't get straight answers, but that in itself is highly revealing. Remember, at TAM, they don't control their environment. They don't have (sym)pathetic talking heads, uncritical of their blatherings, asking them softball questions, or letting them get away with anything.

At TAM, they are challenged. For explanations, for evidence. They are faced with the questions they don't get elsewhere.

And it will all be on DVD.

If you don't see the value of that, why challenge any believer at all? Then, you just want to talk to those you already agree with. What's so skeptical about that?

[firecoins]

The problem was Randi-Swiss's presentation, compared to the other presentations it was poorly organized.

I did find out that Swiss only received the source video two days before, so I'm probably being overly critical.
No your not. Swiss should have had the material well before than. Or he should ahve gone through it more in the time he did have.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And it will all be on DVD.

No it won't. Because they won't be there.

[CFLarsen]

No it won't. Because they won't be there.

It will, if they show up.

[HarryKeogh]

I know that I won't get straight answers, but that in itself is highly revealing. Remember, at TAM, they don't control their environment. They don't have (sym)pathetic talking heads, uncritical of their blatherings, asking them softball questions, or letting them get away with anything.

At TAM, they are challenged. For explanations, for evidence. They are faced with the questions they don't get elsewhere.

And it will all be on DVD.

All true.

Which is why they will never, ever, ever show up. The big names in Woodom may not be ethical, they may not have a heart, but they're not stupid (or at least not that stupid)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It will, if they show up.

They won't. So it won't.

(anticipating your response: Care to make a wager? I didn't think so.)

[Chaos]

It will, if they show up.

We already have Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller and several other big names on video and/or audio tape doing enough idiotic stuff to convince a reasonable person a dozen times over that these people are fake.

Nothing they could say or do at TAM is going to convince anybody whom the rest of the stuff didn´t convince.

IF they show up, that is. Which is about as likely as them having actual supernatural powers.

[CFLarsen]

All true.

Which is why they will never, ever, ever show up. The big names in Woodom may not be ethical, they may not have a heart, but they're not stupid (or at least not that stupid)

Maybe. But the invitation should go out to them, and each year, we can quietly note that, no show this year either. Sort of a "Sylvia Clock".

We already have Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller and several other big names on video and/or audio tape doing enough idiotic stuff to convince a reasonable person a dozen times over that these people are fake.

Nothing they could say or do at TAM is going to convince anybody whom the rest of the stuff didn´t convince.

IF they show up, that is. Which is about as likely as them having actual supernatural powers.

Don't you see any value in challenging these people?

[articulett]

I see your point, Claus. I think it might be a little more "educating" if those who believe in her encourage her to take the challenge to "shut Randi up" -- Her excuses have worn short with us long ago, but certainly her refusal will cause some of her supporters to think. I think it's important to let people in general know how this challenge, because then we don't have to explain it when our response to woo is, "great! then she should take the challenge!".

The power in the challenge is getting Sylvia believers to be aware of the challenge and to begin to probe her and themselves regarding why they won't take it. There really is not reason for her not to--unless she's a fraud. Maybe we should offer a percentage to those who believe in Sylvia if they are the person that can persuade her to take the challenge--even if she fails. Then it would be "wrong" for her not to take it, right? Or maybe we could offer money to a charity she supposedly believes in just for her taking the test--even if she fails. I think it's better to back her into a corner on being tested--if she isn't going to take the challenge because of Randi's godlessness, she sure won't go to TAM and her supporters wouldn't learn a thing.

But what would it say to her followers if she could take it to help African orphans or the Humane Society--that is, somebody wins whether she takes it or not. What could her excuse be. Doesn't she want to "help people" per her publicist. I think the goal is to get her supporters wondering why she won't take the test...

[delphi_ote]

At each TAM, a list of those who didn't want to come will be scrolled on the screen, for all to see.
Along with Dawkins, Harris, and every single other person who, for whatever reason, chose not to attend? We'll look like complete hypocrites.

Are we offering to fly them out and pay for their room? No? Well, obviously that's why they didn't come. We won't even offer them a common courtesy. We're a crowd of rude jerks! Yes? Well, then even the skeptic James Randi offered to pay to hear their message. Clearly they're legit!

See how we can't win?
Not "heckling". Asking them questions, and demand answers.
You're talking about reenforcing the delusions of those who simply aren't capable of defending themselves. They need help, not a room full of 800 people asking them questions and making demands. Sorry, but scoring a few rhetorical points in a crowd full of people who don't believe anyway doesn't trump a person's psychological wellbeing.

Why not ask questions of your cat and demand answers?

[TriangleMan]

Yes? Well, then even the skeptic James Randi offered to pay to hear their message. Clearly they're legit!

See how we can't win?

Makes sense. The moment you invite psychic XYZ they'll put on their 'credentials': "invited to give a talk to skeptics at the JREF annual convention". They wouldn't even have to show up to say that!

I recall a presentation at TAM 3 or 4 where a skeptic group from SoCal went after one psychic (Carla something?) and her credentials listed working on all sorts of famous cases - then the skeptics investigated and found out that she claimed to have assisted on cases if she did as little as call the police tip line.

A good psychic is little more than a shrewd marketeer.