Politicization of JREF

[Drysdale]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?
First it's the Gore film and now it's the NRA as in this weeks comments contains this statement,

"The question of gun ownership by U.S. citizens, not so incidentally, is also something most of Europe and rest of the very puzzled “free world” now seems to be asking about a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

I understand if Randi's a democrat thats his choice. But are we gonna start getting political talking points in commentary now? I'd prefer to keep subject on topic instead of now espousing political or social views.

Geez, cant we just stick to the debauchery stuff?

[Cleon]

First it's the Gore film

OK, let me just stop you right here.

Global warming is a scientific issue, not political. It is definitely on-topic for an organization based on critical thought and science. People make it political because the concept is ideologically problematic for those who think the free market knows all and sees all.


I understand if Randi's a democrat thats his choice. But are we gonna start getting political talking points in commentary now? I'd prefer to keep subject on topic instead of now espousing political or social views. Do you extend the same criticism towards, say, Penn & Teller, or Michael Shermer, whose presentation at TAM purported to be a "scientific" validation of libertarian political philosophy?

And for the record, I support gun rights (though not the NRA specifically). However, my experience has been that those who complain the loudest about people making supposedly "inappropriate" political comments only seem to have a problem when they disagree with those comments.

[Fnord]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?



So ****** what? I see the situation, but I do not see a problem

If you have opinions, then you have politics.
If you are an American, then you can express those opinions.
If you own a website, then you can express those opinins on that website.

Nuff Sed!

[Oualawouzou]

Besides, it's nothing new. Since I'm a newcomer, I still have a lot of catching up to do. I'm up to the 2003 commentaries now, and they routinely include political criticism. *shrug*

[Pipirr]

The gun ownership quote was from an 'anonymous reader'. Randi appeared to be quoting the reader's letter in full.

You may take that to be tacit acceptance on Randi's part for that political sentiment, but I don't. It's not clear enough that he shared that particular point of view.

Anyway, so what? The commentaries do usually tend to be apolitical, but I don't see why he must expunge all mention of politics, real world events or scientific issues, for fear of offence.

[Horatius]

This is one of the things that bugs me. Why can we apply skepticism to every question except the political ones? Aren't they the ones that need it most?

What we need to do is try to apply it fairly - if you're going to call one party on their illogical conclusions, try to call all the other parties, too.

[Drysdale]

Maybe the Gore film was'nt a good example but it is a political issue for what it's worth. You can scream all you want it's not and should'nt be but it is.

And I know there's been political views before but the gun control statement just touched a nerve. I'm just tired of the trying to rewrite the constituion ideology that permeates from both parties. Just happened to be gun control this particular time.

I just like to read the commentary to escape from the political world.
If I want political views I'll head to the political section which I do.

Will I quit reading it? No, just would like it to be less political sometimes, and that's my view I'm espousing via my constitutional rights;)

[BrianSI]

Will I quit reading it? No, just would like it to be less political sometimes, and that's my view I'm espousing via my constitutional rights;)

I'm not debating your opinion, but to be technical, your ability to post your opinion on this forum has nothing to do with the constitution. It's because the JREF has allowed you to.

[Cleon]

Maybe the Gore film was'nt a good example but it is a political issue for what it's worth. You can scream all you want it's not and should'nt be but it is.

That was "screaming?" You are new around here, aren't you. :D

In any event, my point remains--at it's heart, it's a scientific issue, and definitely on-topic for JREF. Just as the subject of creationism often crosses into politics--and I doubt anyone here complains when Randi trounces the subject of teaching creationism in schools.

At a certain point, every subject matter has a political aspect. Global warming, creationism, alternative "medicine," you name it.


And I know there's been political views before but the gun control statement just touched a nerve. I'm just tired of the trying to rewrite the constituion ideology that permeates from both parties. Just happened to be gun control this particular time.

This sort of backs up my observation that often the complaint about "inappropriate" political commentary is more often than not merely disagreement with the view espoused. If you disagree with Randi's observations, that's fine--Randi has never claimed to speak for anyone but himself.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

If you disagree with Randi's observations, that's fine--Randi has never claimed to speak for anyone but himself.
I think that sums up the issue nicely. The commentary is exactly that, Randi expressing his opinions about things.

It's much more entertaining to read it that way, than to expect Randi to scrub his commentary clean of all potentially political references, and subjects that other may deem to not be 'on topic'.

I don't always agree with his opinions. So what? I still find his commentary entertaining to read. Let's not ever forget that first and foremost, Randi is an entertainer.

[Horatius]

Will I quit reading it? No, just would like it to be less political sometimes, and that's my view I'm espousing via my constitutional rights;)



Great, now that's another one we'll have to re-write.

:)

[Moochie]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?
First it's the Gore film and now it's the NRA as in this weeks comments contains this statement,

"The question of gun ownership by U.S. citizens, not so incidentally, is also something most of Europe and rest of the very puzzled “free world” now seems to be asking about a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

I understand if Randi's a democrat thats his choice. But are we gonna start getting political talking points in commentary now? I'd prefer to keep subject on topic instead of now espousing political or social views.

Geez, cant we just stick to the debauchery stuff?


Perhaps it's because wonky thinking extends into our everyday life?

Think about it.

M.

BTW, I read that article, too. :)

[BillyJoe]

Drysdale just went off half-cocked and now his head hangs apologetically. :cool:

[CFLarsen]

This is one of the things that bugs me. Why can we apply skepticism to every question except the political ones? Aren't they the ones that need it most?

What we need to do is try to apply it fairly - if you're going to call one party on their illogical conclusions, try to call all the other parties, too.

Of course we can apply skepticism to political questions.

What we can't do is validate a specific political agenda skeptically.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'd be happy if he left politics out of the commentary. But then again, I'd be happy if everyone left politics out of everything.

~~ Paul

[TsarBomba]

I'd be happy if he left politics out of the commentary. But then again, I'd be happy if everyone left politics out of everything.

~~ Paul

This is the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Randi has his own weekly web page and can say anything he wants, as long as it does not violate IRS regulations about that a 501(c)(3) can do--and frankly he can even violate the IRS regs if he wants, but will then have to live witht the financial consequences. If you disagre with Randi on political issues, I would only say that the Amazing One has just as much of a right to be an idiot about some issues as the next man does.

[BillyJoe]

Randi has his own weekly web page and can say anything he wants...


And Paul can say anything he wants about what Randi says on his web page.

If you disagre with Randi on political issues, I would only say that the Amazing One has just as much of a right to be an idiot about some issues as the next man does.


I think what Paul was saying is that he is not interested in reading about Rand's political view, not that he disagrees with it.

[Lonewulf]

This is the forum of the James Randi Educational Foundation. Randi has his own weekly web page and can say anything he wants, as long as it does not violate IRS regulations about that a 501(c)(3) can do--and frankly he can even violate the IRS regs if he wants, but will then have to live witht the financial consequences. If you disagre with Randi on political issues, I would only say that the Amazing One has just as much of a right to be an idiot about some issues as the next man does.

And I have just as much a right to question said idiocy.

Also: Just because you have a right (or at least, no legal restrictions) to do something, doesn't mean you should.

[K-W]

First off, this newsletter and this community has been political for as far back as I’ve read the commentaries. Calling for laws to protect people against fraud and criticizing politicians and governments for endorsing flim flam is 100% political. So what Drysdale was actually reacting to was not politics in the newsletter; as others have pointed out pretty much everything that affects human beings relates to politics. Drystdale was reacting to the inclusion of an opinion in the commentary that he does not agree with.

And this is echoed throughout the rhetoric of keeping politics out of discussions so concisely described here:

I'd be happy if he left politics out of the commentary. But then again, I'd be happy if everyone left politics out of everything.

~~ Paul

In this weeks commentary Randi follows up on a frequent topic in recent weeks, governmental officials endorsing scam cures for HIV/AIDS. This is clearly a political issue, does it not belong in the JREF?

Should the JREF not criticize branches of government for funding unscientific or unnecessary research into the paranormal because government funding is a political issue?

Perhaps you do think that JREF should never deal with anything political, but I would guess that for most people who decry politicization the issue is not politics in general but certain issues and opinions that are controversial within the community.

Its one thing to take on a health minister who thinks prayer cures aids, it is another thing to take on/support a US politician who is a member of a party that some members of this community support/hate. It is one thing to demand laws that ensure that consumers can differentiate between scientifically proven medicine and elaborately packaged water, another to include comments that suggest there is a gun control problem.

This is a problem that plagues our society and I refuse to believe that the answer to controversy and polarization is to ignore disagreements. This is a community based around the idea that we can learn about our world and our selves through scientific analysis and critical thinking. Yet some suggest that when it comes to controversial issues, issues that bring their political beliefs into play, we should forget about analysis and thinking and declare so-called politics off limits for discussion and consideration.

I think its great that Randy included that letter. The overall thrust of the letter, as Randi framed it, is that in the face of a tragedy we should be focusing on reality, not on feel good mumbo jumbo. I don’t agree with what seems to be the writers opinion on gun control either, but it doesn’t bother me to read opinions I disagree with and I certainly would never suggest that JREF edit out any opinions I might disagree with from its newsletter.

[Moochie]

Well put, K-W. It's always bothered me that there are those who would limit discussion to what they deem acceptable. Certainly, engaging in such discussion whilst pissed as a newt ought to be avoided, but avoiding discussion of contentious issues is, IMO, not the skeptics' way. Like religion, politics ought most definitely to be on the agenda.

M.

[Lonewulf]

Should the JREF not criticize branches of government for funding unscientific or unnecessary research into the paranormal because government funding is a political issue?

That is entirely different than saying, and I quote:

"The question of gun ownership by U.S. citizens, not so incidentally, is also something most of Europe and rest of the very puzzled “free world” now seems to be asking about a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

These were not Randy's words, but naturally everyone is apologizing them for him as if they were.

If he said that all Democrats or Republicans (or both?) were morons, people would probably still apologize for him. That's what comes with fame...

If Randi really did say the words above, I'd be all for him having the "right" to say them. But my opinion of him would have definitely changed.

The above line was not a "skepticism" comment. It was an attack. There's a difference.

Just like there's a difference between me questioning religion, and Moochy calling all religious people morons and imbeciles and all that stuff.

[Darat]

...snip...

If he said that all Democrats or Republicans (or both?) were morons, people would probably still apologize for him. That's what comes with fame...

...snip...

No they wouldn't, people might say he can say what he wants, that it's his commentary, that he is is right and so on however that is not "apologizing". "Apologizing" would be if Randi was for example guilty of a certain action and people said "oh because it's Randi it doesn't mater". I've never seen anyone do that.

As for this recent comment - I've often seen him make and include comments from others that are distinctly political in nature.

[tracer]

I'm just tired of the trying to rewrite the constituion ideology that permeates from both parties.
Skeptical thinking needs to be applied to everything. Even the Constitution. The moment you start thinking of the Constitution as some kind of sacred document, you leave yourself open for all sorts of nonsense.

By far the biggest kind of Constitutional woo-woo I encounter is people who insist on knowing the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. "The Framers clearly meant X, as evidenced by Federalist #n!" "No, no, you moron! The Framers meant Y, as evidenced by this draft proposal from the first Congress!"

Sheesh! Who the hell cares what the intent of the Framers was? What matters is, is X or Y better for the country as it exists today?

[Dean Morrison]

Speaking as a Brit I think it's funny that you yanks consider discussion of gun control 'politcal'.

Over here it's just plain common sense - which is why only 50 people a year get murdered with guns here, compared to more than 8000 in the States - not to mention all those gun suicides and 'accidents'.

Amongst civilised developed countries you are the 'odd one out' and you just can't see it - Randi is doing you a favour by pointing this out...

[Moochie]

Skeptical thinking needs to be applied to everything. Even the Constitution. The moment you start thinking of the Constitution as some kind of sacred document, you leave yourself open for all sorts of nonsense.

By far the biggest kind of Constitutional woo-woo I encounter is people who insist on knowing the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. "The Framers clearly meant X, as evidenced by Federalist #n!" "No, no, you moron! The Framers meant Y, as evidenced by this draft proposal from the first Congress!"

Sheesh! Who the hell cares what the intent of the Framers was? What matters is, is X or Y better for the country as it exists today?


Precisely. I tried to draw the similarity between religion, which somehow remains invariable over 2000 years, and the "hands off" attitude some have toward the Constitution, as though that document were somehow sacrosanct. Did those men (I'm unaware of any female framers) really know what would be best for the country for all eternity?

M.

[brodski]

Speaking as a Brit I think it's funny that you yanks consider discussion of gun control 'politcal'.

Over here it's just plain common sense - which is why only 50 people a year get murdered with guns here, compared to more than 8000 in the States - not to mention all those gun suicides and 'accidents'.

Amongst civilised developed countries you are the 'odd one out' and you just can't see it - Randi is doing you a favour by pointing this out...

It’s political because it is a debate abut the best way to order part of society.
The questions are,
1) would reducing the number of legal weapons in the USA significantly educe gun crime and gun deaths, and
2) is that a reduction in crime significant enough to justify reducing the availability of weapons.

Some people take the view that no amount of benefit could justify impinging on what they regard as an essential freedom.

Others think that any gun crime is enough justification to ban all guns. Most people fall somewhere between the two extremes, and there is no real way to determine what the "right" answer is, it is a matter of personal preference, the assumptions one makes and in the end the importance one places on various political principles and theories.

[Dean Morrison]

Most people here don't 'fall between two extremes'.

Most people here think that alllowing everyone free access to machines with no other purpose than to kill people is a very bad idea indeed.

On way you could 'work out what the right answer is' would be to look at some evidence.

Such as the murder by firearm rates ( and total murder rates come to that) between the US and other developed countries.

Then perhaps have a sensible discussion about how you intend to get your murder rate down to that of the rest of the world.

Instead of which the NRA and their sympathisers seem to want to close down debate by claiming this is 'politics', or because of their interpretation of the constitution.

If you as a nation decide that the 'political principal or theory' of the 'right' to carry guns is more important than the right to life - then I think you should admit that those kids in Virginia and the 8000 other Americans that will be shot and killed by other Americans is a price you are willing to pay.

[Lonewulf]

No they wouldn't, people might say he can say what he wants, that it's his commentary, that he is is right and so on however that is not "apologizing". "Apologizing" would be if Randi was for example guilty of a certain action and people said "oh because it's Randi it doesn't mater". I've never seen anyone do that.

As for this recent comment - I've often seen him make and include comments from others that are distinctly political in nature.

I don't get the red herring of the "freedom of speech" argument, though. No one is suggesting that Randi's freedom be infringed upon. So saying that he's "free to speak" is not the point. No one is suggesting that he be silenced through government intervention, which is about where "freedom of speech" ends.

And while it has been pointed out in this thread that I do not have a "freedom of speech" guaranteed in this forum (I.E., I can be banned for my opinion), I would also point out that I still have my freedom of speech to express my opinion; but I am not guaranteed a forum for that speech. So I can say what I want (unless it presents a Clear and Present Danger, is against an Obscenity law, or is an act of Slander or Libel), and the government cannot infringe on that; but those that own private property can force me off of that property if they do not like that speech.

So he includes comments that are political. That in itself I do not mind; it is the attacking of those that have a different political mindset. It is the belligerant name-calling. But Randi has not participated in such, he quoted someone that did. Thus, my respect for Randi has not been diminished.

Anyhow, criticizing a comment is not, in itself, an attack on free speech. So the entire argument that it is "his right" to make the comment is a red herring, or is misrepresenting the OP. (Or, it's simply a mistake, reading more into the argument than exists; which falls under "misrepresenting the OP", but unintentionally).

[T'ai Chi]

Randi has not ever participated in name calling?

Are we reading with the same type of eyes?

[Lonewulf]

Randi has not ever participated in name calling?

Are we reading with the same type of eyes?

I never stated that he had never "participated in name calling".

Sometimes the target is what matters.

For instance, it's more acceptable to call Hitler a "disgusting pigsack", than it is for Mother Theresa.

[T'ai Chi]

Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?


I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

[Lonewulf]

I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

...

Obsessed much?

[T'ai Chi]

...

Obsessed much?

Took a whole minute.

Now, do you have a more rational way to examine "Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?" ? other than looking at political content of past commentaries?

If not, and you probably don't, then I suggest either trying to, or trying a harder hitting ad hom and hope it sticks.

[Lonewulf]

Took a whole minute.

Now, do you have a more rational way to examine "Whats with the sudden inclusion of politics into Randi's weekly commentary?" ? other than looking at political content of past commentaries?

If not, and you probably don't, then I suggest either trying to, or trying a harder hitting ad hom and hope it sticks.

What's ad hom? I'm not making any argument. I just find it curious how you saved every single commentary by James Randi since 1992. That seems a bit... weird... from my perspective. And my statement was not in response to counting the number of inclusion of politics, but the saving of every single commentary for such a long period of time.

Your getting defensive is interesting, though.

[T'ai Chi]

I just find it curious how you saved every single commentary by James Randi since 1992.


I wonder why you do find it curious and weird though why I find Randi's commentaries (which are put on the internet) interesting enough to save for a long time, especially one who is interested in skepticism and the movements' leaders.

Isn't a nice benefit of it that we can hope to answer queries like the one posed? Better than not exploring the question at all, like some would rather do..

[T'ai Chi]

You may find it weird and curious that the JREF makes them all available specifically in one location http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html

Why does saving them to a hard drive (they'd be cached anyway as well as cached at archive.org) make it weird and curious to you? Have you contacted archive.org to tell them about the weird and curious nature of all of this?

I'm still wondering how you'd better answer the question of are the Commentaries getting more political. So far you've ran from this question.

[Lonewulf]

You may find it weird and curious that the JREF makes them all available specifically in one location http://www.randi.org/jr/archive.html

No, I do not.

Why does saving them to a hard drive (they'd be cached anyway as well as cached at archive.org) make it weird and curious to you? Have you contacted archive.org to tell them about the weird and curious nature of all of this?

No, I have not, nor do I plan to.

I'm still wondering how you'd better answer the question of are the Commentaries getting more political. So far you've ran from this question.

I honestly do not care.

As I stated, my issue was with personal (or broad) attacks, not with politics. I take no stance either way.

I'd also add that me saying "Obsessed much?" was based more in humor than anything else, which is why you are seeming quite silly right now. Just so you understand... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humor

[SomeGuy]

All I can add to the discussion is that:

"<snip> a seemingly politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy America."

matches with the public opinion of the USA in my country (the Netherlands), I know from my many trips that most people in Europe (and Australia) feel pretty much the exact same way.

This was the full extent of the claim made by the person writing the letter, he didn't say America was: politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy, he said America was perceived as such in the rest of the "free world", which is something you may not like, which may not be fair, but is in fact true.

Having said that, Dean Morrison is right in that the deads of those 32 VT students and 8.000 other Americans each year, is the price you pay for having the right to carry arms. This is a valid opinion to have, but you have to be fair than and as a society say: "Your son's life simply isn't worth as much as each individual's right to carry a gun" to the parents of those VT-students.

On the other hand, the easy availability of guns is not the reason for the deads, it's the facilitator. Especially in this case failing mental healthcare, because of the inability to treat people against their will, a huge problem in my own country too, seems to be the biggest culprit. All the sign indicated that this person was "likely" to do something really destructive, yet he could not be helped because he wasn't actually proven to be life-threatening.

For their own sake and for the sake of society we must find a way to treat mentally ill people even against their will. Cho's mental condition may very well have been treatable, apart from his delusions I'm sure he was a smart if not very likable person, he could have been a contributing citizen....

On the other hand, fact remains that had he not been able to obtain a gun this easily he would not have killed 32 people, he might still have killed some... but not 32.

Also everyone saying "we don't know the effect of abolishing the right to carry guns", this is nonsense. Effects are known from places like Brittain, Belgium and Sweden. Gun related deads drop by 90% in the first two years, and over the long run they drop another 5%.

This means that with gun control out of every 20 people now dying a gun-related dead now, there would only be 1 person dying a gun related dead.

[CFLarsen]

I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

Try these: Moron. Fool. Idiot.

CFLarsen, stick to the subject in discussion and don't use insults.

[Gilmar]

If Randi keeps up all this talk about sports (particularly his disparagement of the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team), I'll take my skeptical online presence elsewhere. Intolerable!

[Moochie]

I never stated that he had never "participated in name calling".

Sometimes the target is what matters.

For instance, it's more acceptable to call Hitler a "disgusting pigsack", than it is for Mother Theresa.

Oh, I don't know. I think it would've been quite acceptable for Mother Theresa to call Hitler a disgusting pigsack.

M.

[Moochie]

I've saved each commentary (and before that the Randi Hotline) stuff as .txt files since 1992, and separated it by year.

If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking about politics to a high degree (such as 'politics', 'President', 'Congress', etc.), I have a program that can count the number of occurances, and we could see the trends from 1992 to 2007 in the counts of those words.

Hmm... And you did this, why?

M.

[Moochie]

I wonder why you do find it curious and weird though why I find Randi's commentaries (which are put on the internet) interesting enough to save for a long time, especially one who is interested in skepticism and the movements' leaders.

Isn't a nice benefit of it that we can hope to answer queries like the one posed? Better than not exploring the question at all, like some would rather do..


:dl:


You're a real card. :D

M.

[Lonewulf]

Oh, I don't know. I think it would've been quite acceptable for Mother Theresa to call Hitler a disgusting pigsack.

M.

Damn, I knew someone was going to catch that grammatical error of mine.

[Lonewulf]

matches with the public opinion of the USA in my country (the Netherlands), I know from my many trips that most people in Europe (and Australia) feel pretty much the exact same way.

This was the full extent of the claim made by the person writing the letter, he didn't say America was: politically-moribund, violence-loving, NRA dominated, gun-happy, he said America was perceived as such in the rest of the "free world", which is something you may not like, which may not be fair, but is in fact true.

I'd like to see some statistics before I accept that the assumption that "the rest of the free world" is a conglomerate whole in their opinions.

Y'know, because I'm skeptical and all.

[Warge]

I'd like to see some statistics before I accept that the assumption that "the rest of the free world" is a conglomerate whole in their opinions.

Y'know, because I'm skeptical and all.

Well, SomeGuy states that's an opinion in the Netherlands - I can agree with him and say that many of the people in Sweden thinks so too.

There, two countries down, the rest of the free world to go...

edit: Forgot to add: I have actually seen numbers of people's opinions about different countries but damn if I remember where. I'll get back if I find anything.

[Lonewulf]

Well, SomeGuy states that's an opinion in the Netherlands - I can agree with him and say that many of the people in Sweden thinks so too.

There, two countries down, the rest of the free world to go...

edit: Forgot to add: I have actually seen numbers of people's opinions about different countries but damn if I remember where. I'll get back if I find anything.

The more I hear about Europe and their opinions, the less I look forward to visiting Germany in the summer.

Some posters on this forum have ensured that I want nothing at all to do with Denmark.

I'm tired of arrogance.

[BillyJoe]

You should come to Australia then. We're becoming a real little America down here. Better hurry though, it may all change in a few months, God ($#!+!) willing.

[CFLarsen]

The more I hear about Europe and their opinions, the less I look forward to visiting Germany in the summer.

Some posters on this forum have ensured that I want nothing at all to do with Denmark.

I'm tired of arrogance.

Thinking that Germany - or Denmark - is equivalent to Europe is the height of arrogance.

And ignorance.

[Walter Wayne]

Thinking that Germany - or Denmark - is equivalent to Europe is the height of arrogance.

And ignorance.Who thinks that?

[T'ai Chi]

Hmm... And you did this, why?


A skeptic is interested in skeptical commentary by a leader of the skeptical movement which is already archived in various places.

Why does that stump you?

[CFLarsen]

A skeptic is interested in skeptical commentary by a leader of the skeptical movement which is already archived in various places.

Why does that stump you?

....because you are not a skeptic?

[T'ai Chi]

....because you are not a skeptic?

Is that skeptic like the club, or skeptic as in 'has doubts in at least one area'?

But you're answering for Moochie? Hmmmm

[CFLarsen]

Is that skeptic like the club, or skeptic as in 'has doubts in at least one area'?

But you're answering for Moochie? Hmmmm

What have you found out about the trends in Randi's commentaries?

[T'ai Chi]

"If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking ..."

As soon as someone comes up with words they feel encapsulate 'talking about politics', I'd be more than happy to run my program and look at actual evidence.

[CFLarsen]

"If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking ..."

As soon as someone comes up with words they feel encapsulate 'talking about politics', I'd be more than happy to run my program and look at actual evidence.

I did. Post #39.

[T'ai Chi]

I did. See #'s "I reject your belief that looking for the words you listed says anything about political content" and "my post was directed at Drysdale. You answered for him? Hmmm".

[CFLarsen]

I did. See #'s "I reject your belief that looking for the words you listed says anything about political content" and "my post was directed at Drysdale. You answered for him? Hmmm".

You said:

"If you can think of certain words to search for that would indicate talking ..."

As soon as someone comes up with words they feel encapsulate 'talking about politics', I'd be more than happy to run my program and look at actual evidence.

I did come up with words I feel encapsulate 'talking about politics'.

Perhaps you want to amend your earlier statement, and tell us just exactly what it is we can look for?

[T'ai Chi]

It was already mentioned that I was replying to Drysdale. And your comments were discarded for obvious reasons. What about this is unclear?

[CFLarsen]

It was already mentioned that I was replying to Drysdale.

So, when you say "someone", you meant "Drysdale".

And your comments were discarded for obvious reasons. What about this is unclear?

Why weren't my words acceptable?

[T'ai Chi]

The thread will not go from examining actual data on a claim to a rather limp attempt to try and turn it around by questioning me about nothing.

[CFLarsen]

The thread will not go from examining actual data on a claim to a rather limp attempt to try and turn it around by questioning me about nothing.

Do tell us what words will be acceptable, then.

[T'ai Chi]

Hi Drysdale,

If you'd like to submit a list, feel free to do so and I'll look up those words too. For now, I looked at the following words that were suggested to me:

bush
clinton
congress
democracy
democrat
election
federal
government
jurisdiction
law
legislature
political
politics
president
republican
senate

for the years 1992 to present.

The total number of keywords by year are:

word: 1992 count, 1993 count, ..., 2007 count
bush: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 8, 18, 16, 22, 8
clinton: 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1
congress: 0, 0, 0, 3, 11, 2, 0, 1, 4, 10, 7, 4, 11, 4, 7, 5
democracy: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 0, 1
democrat: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0
election: 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 19, 1, 4, 5
federal: 0, 4, 8, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 12, 18, 36, 28, 16, 30, 25, 7
government: 0, 2, 3, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 9, 56, 40, 41, 59, 56, 40, 22
jurisdiction: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0
law: 3, 4, 3, 5, 7, 5, 1, 2, 8, 30, 55, 47, 54, 56, 59, 8
legislature: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 0
political: 1, 0, 1, 4, 4, 0, 5, 3, 1, 12, 13, 10, 18, 33, 24, 8
politics: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1, 7, 1, 13, 21, 21, 3
president: 1, 1, 0, 2, 4, 2, 6, 3, 12, 24, 22, 28, 51, 52, 33, 27
republican: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 4, 1, 3
senate: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2, 0

Some years of Commentary have more total words than others. Dividing each of the counts above by the respective total words for that year, which are

1992: 5979
1993: 8891
1994: 26201
1995: 31241
1996: 49338
1997: 32490
1998: 24658
1999: 12585
2000: 85774
2001: 163936
2002: 267184
2003: 232090
2004: 278496
2005: 304084
2006: 253106
2007: 83362

and making a graph of these 'standardized' values, the increasing trends that stand out are:

-government
-law
-president

[BillyJoe]

Look, I told you, Drysdale went off half cocked. Now his one-eyed monster hangs limp, disinterested.

[CFLarsen]

Hi Drysdale,

If you'd like to submit a list, feel free to do so and I'll look up those words too. For now, I looked at the following words that were suggested to me:

bush
clinton
congress
democracy
democrat
election
federal
government
jurisdiction
law
legislature
political
politics
president
republican
senate

for the years 1992 to present.

The total number of keywords by year are:

word: 1992 count, 1993 count, ..., 2007 count
bush: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 8, 18, 16, 22, 8
clinton: 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1
congress: 0, 0, 0, 3, 11, 2, 0, 1, 4, 10, 7, 4, 11, 4, 7, 5
democracy: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 0, 1
democrat: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0
election: 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 19, 1, 4, 5
federal: 0, 4, 8, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 12, 18, 36, 28, 16, 30, 25, 7
government: 0, 2, 3, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 9, 56, 40, 41, 59, 56, 40, 22
jurisdiction: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0
law: 3, 4, 3, 5, 7, 5, 1, 2, 8, 30, 55, 47, 54, 56, 59, 8
legislature: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 0
political: 1, 0, 1, 4, 4, 0, 5, 3, 1, 12, 13, 10, 18, 33, 24, 8
politics: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1, 7, 1, 13, 21, 21, 3
president: 1, 1, 0, 2, 4, 2, 6, 3, 12, 24, 22, 28, 51, 52, 33, 27
republican: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 4, 1, 3
senate: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2, 0

Some years of Commentary have more total words than others. Dividing each of the counts above by the respective total words for that year, which are

1992: 5979
1993: 8891
1994: 26201
1995: 31241
1996: 49338
1997: 32490
1998: 24658
1999: 12585
2000: 85774
2001: 163936
2002: 267184
2003: 232090
2004: 278496
2005: 304084
2006: 253106
2007: 83362

and making a graph of these 'standardized' values, the increasing trends that stand out are:

-government
-law
-president

And what do you conclude from these numbers?

[SomeGuy]

The more I hear about Europe and their opinions, the less I look forward to visiting Germany in the summer.

Some posters on this forum have ensured that I want nothing at all to do with Denmark.

I'm tired of arrogance.

Disagreement with the American method (or lack thereof) of gun control is not necessarily arrogance.

Even gross misconceptions about your culture are not necessary the result of arrogance.

You seem to be blatantly oblivious of what goes on in Europe as well, I don't think this is out of arrogance, I assume simple ignorance.

We are not saying that America is gun-ho etc, merely that it IS the prevalent public opinion in a significant part of the "free world". Wether this is based on truth, the way America presents itself to the rest of the world, media bias in European countries or even something else completely, it is outright stupid to deny that it is the prevalent opinion.

If you are in America you have almost no way to assess how your country is perceived outside of America and calling us arrogant because we claim to know the public opinion in our own country is below the standards I've become used to on these boards.

Also claiming to not wanting to have to do anything with a whole country based on the posts of two people, could by some people be perceived as arrogance.

[Warge]

Disagreement with the American method (or lack thereof) of gun control is not necessarily arrogance.

Even gross misconceptions about your culture are not necessary the result of arrogance.

You seem to be blatantly oblivious of what goes on in Europe as well, I don't think this is out of arrogance, I assume simple ignorance.

We are not saying that America is gun-ho etc, merely that it IS the prevalent public opinion in a significant part of the "free world". Wether this is based on truth, the way America presents itself to the rest of the world, media bias in European countries or even something else completely, it is outright stupid to deny that it is the prevalent opinion.

If you are in America you have almost no way to assess how your country is perceived outside of America and calling us arrogant because we claim to know the public opinion in our own country is below the standards I've become used to on these boards.

Also claiming to not wanting to have to do anything with a whole country based on the posts of two people, could by some people be perceived as arrogance.


I have to agree 100%. And that said, all this just goes to show that mr Randi's comment was fair and on the spot regarding the worlds view of the US, right or wrong.

[Moochie]

You should come to Australia then. We're becoming a real little America down here. Better hurry though, it may all change in a few months, God ($#!+!) willing.

:)

M.

[Moochie]

A skeptic is interested in skeptical commentary by a leader of the skeptical movement which is already archived in various places.

Why does that stump you?

Not stumped -- just mildly discombobulated at the thought of a "skeptical movement" being led. Ever tried to herd cats?

M.

[Lonewulf]

Disagreement with the American method (or lack thereof) of gun control is not necessarily arrogance.

I never claimed that it was.

Even gross misconceptions about your culture are not necessary the result of arrogance.

Fair enough

You seem to be blatantly oblivious of what goes on in Europe as well, I don't think this is out of arrogance, I assume simple ignorance.

Yeah, I mean, I was just born in Germany, and raised there for quite a few years.

(Admittedly, I was pretty young while raised, but I was responding to someone claiming that "free world" was talking about us arrogant gun-ho stupid Americans. I was also using a form of exaggeration based on that argument, and not because I actually think Europe is a certain way, but basing it on what people are CLAIMING Europe is like.)

To call a group of people "gun-ho cowboys" confers a smug sense of superiority. We are better than you are. We have better laws, we know more than you silly Americans. That's the arrogance that I see. Want examples? View any number of posts by Larsen, or Danish Dynamite. Those are the types that I think about when I think of arrogance. I do not judge Europe based on them, however. I was responding to a particular claim about how Europe thought and was like. And suggesting that the "rest of the free world" knows something that we don't know still confers a sense of superiority, in the same sense as any Argumentum Ad Populum does. Although such a claim does depend on context.

We are not saying that America is gun-ho etc...

You are not saying that. The person quoted in the explained that viewpoint, and further seemed to even be hinting that he followed that line of thought -- though I will hold back on judgment. And a couple of posters in this thread are remarking that that's what the "rest of the Free World" thinks, and are defending that argument.

...Merely that it IS the prevalent public opinion in a significant part of the "free world".

Fair enough.

Wether this is based on truth, the way America presents itself to the rest of the world, media bias in European countries or even something else completely, it is outright stupid to deny that it is the prevalent opinion.

Alright, so it's prevalent opinion. Europeans, in general, see Americans as gun-ho savages. I'm still iffy on that.

If you are in America you have almost no way to assess how your country is perceived outside of America and calling us arrogant because we claim to know the public opinion in our own country is below the standards I've become used to on these boards.

I did not accuse posters here of arrogance (though I would accuse CFLarsen of such, from past experience and based on his behavior).

Also, I only spent some of my life in America. Most were in Korea or Germany. I've only recently actually come back to the U.S. And yes, I know what Korean students (not the elderly) think of Americans; as savages that are coming in and destroying their culture.

(The elderly more of remember American assistance during the Korean War; there is a rift in public opinion).

My claim of arrogance is not knowing public opinion, it is the claim that Americans are somehow "lesser", or do not know how to enact REAL policy, whereas those great Europeans sure showed us.

Also claiming to not wanting to have to do anything with a whole country based on the posts of two people...

Please read what I was responding to. I was responding to claims of what an entire country thinks.

Judging an entire country by what an entire country thinks is kinda par for the course, don't you think? Note that I don't think that Europe is actually Denmark or any one country (and I never claimed that it was). Others claimed that the ENTIRE REST OF THE FREE WORLD thought a certain way, and brought up a few countries as an example. I responded to the claim. CFLarsen does not understand this.

I was not serious, anyways. But going by what people are claiming about Europe, I'm not even sure that I would even be accepted, being the gun-ho evil American that I am.

...could by some people be perceived as arrogance.

I like how you worded that.

[T'ai Chi]

Not stumped -- just mildly discombobulated at the thought of a "skeptical movement" being led.


Unfamiliarity or being unaware doesn't remove the fact that many skeptics in the skeptical movement, some the most influential and charismatic, are the ones using the term. It is not a t'ai chi invention.

For example:

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

http://skepdic.com/refuge/getinvolved.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-58545667.html

[CFLarsen]

Unfamiliarity or being unaware doesn't remove the fact that many skeptics in the skeptical movement, some the most influential and charismatic, are the ones using the term.

Which skeptical movement would that be?

Who are you talking about?

What do you conclude from the numbers on "government", "law" and "president"?

[Drysdale]

Look, I told you, Drysdale went off half cocked. Now his one-eyed monster hangs limp, disinterested.

No, just reading along. Still havent changed my view that the commentary be less political.

[Drysdale]

Hi Drysdale,

If you'd like to submit a list, feel free to do so and I'll look up those words too. For now, I looked at the following words that were suggested to me:

bush
clinton
congress
democracy
democrat
election
federal
government
jurisdiction
law
legislature
political
politics
president
republican
senate

for the years 1992 to present.

The total number of keywords by year are:

word: 1992 count, 1993 count, ..., 2007 count
bush: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 8, 18, 16, 22, 8
clinton: 1, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1
congress: 0, 0, 0, 3, 11, 2, 0, 1, 4, 10, 7, 4, 11, 4, 7, 5
democracy: 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 2, 4, 0, 1
democrat: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0
election: 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 3, 3, 4, 19, 1, 4, 5
federal: 0, 4, 8, 4, 4, 2, 2, 3, 12, 18, 36, 28, 16, 30, 25, 7
government: 0, 2, 3, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 9, 56, 40, 41, 59, 56, 40, 22
jurisdiction: 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0
law: 3, 4, 3, 5, 7, 5, 1, 2, 8, 30, 55, 47, 54, 56, 59, 8
legislature: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 1, 5, 4, 1, 0
political: 1, 0, 1, 4, 4, 0, 5, 3, 1, 12, 13, 10, 18, 33, 24, 8
politics: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 3, 1, 7, 1, 13, 21, 21, 3
president: 1, 1, 0, 2, 4, 2, 6, 3, 12, 24, 22, 28, 51, 52, 33, 27
republican: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2, 5, 4, 1, 3
senate: 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2, 2, 0

Some years of Commentary have more total words than others. Dividing each of the counts above by the respective total words for that year, which are

1992: 5979
1993: 8891
1994: 26201
1995: 31241
1996: 49338
1997: 32490
1998: 24658
1999: 12585
2000: 85774
2001: 163936
2002: 267184
2003: 232090
2004: 278496
2005: 304084
2006: 253106
2007: 83362

and making a graph of these 'standardized' values, the increasing trends that stand out are:

-government
-law
-president

Wow Tai Chi, that must have taken a lot of work. Thx for that.
But that doesnt really address the issue of the context of each column.
Maybe I'll go back and read over a few.

Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.

[volatile]

Wow Tai Chi, that must have taken a lot of work. Thx for that.
But that doesnt really address the issue of the context of each column.
Maybe I'll go back and read over a few.

Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.

And there we have the crux. It's not the political content in toto, it's the particular political stance you have a problem with!

[Drysdale]

And there we have the crux. It's not the political content in toto, it's the particular political stance you have a problem with!

No, it's that particular political view on that particular subject mainly.
But if he is a far left liberal yea it is the stance.

[Lonewulf]

And there we have the crux. It's not the political content in toto, it's the particular political stance you have a problem with!

I'd have a problem if he continually espoused a conservative view, especially an extremist conservative view.

[Reager]

Wow Tai Chi, that must have taken a lot of work. Thx for that.
But that doesnt really address the issue of the context of each column.
Maybe I'll go back and read over a few.

Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.

I don't know if it's ever been made clear whether Randi speaks for himself in his commentaries, or on behalf of the JREF. It seems to me he does both, which often makes it difficult to distinguish when he is expressing a personal view and when he is expressing an official JREF position.

That said, I disagree that taking a political position (whether it is Randi's personal view or an official stance taken by the JREF) makes Randi's commentaries "biased" and have a "less skeptical outlook." Political positions can be examined and defended utilizing the "skeptical toolkit," but due to the more philosophical nature of politics, the range of justifiable conclusions on a political issue is much greater than, say, whether Sylvia Browne is psychic.

Randi is entitled to reach his own conclusions regarding political matters...as is Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, or anyone else. Whether Randi expressing those opinions on the JREF website is a good idea or not, I won't opine at the moment. CFI regularly takes political positions, from the perspective an organization devoted to skepticism, science, and reason. Randi and the JREF can do the same. Possibly at the cost of losing some supporters, possibly with the benefit of gaining some supporters.

[Drysdale]

I'd have a problem if he continually espoused a conservative view, especially an extremist conservative view.

Yep, Ditto.
I shoulda placed that in my response as well.

[T'ai Chi]

Wow Tai Chi, that must have taken a lot of work. Thx for that.
But that doesnt really address the issue of the context of each column.
Maybe I'll go back and read over a few.

Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.

Hi Drysdale, all very true what you say.

First, the question of 'getting more political' which might be unanswerable as stated was broken down to a simpler answerable question of 'are some words typically used in talking about politics being used more frequently?' and it doesn't address whether they are Randi's views alone- just if they are presented in general in the Commentary more.

[CFLarsen]

Hi Drysdale, all very true what you say.

First, the question of 'getting more political' which might be unanswerable as stated was broken down to a simpler answerable question of 'are some words typically used in talking about politics being used more frequently?' and it doesn't address whether they are Randi's views alone- just if they are presented in general in the Commentary more.

What's the value of that?

[BillyJoe]

discombobulate!

must remember that one. Have my kids in stitches it will. :D

[Moochie]

Unfamiliarity or being unaware doesn't remove the fact that many skeptics in the skeptical movement, some the most influential and charismatic, are the ones using the term. It is not a t'ai chi invention.

For example:

http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

http://skepdic.com/refuge/getinvolved.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-58545667.html


I see. And what do you suppose the term means, precisely?

M.

[Moochie]

I'd have a problem if he continually espoused a conservative view, especially an extremist conservative view.

:)


M.

[Reager]

I see. And what do you suppose the term means, precisely?

M.

Moochie, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...are you saying there's no such thing as the skeptical movement?

The dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/movement) definition of 'movement' is: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal."

Using that definition, I think skepticism definitely qualifies as having a 'movement.'

[Moochie]

Moochie, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at...are you saying there's no such thing as the skeptical movement?

The dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/movement) definition of 'movement' is: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal."

Using that definition, I think skepticism definitely qualifies as having a 'movement.'

I disagree. I don't see skeptics as particularly organized, nor favoring a "generalized common goal."

M.

ETA: As for skepticism "having a movement," well, what can one say? Don't forget to flush?

[Reager]

I disagree. I don't see skeptics as particularly organized

Reread the definition:

"a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group" = doesn't have to be "particularly organized."

nor favoring a "generalized common goal."

Would you agree that most skeptics involved in any such movement would have the "generalized common goal" of, uh, promoting skepticism (at the very least)?

[BillyJoe]

On the other hand, the phrase "sceptical organization" is often used and that definitely sounds like an oxymoron.

And if it has a charismatic leader as well....

[cj.23]

Totally useless personal opinion --

I don't give a hoot about the chaps politics so long as he keeps entertaining and educating me. I disagree with P&T's politics, indeed with almost everyones i'm guessing - so what? We can always compensate, and hearing a dissident contrary voice is often useful. I joined the Republicans over on Christian Forums, as their opinions were directly contrary to mine on most things, and I learned a lot from them - nice folks.

What does impress me is Tai Chi's dedicated analysis!

all the best cj x

[Slimething]

The dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/movement) definition of 'movement' is: "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal."

Using that definition, I think skepticism definitely qualifies as having a 'movement.'

Reager, I'm not sure that definition is particularly useful. Workers at rush-hour or lunchtime would qualify as a movement. So would barhoppers, thieves, ... just about any group of people trying to do the same thing.

I think this one is more better, found here (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=movement):

a series of actions advancing a principle or tending toward a particular end; "he supported populist campaigns"; "they worked in the cause of world peace"; "the team was ready for a drive toward the pennant"; "the movement to end slavery"; "contributed to the war effort"


Using this definition, skepticism is not a movement. It is a philosophy or a practice.

[Slimething]

I detest labels. They pigeonhole people. Most people I've spoken to about politics are a fairly random mix of "conservative", "liberal" and "centrist" viewpoints. I've met NRA members who are for gun control and very religious people who are very against mixing church and state. Address the issue and focus.

Having said that, Mr. Randi can write anything he wants. It's his site, organization and forum. No one is forced to read it. If you agree. good; if not, good. That's what the Forum is for.

[T'ai Chi]

Having said that, Mr. Randi can write anything he wants. It's his site, organization and forum. No one is forced to read it. If you agree. good; if not, good. That's what the Forum is for.

Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)

[Reager]

Reager, I'm not sure that definition is particularly useful. Workers at rush-hour or lunchtime would qualify as a movement. So would barhoppers, thieves, ... just about any group of people trying to do the same thing.

I think this one is more better, found here (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=movement):


Using this definition, skepticism is not a movement. It is a philosophy or a practice.

I think this definition of 'movement' (using your link) is more appropriate to this discussion: "a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals"

"common ideology" - Skepticism is certainly not so ill-defined that many thousands (dare I say millions - even if they don't know it) of people would agree that they share it as a common ideology. That doesn't mean every aspect of their thinking on skepticism or any other issue is in lockstep, but there are certain tenants (adherence to the scientific method, naturalism, etc...) that most would probably agree constitutes "skepticism" and a foundation of their worldview.

"achieve certain general goals" - IMO, "promoting skepticism" would qualify as a general goal of the skeptical movement. Specific goals (battling creationists, science education, paranormal challenges, etc...) designed to help foster the general goal are undertaken by various individuals and organizations within that movement.

"try together" - Through supporting organizations like the JREF, SS, CFI, supporting skeptical authors and scientists, participating in clubs and meet-ups, and promoting skepticism in their own lives, many skeptics try to achieve the goal of promoting skepticism. Granted, not everyone involved in these activities does so with the express purpose of "being part of a skeptical movement," but many do. That some people reject the idea they are part of a movement doesn't mean they are not.

[articulett]

Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)

Yep...and you can even make a StopSylviaBrowne site to keep her from deceiving people. Free speech:--it ain't just for thee, but for me too!

[Lonewulf]

Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)

While I agree with the sentiment that forum posters should express their opinion on Randi and his articles, and that I generally don't like the influx of politics...

I have to disagree with the comparison. Randi is not attempting to actually deceive people. Sylvia Browne is a charlatan, a liar, and a con artist.

[Slimething]

I have to disagree with the comparison. Randi is not attempting to actually deceive people. Sylvia Browne is a charlatan, a liar, and a con artist.

What is it about the not-subtle difference between "write" and "do" that confuses tai chi? First Amendment vs the definition of tortuous activity? Is that too much of a stretch for simple folk? Oh, hell, I answered my own question!

[Lonewulf]

What is it about the not-subtle difference between "write" and "do" that confuses tai chi? First Amendment vs the definition of tortuous activity? Is that too much of a stretch for simple folk? Oh, hell, I answered my own question!

I'm still a bit confused here, though.

Why are people still talking about the First Amendment?

Are people seriously trying to advocate government interference with the website? Please point me to the person or post that does.

[T'ai Chi]

While I agree with the sentiment that forum posters should express their opinion on Randi and his articles, and that I generally don't like the influx of politics...

I have to disagree with the comparison. Randi is not attempting to actually deceive people. Sylvia Browne is a charlatan, a liar, and a con artist.

But then you misunderstand the point. THe point is that if some get something (whether you disagree with that something is besides the point) and are willing to pay for it, your opinions of charlatan, liar, con artist, quack, whatever, are irreelvant. If she is those things, it is your responsibility to bring forth evidence, show it to the proper law enforcement agency.

The actual actions (as opposed to hot air) the organized skeptical community shows on these issues seems truly contradictory, given their claims against people like Sylvia.

[Slimething]

I'm still a bit confused here, though.

Why are people still talking about the First Amendment?

Are people seriously trying to advocate government interference with the website? Please point me to the person or post that does.

I'm not using the First Amendment in that sense, Lonewulf. I was pointing out that tai cheat can't seem to understand that what Randi is doing is protected by the First Amendment while, surprise, what longnails is doing is actually prohibited by criminal code (fraud) and civil law (theft by deception).

I can't help you with whatever other posters have written.

[Slimething]

THe point is that if some get something (whether you disagree with that something is besides the point) and are willing to pay for it, your opinions of charlatan, liar, con artist, quack, whatever, are irreelvant.

Quite the contrary but I won't lead you through the legal ramifications because I'm sure you wouldn't understand them.

If she is those things, it is your responsibility to bring forth evidence, show it to the proper law enforcement agency.

Working on it. Only a matter of time. Bank on it. Unfortunately, it's not as easy to prosecute con artists as you believe it is. Caveat emptor rules until extensive ironclad evidence exists. My guess is that Saliva will be out of the country by then but, that it itself would be a victory.

The actual actions (as opposed to hot air) the organized skeptical community shows on these issues seems truly contradictory, given their claims against people like Sylvia.

You've been asked many times previously to identify this "organized skeptical community" but have failed to do so. I can only conclude that it's another of your woo fantasies. But, as such, what is this woo fantasy's actions?

(BTW, "actual actions"? You should be ashamed! Write to this website (http://www.trygve.com/turgid_prose.html)as they are seemingly in need of your talents.)

[CFLarsen]

But then you misunderstand the point. THe point is that if some get something (whether you disagree with that something is besides the point) and are willing to pay for it, your opinions of charlatan, liar, con artist, quack, whatever, are irreelvant. If she is those things, it is your responsibility to bring forth evidence, show it to the proper law enforcement agency.

The actual actions (as opposed to hot air) the organized skeptical community shows on these issues seems truly contradictory, given their claims against people like Sylvia.

Have you nothing bad to say about psychics like Sylvia Browne?

[Lonewulf]

I'm not using the First Amendment in that sense, Lonewulf. I was pointing out that tai cheat can't seem to understand that what Randi is doing is protected by the First Amendment while, surprise, what longnails is doing is actually prohibited by criminal code (fraud) and civil law (theft by deception).

Ah, so you did mean it in a legal sense.

Good, good.

I can't help you with whatever other posters have written.

Natch.

Carry on, then. Nothing to see here, citizen.

[Moochie]

Reread the definition:

"a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group" = doesn't have to be "particularly organized."

What, a bunch of people with barely anything in common, not given to having much to do with one another?

Would you agree that most skeptics involved in any such movement would have the "generalized common goal" of, uh, promoting skepticism (at the very least)?

Well, I suppose we all like to eat fairly regularly, and have a nap now and again...

M.

[Reager]

What, a bunch of people with barely anything in common, not given to having much to do with one another?

Huh? Barely anything in common? What are you talking about? You may not have much to do with other skeptics, but many others aren't so limited in their associations.


Well, I suppose we all like to eat fairly regularly, and have a nap now and again...

M.

It's obvious that instead of backing up your statements you're just being flippant, so I'll leave the room now.

[K-W]

Guess my point is if Randi is continually espousing a liberal view I'd be disappointed I guess. I'd think Randi would be a little more unbiased in his columns as to me that is a more skeptical outlook. Just my feelings on it.

So views that you classify as liberal are biased and unskeptical because you say so, therefore these views don't belong in a skeptical newsletter...

I am glad Randi doesnt pass his views or the views of others through an ideological filter before publishing them and I trust he will ignore your call to do so.

[Lonewulf]

So views that you classify as liberal are biased and unskeptical because you say so, therefore these views don't belong in a skeptical newsletter...

Views that attack a certain group of people for a specific political orientation (I.E., being for gun rights), is to me crossing a line. Randi didn't actually do this, but if he did, I can understand why others would question such an action.

If Randi also specifically only cherry picked data to fit a political ideology, I also would dislike this action. Randi does not do this, but I would not like it.

The point is, there is a line to cross. I do not think that Randi crossed it, and I doubt that he will, but when he does I will be there, questioning it.

[BillyJoe]

A common response here has been: "It's Randi's commentary, he can write what he likes".
To which the legitimate reply has been: "Yes he can, but should he?"
To this could be added: "But, in the end, who really cares?"

These days I only read the commentaries in order to get involved in the commentary thread.
Sad but true.

[Lonewulf]

A common response here has been: "It's Randi's commentary, he can write what he likes".
To which the legitimate reply has been: "Yes he can, but should he?"
To this could be added: "But, in the end, who really cares?"

To which a response could be added:

"Then why hang around this thread?"

[BillyJoe]

Why not?
Are you not interested in views other than your own?

[Lonewulf]

Why not?
Are you not interested in views other than your own?

That's an unfair question. Of course I'm interested in views other than my own. But if you do not care, then what's the point? Your view is not caring... there's not much room for growth there, is there? "I don't care" is a response that does not lead to much discussion one way or the other.

I just find it strange to hang around a thread on a subject that you care nothing about. I certainly care what a person that I respect says. You may not, but if you had to ask, "Who cares?" I'd say "Me."

And if you do not care, then you cannot be up in arms over one side or the other.

[BillyJoe]

That's an unfair question. Of course I'm interested in views other than my own.


Well, it was a straight forward question.
As coincidence would have it, I went from here to check in on Peter Bowditch's website where he has a transcript of an interview about a recent debate he was involved in with a religious group titled "Is God a delusion?". He was asked what he hoped for in debating Christians. He replied that "What I hope for is that everyone can go away with a better understanding of why the other side holds the position it does."
I now have this as my sigature.


But if you do not care, then what's the point? Your view is not caring... there's not much room for growth there, is there? "I don't care" is a response that does not lead to much discussion one way or the other.



Good point.

But it's not really what I said. I didn't say, "I don't care". What I said was, "But, in the end, who really cares?"
The question here is the politicisation of the JREF. I don't think there is any doubt that he is politicising his commentaries. I also agree that he can say what he likes in his commentaries. I also agree that he should not. Just like he shouldn't have plagiarised a poster here some months ago. Just like he shouldn't have dismissed those who dared to take him to task for it. Just like he should not make comment before thinking through the isssues (referring to his waffling over Climate Change over recent weeks). But he will post what he will. He is entitled to do what he will. Because it's his commentary. We can say that he shouldn't. But we should realise that he will continue to do what he will. Nothing will change because he is unlikely to start listening to the "barking dogs".
It is in this context that I said, "But, in the end, who cares?"
There was a hint od sadness there hinted at by the last two lines:

"These days I only read the commentaries in order to get involved in the commentary thread.
Sad but true."

I just find it strange to hang around a thread on a subject that you care nothing about.


Well, I was intending it as a sign off post.
I don't usually bother unsubscribing to threads though, so when I saw you had responded to my post I felt it only fair to return with a reply.

regards,
BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

I must have forgotten to apply the new sig line. It's fixed now.

[Moochie]

Huh? Barely anything in common? What are you talking about? You may not have much to do with other skeptics, but many others aren't so limited in their associations.



It's obvious that instead of backing up your statements you're just being flippant, so I'll leave the room now.


You may do as you wish, but you haven't convinced me that people of a skeptical bent are an organized movement.

M.

[Czarcasm]

Having said that, Sylvia Browne can do anything she wants. It's her job, organization and books. No one is forced to read them. If you agree. good; if not, good.

;)

Just to clarify things, when you use the "winky" emoticon, does that indicate that you are being sarcastic and don't really believe what you are saying? You seem to use it a lot, and I'm curious as to why.

[Drysdale]

So views that you classify as liberal are biased and unskeptical because you say so, therefore these views don't belong in a skeptical newsletter...

I am glad Randi doesnt pass his views or the views of others through an ideological filter before publishing them and I trust he will ignore your call to do so.

No, not because they're possibly liberal but because that particular view is directly an attack on the 2nd amendment in the of bill of rights.

He can and will I'm sure write what he pleases in his commentaries. I did'nt call on him not to do so. Just said I dont like it. There's a difference.
I'm not starting a movement in an attempt to censor his views.
I just happen to disagree with that particular view very strongly.

I would however have a problem if he uses it as a political soapbox from either political ideology, and the line about gun control is just that in my view.

I am entitled to disagree just as much as he or anyone else for that matter
disagrees with me.

[Lonewulf]

But it's not really what I said. I didn't say, "I don't care". What I said was, "But, in the end, who really cares?"

Obviously, many of the people that are posting in this thread.

The question here is the politicisation of the JREF. I don't think there is any doubt that he is politicising his commentaries. I also agree that he can say what he likes in his commentaries. I also agree that he should not. Just like he shouldn't have plagiarised a poster here some months ago. Just like he shouldn't have dismissed those who dared to take him to task for it. Just like he should not make comment before thinking through the isssues (referring to his waffling over Climate Change over recent weeks). But he will post what he will. He is entitled to do what he will. Because it's his commentary. We can say that he shouldn't. But we should realise that he will continue to do what he will. Nothing will change because he is unlikely to start listening to the "barking dogs".
It is in this context that I said, "But, in the end, who cares?"
There was a hint od sadness there hinted at by the last two lines:

Ah, I think I understand now.

My apologies for misinterpreting.

[Reager]

You may do as you wish, but you haven't convinced me that people of a skeptical bent are an organized movement.

M.

I dont think i ever claimed that all skeptics are part of an "organized" movement (whatever that means). What I did claim, some evidence of which I outlined in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2572896#post2572896), is that a skeptical movement does indeed exist. If you disagree, state your reasons.

[Moochie]

I dont think i ever claimed that all skeptics are part of an "organized" movement (whatever that means). What I did claim, some evidence of which I outlined in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2572896#post2572896), is that a skeptical movement does indeed exist. If you disagree, state your reasons.


Your ascribing an ideology to skeptics is way off the mark. Where do you get this from, your ****?

M.


Moochie, please refrain from violating your membership agreement in the future, particularly in regard to civility. I have edited the post and removed the offending comment.

[Reager]

Your ascribing an ideology to skeptics is way off the mark. Where do you get this from, your anus?

M.

This is pointless. Assertions are not arguments. Ad homs are juvenile. And you claim to be a skeptic?

[Moochie]

This is pointless. Assertions are not arguments. Ad homs are juvenile. And you claim to be a skeptic?

Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

M.

[Lonewulf]

Moochie is what you get when an internet troll and a skeptic have babies.

[Moochie]

Moochie is what you get when an internet troll and a skeptic have babies.

You ought to know, Dad.

M.

[Lonewulf]

You ought to know, Dad.

M.

Which one was the dad, and which one was the mom? I think it's important to be clear in this context. :D

Who's yo daddy?

[aries]

I don't think us Europeans (or many of us) understands where the need for weapons in the US comes from as many or our wars were fought by hired men (mercenaries?), hired by our kings to fight against each other.

I feel, though, that I understand this need a bit better, ever since I was an exchange student in the US 25 years ago :) and took a US History class. The US citizens need to own guns & rifles has come, as I see it, from the fact that the US has been somewhat un-evenly settled. And in the big woods or on the open prarie, you'll need a good shotgun, or rifle to protect your & your family, if not from anything else, then from wild boars, bears and such nasty things. In the old days, the country's (USA, that is) defense also rested on the militias that could be formed by & of the people.

I don't think that the founding fathers thought that it would to come to this: that every man and woman in the US can go into to a gun store and buy military equipment such as an UZI Machinegun or an AK 47 (kalashnikov) rifle.
Way back in the early 1800's, people only had flint guns or flint rifles...not the modern type of rifles you can buy today...

I have to agree with the NRA, though, when they say than 'guns don't kill people. People kill people', since it is people who are mad at other people
who kill people. However, when people will kill people :( -- it is usually not a good idea to give them easy acces to buy weapons, as there are in some states in the US.

I don't think that it will be good idea to have a restrictive a gun-policy in the US as in Europe, but I think that it will be a good idea to make it harder for people to buy guns. Especially former criminals, and people who mentality disturbed or to use a much older frame 'mad as hatter'.

As for Al Gore's movie, I have seen bit and pieces of it in an Oprah Show (yes, we get Oprah here in Denmark, too). And I have to say that as Dane I'm not impressed. The presentations is very loud and noisy, and doomsday worthy. However, as Dane, I have learned to be critical of everything, even a movie whose message, I basically agree with. And I don't think the movie will convince the skeptics as Al Gore seems to be talking to his own, or preaching to the choir...