SHARE OUR PROBLEM -- Please!

[Moochie]

Reading Mr. R's latest missive, especially the part alluded to in the topic to this thread, brings home to me the salient fact that Mr. R is as deeply reliant on what I have termed the "woo economy" as most of those he seeks to expose.

It's all entertainment, isn't it, James?

M.

[LibraryLady]

???

[Alice Shortcake]

????!

[wahrheit]

???

Methinks Moochie means this:

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/127/27/#i12

Though I don't get the point he's trying to make.

[fls]

Methinks Moochie means this:

http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/127/27/#i12

Though I don't get the point he's trying to make.

I think he means that this kind of person is also James Randi's bread and butter.

May I suggest, that in this case, Randi would be tickled pink to find himself subject to abject poverty?

Linda

[Puppycow]

Randi is a magician by trade. This is his hobby. Do you think he needs to do this?

[ravdin]

I don't want to presume to speak for Randi. But if he wouldn't be immensely gratified to be out of business, I'd be sorely disappointed in him.

[shadron]

...the salient fact that Mr. R is as deeply reliant on what I have termed the "woo economy" as most of those he seeks to expose.

It's all entertainment, isn't it, James?

People do what people do. What is your point - that he's too mercenary or that he gets too much enjoyment from it? And why should you feel the need to speculate and be sarcastic about anyone's motives for being here?

[Wolfman]

I'm assuming that the OP refers to the fact that JREF as an organization is entirely dependent on woo, and the perceived need to combat it. If woo were to disappear, or if people were to cease to believe it needed to be opposed, the JREF would most likely disappear as an entity, and James Randi would more than likely fade into relative obscurity.

One could likewise argue that minority rights organizations are, in fact, entirely dependent upon the racism and discrimination that they oppose -- if racism and discrimination disappeared, then those organizations would no longer have any purpose.

However, I doubt that many of the people involved in such organizations (whether it be the JREF or any other) would be terribly upset over having to close down their organizations because they'd been too SUCCESSFUL.

This is, in fact, one of the big differences between profitable companies, and many non-profit organizations. A company set up for profit demonstrates success by generating profits -- the more profits there are, the more successful they are. Whereas for non-profits such as the JREF, or minority rights organizations, or environmental organizations, or many other such entities, success is not measured in terms of dollars -- it is measured in terms of how effective they are at meeting their goals. If they get a LOT of money (ie. donations), but aren't effective, they're not successful. If, on the other hand, they eliminate the problem that they set out to oppose, and as a result are pushed out of business, they have been overwhelmingly successful!

In the case of the OP, the author has begun with a partially legitimate observation, but has failed to include the full perspective surrounding that observation.

[Ian Osborne]

Would you also say that doctors and surgeons are living off the backs of the sick, and that the police should be grateful to criminals for keeping them in work?

Madness!

[qayak]

Would you also say that doctors and surgeons are living off the backs of the sick, and that the police should be grateful to criminals for keeping them in work?

Madness!

Actually, not madness, completely true. The question is: "Is there something wrong with that or is it just a perception bias?"

I fix cars for people who crash them. It is never their fault and they get very angry at me for charging them. They see my fees as outrageous and yet they drive nicer vehicles and live in better houses than I do. Do I feel guilty about charging someone when they are desperate? No! Like I always tell them, "I'm here to make money, not friends!"

I am sure that Mr. Randi feels the same although I doubt he does this so much for the money as for other reasons of his own. I see nothing wrong with doing something for money, or for the entertainment value, or because you get to travel, or meet people, or . . . any of the innumerable reasons one can find.

[Ian Osborne]

I see your point, but what I'm saying is it's madness to suggest the relationship between these groups is an exploitative one. Randi no more exploits the woo-woos than you exploit accident victims.

[Wolfman]

I see your point, but what I'm saying is it's madness to suggest the relationship between these groups is an exploitative one. Randi no more exploits the woo-woos than you exploit accident victims.
But he actively woos the non-woo-woos who get woozy at woo-woo.

[delphi_ote]

I know Moochie has a lot of posts, but why are we trying to understand the meaning of a completely incoherent complaint? Why do his work for him? If he doesn't want to put in the the effort necessary to articulate the basic idea he wants to express, could it really be all that important? Apparently, he doesn't even think it's worth bothering about!