FREE TAPATALK APP

crimresearch · 31st May 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

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

zooterkin · 31st May 2012, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

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

ETA: What does the triune brain have to do with anything?

carlitos · 31st May 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.'

jaydeehess · 2nd June 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by BStrong

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

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

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

crimresearch · 2nd June 2012, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.'

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

crimresearch · 2nd June 2012, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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

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

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

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

carlitos · 4th June 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

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

If you think MMA is fake, you can easily test this claim just like that Japanese guy did in the link posted earlier. Good luck!

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

crimresearch · 5th June 2012, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

If you think MMA is fake, you can easily test this claim just like that Japanese guy did in the link posted earlier. Good luck!

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

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...08#post8197108

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

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

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

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

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

I hear that Charlie Sheen is a pretty skeptical guy.

Klimax · 5th June 2012, 04:02 PM

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

(At best.)

crimresearch · 5th June 2012, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Klimax

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

(At best.)

Do tell.

carlitos · 8th June 2012, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

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

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

No one calls spectator sports "reality TV."

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

Quote:

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

I am not starting an internet tough guy challenge, and don't understand why you have all of these straw man arguments.

Quote:

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

Noted. However, that's how the google search algorithm works, and if you just stay signed in, you see no ads at all. Problem solved!

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

You are conceding a point that I did not make. Again, with the straw men.

Quote:

I hear that Charlie Sheen is a pretty skeptical guy.

Beerina · 8th June 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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

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

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

zooterkin · 8th June 2012, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

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

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

Quote:

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

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

crimresearch · 8th June 2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

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

Nope. That's a strawman.

crimresearch · 8th June 2012, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JJM 777 · 8th June 2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Giordano

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

I vaguely remember Randi commenting in some SWIFT years ago about a banner on JREF website which led to a silly hoax, that it is part of the E to lead people to encounter such idiocy and tackle it. Personally I am not sure what to think about this issue, I vote blank.

Foolmewunz · 8th June 2012, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

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

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

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

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

Have you ever actually seen MMA?

Checkmite · 8th June 2012, 07:37 PM

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

Foolmewunz · 8th June 2012, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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

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

383LQ4SS · 8th June 2012, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

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

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

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

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

crimresearch · 8th June 2012, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Have you ever actually seen MMA?

Yes.

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

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

383LQ4SS · 8th June 2012, 08:43 PM

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

Foolmewunz · 8th June 2012, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

crimresearch · 8th June 2012, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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

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

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

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

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

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

GrouchoMarxist · 8th June 2012, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Yes.

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

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

Why besmirchify Don King?

Foolmewunz · 9th June 2012, 06:17 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

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

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

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

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

crimresearch · 9th June 2012, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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

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

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

If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer.

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

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

carlitos · 9th June 2012, 10:17 AM

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

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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

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

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Have you ever actually seen MMA?

Yes.

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

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

Penn and Teller are on television, yes?

Anyway, more seriously:

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

crimresearch · 9th June 2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

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

Penn and Teller are on television, yes?

Anyway, more seriously:

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

If you want to see P&T BS sans TV or commercials, YouTube is your friend.

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

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

zooterkin · 9th June 2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

I've made my point quite clearly.

No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending.

crimresearch · 9th June 2012, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending.

Your assertion in direct contradiction to facts in evidence, is so... uncompelling.

carlitos · 9th June 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

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

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

Foolmewunz · 9th June 2012, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer.

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

Quote:

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

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

Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube.

That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch.

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

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

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

Cuddles · 11th June 2012, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

Do you?

crimresearch · 11th June 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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

Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube.

That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch.

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

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

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

I answered your Yes/No question 'Yes'. That's the reality. To that, you've offered nothing factual on the topic.

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

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

crimresearch · 11th June 2012, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

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

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

A good way to clear up the 'communication problem', would be to address what I actually said, instead of making up things I never said and claiming I believe them.

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

RayG · 12th June 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Klimax

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

Where do I find those settings?

RayG

Checkmite · 14th June 2012, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by 383LQ4SS

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

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

Originally Posted by 383LQ4SS

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

My point.

carlitos · 15th June 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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

Indeed.

Originally Posted by carlitos

I'll drop it.

Klimax · 16th June 2012, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by RayG

Where do I find those settings?

RayG

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

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

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

31st May 2012, 09:31 AM	#41
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by BStrong I must be out of the loop - what's wrong with MMA? IMO... For the purposes of being 'The Face of JREF', the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

31st May 2012, 09:33 AM	#42
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,025	Originally Posted by crimresearch For the purposes of being 'The Face of JREF', the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic. I'll repeat my earlier question. Did you actually read the article about the MMA artist? ETA: What does the triune brain have to do with anything?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by zooterkin; 31st May 2012 at 09:36 AM.

2nd June 2012, 05:31 PM	#45
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by carlitos fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.' No, you simply fabricated a strawman fallacy to avoid dealing with a challenge to your superstitious faith in TV.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

2nd June 2012, 05:41 PM	#46
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by jaydeehess apparently its "steroid fueled" and too violent for the OP The university ad likely is the result of a previous search or visit to the website of some other university. Let's remember that its a mindless computer program that inserted the ad So called 'reality TV' spectator sports is simply too fake for the OP. But my being skeptical certainly shouldn't stop you from enjoying it, now should it?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

5th June 2012, 11:56 AM	#48
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by carlitos This makes no sense. Superstitious faith in TV about what? If you think MMA is fake, you can easily test this claim just like that Japanese guy did in the link posted earlier. Good luck! ETA - Spectator sports are not "so called reality TV," so there's your strawman. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...08#post8197108 Yeah.... it doesn't get more 'real' than this. But if you want to derail this thread into an internet tough guy challenge, start your own thread. This one is about whether JREF has an image to maintain, and if so, what/who fits that image. I don't think that Pat Robertson, or for that matter Sylvia Browne (should she decide to purchase advertising on that feed), are a good fit. I don't think that MMA prowess, or any other facet of TV ratings popularity should be a factor over whether Steven Hawking or Brock Lesnar gets featured on the next JREF front page. I'll concede your point that any MMA fighter could whip Hawking... and I'd ask, so what? I hear that Charlie Sheen is a pretty skeptical guy.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 5th June 2012 at 11:57 AM.

31st May 2012, 02:44 PM	#43
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	Originally Posted by crimresearch IMO... For the purposes of being '~~The Face of JREF~~' a snob, the same thing that's 'wrong' with the Kardashians, American Idol, and a hundred other forms of 'reality' TV that appeal directly to the triune brain instead of logic. fixed. And LOLing at 'triune brain.'

2nd June 2012, 12:58 PM	#44
jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I beedunk 40 miles from the border Posts: 10,966	Originally Posted by BStrong I must be out of the loop - what's wrong with MMA? apparently its "steroid fueled" and too violent for the OP The university ad likely is the result of a previous search or visit to the website of some other university. Let's remember that its a mindless computer program that inserted the ad

4th June 2012, 08:37 AM	#47
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	Originally Posted by crimresearch No, you simply fabricated a strawman fallacy to avoid dealing with a challenge to your superstitious faith in TV. This makes no sense. Superstitious faith in TV about what? If you think MMA is fake, you can easily test this claim just like that Japanese guy did in the link posted earlier. Good luck! ETA - Spectator sports are not "so called reality TV," so there's your strawman.

5th June 2012, 04:02 PM	#49
Klimax NWO cyborg (3930K inside) Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9 Posts: 7,988	Equating Pat Robertson to Silvia Brown is quiet a stretch considering there so far no bases for it... (At best.)
	__________________ ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400

5th June 2012, 04:34 PM	#50
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Klimax Equating Pat Robertson to Silvia Brown is quiet a stretch considering there so far no bases for it... (At best.) Do tell.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

8th June 2012, 08:24 AM	#51
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	Originally Posted by crimresearch So called 'reality TV' spectator sports is simply too fake for the OP. But my being skeptical certainly shouldn't stop you from enjoying it, now should it? You seem to be (intentionally?) missing the point. No one calls spectator sports "reality TV." MMA is not "fake," in the sense that many martial arts are woo-ish about chi power or whatever. It's just guys fighting. Quote: But if you want to derail this thread into an internet tough guy challenge, start your own thread. This one is about whether JREF has an image to maintain, and if so, what/who fits that image. I am not starting an internet tough guy challenge, and don't understand why you have all of these straw man arguments. Quote: I don't think that Pat Robertson, or for that matter Sylvia Browne (should she decide to purchase advertising on that feed), are a good fit. Noted. However, that's how the google search algorithm works, and if you just stay signed in, you see no ads at all. Problem solved! Quote: I don't think that MMA prowess, or any other facet of TV ratings popularity should be a factor over whether Steven Hawking or Brock Lesnar gets featured on the next JREF front page. Obviously, that's a false binary, but I think that I get your point. You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point? Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking? Quote: I'll concede your point that any MMA fighter could whip Hawking... and I'd ask, so what? You are conceding a point that I did not make. Again, with the straw men. Quote: I hear that Charlie Sheen is a pretty skeptical guy.

8th June 2012, 08:51 AM	#52
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by zooterkin I'm not really sure I understand the analogy, since MMA is just one of many Martial Arts. Some Martial Arts can include a fair amount of woo, but that depends to a large degree on the teacher. Where one teacher may invoke Chi as the explanation for why something works, another may use biomechanics for the exact same technique. That's the issue. "Martial Arts" is crammed to the gills with woo and prestidigitaton-like trickery. Chi, coal walking, board punching, brick punching, these things overlap and use tricks. MMA, though I don't watch it, is an active pro, real sport akin to boxing or Olympic wrestling. And unlike pro wrestling.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

8th June 2012, 11:44 AM	#53
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,025	Originally Posted by Beerina That's the issue. "Martial Arts" is crammed to the gills with woo and prestidigitaton-like trickery. Chi, coal walking, board punching, brick punching, these things overlap and use tricks. As I said, some Martial Arts have Chi and such-like often attached (but not always, and not always for particular types. I've attended judo, karate, Pencak Silat and Wing Chun classes, and none of them had any supernatural elements in the way they were taught); it seems a bit perverse to use the general term "Martial Arts" as a synonym for "Martial Arts which involve woo", when it has a perfectly good meaning already. Quote: MMA, though I don't watch it, is an active pro, real sport akin to boxing or Olympic wrestling. And unlike pro wrestling. MMA is just one more Martial Art, which happens not to have much woo attached to it. And I still don't understand the OP's point. Why is it bad to have someone from a field (Martial Arts, of whatever sort) which can have, as you point out, woo and trickery attached, taking a skeptical and evidence-based approach?
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

8th June 2012, 02:06 PM	#54
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Quote: Obviously, that's a false binary, but I think that I get your point. You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point? Nope. That's a strawman.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

8th June 2012, 02:23 PM	#55
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by zooterkin As I said, some Martial Arts have Chi and such-like often attached (but not always, and not always for particular types. I've attended judo, karate, Pencak Silat and Wing Chun classes, and none of them had any supernatural elements in the way they were taught); it seems a bit perverse to use the general term "Martial Arts" as a synonym for "Martial Arts which involve woo", when it has a perfectly good meaning already. MMA is just one more Martial Art, which happens not to have much woo attached to it. And I still don't understand the OP's point. Why is it bad to have someone from a field (Martial Arts, of whatever sort) which can have, as you point out, woo and trickery attached, taking a skeptical and evidence-based approach? As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts, and they didn't stop with the mystical energy stuff, they also focused on the whole culture of selling 'deadly warrior secrets' and the hype that surrounds the business end. In order to separate people from more of their money, the levels of deception employed rival any faith healer that Randi ever debunked. Teacher worship, lineage games, origination myths, secret manuals, potions, retention exercises... it is the stuff of carnies, and it goes back centuries. So when I hear how your grandmaster (general 'you') is the only true grandmaster in the world, and nothing at all like the thousands of other rival grandmasters, other folks may be willing to suspend disbelief, empty the teacup that is their mind, and 'eat bitter'. And as far as I can see, MMA is simply the televangelist branch of that particular faith based discipline with trophies and title matches replacing the trappings of the temple. I don't know, I guess I'm just too... skeptical or something to make a good grasshopper.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

8th June 2012, 02:27 PM	#56
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Giordano I like to think of it as ironic when the woo seller ads end up here. Surely it is the last place these companies wanted to advertise in return for the money they are paying for ad placement. I vaguely remember Randi commenting in some SWIFT years ago about a banner on JREF website which led to a silly hoax, that it is part of the E to lead people to encounter such idiocy and tackle it. Personally I am not sure what to think about this issue, I vote blank.

8th June 2012, 07:19 PM	#57
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,879	Originally Posted by crimresearch As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts, and they didn't stop with the mystical energy stuff, they also focused on the whole culture of selling 'deadly warrior secrets' and the hype that surrounds the business end. In order to separate people from more of their money, the levels of deception employed rival any faith healer that Randi ever debunked. Teacher worship, lineage games, origination myths, secret manuals, potions, retention exercises... it is the stuff of carnies, and it goes back centuries. So when I hear how your grandmaster (general 'you') is the only true grandmaster in the world, and nothing at all like the thousands of other rival grandmasters, other folks may be willing to suspend disbelief, empty the teacup that is their mind, and 'eat bitter'. And as far as I can see, MMA is simply the televangelist branch of that particular faith based discipline with trophies and title matches replacing the trappings of the temple. I don't know, I guess I'm just too... skeptical or something to make a good grasshopper. Have you ever actually seen MMA?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

8th June 2012, 07:37 PM	#58
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Third in line Posts: 14,977	I've seen MMA, on TV and Internet, multiple times. And while its not "fake" in the sense that the fighters obviously really are fighting and trying to win, there's plenty to get the skeptic senses tingling on a lighter level. Starting with the fighters being introduced and special attention paid to their different chosen "styles"; yet as soon as the fight starts it almost immediately devolves into the exact same indiscriminate grapple-punching.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

8th June 2012, 07:54 PM	#59
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,879	Originally Posted by Checkmite I've seen MMA, on TV and Internet, multiple times. And while its not "fake" in the sense that the fighters obviously really are fighting and trying to win, there's plenty to get the skeptic senses tingling on a lighter level. Starting with the fighters being introduced and special attention paid to their different chosen "styles"; yet as soon as the fight starts it almost immediately devolves into the exact same indiscriminate grapple-punching. I find that's one of the highlights of most legitimate martial arts fighting. Only in totally fixed venues (like heavyweight wrestling) and in fantasies (movies and TV) do you see those lovely poses and stances and perfect flying kicks and chops. Two capable fighters trying to beat the crap out of each other generally look like a couple of kids fighting,... just hurting each other more.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

8th June 2012, 08:35 PM	#60
383LQ4SS Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 157	Originally Posted by Checkmite I've seen MMA, on TV and Internet, multiple times. And while its not "fake" in the sense that the fighters obviously really are fighting and trying to win, there's plenty to get the skeptic senses tingling on a lighter level. Starting with the fighters being introduced and special attention paid to their different chosen "styles"; yet as soon as the fight starts it almost immediately devolves into the exact same indiscriminate grapple-punching. You probably haven't seen enough to spot the difference. In addition...I don't think the "styles" that are announced mean much of anything these days. And I certainly dont think "special" attention is given to styles. Many avoid classification at all. Generally there are strikers and grapplers. You can subdivide a bit from there. But a persons "style" many times is just the point of entry they were introduced to combat sports. Many guys get their start in wrestling. Some in Judo. Many in Brazilian ju-jitsu, kick boxing etc etc. Either way...any person who claims to have a "style" that has special properties or powers is instantly exposed. IMO it would be the claims of woo that would be important not a label for where that particular person received the majority of training.
383LQ4SS Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 157

8th June 2012, 08:42 PM	#61
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Have you ever actually seen MMA? Yes. Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows? Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

8th June 2012, 08:43 PM	#62
383LQ4SS Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 157	Actually...watch the very first UFC. They did pay attention to styles. That was one hell of a wake up call for many a woo practitioner!
383LQ4SS Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 157

8th June 2012, 09:38 PM	#63
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,879	Originally Posted by crimresearch Yes. Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows? Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King. Mine was a legitimate question - don't you say you don't watch television? I was curious how you'd have seen MMA without television. Why would you think I've never seen P&T, though. Do you think we're incapable of keeping up with you level of skeptic research? Hint: All professional sports is a racket in some form or another. If David Beckham came out in support of critical thinking should we dismiss him as just a part of the football "racket". I mean look at the match fixing, racism, hooligan violence, et al. How about Lance Armstrong? Surely bicycling is a clean cut sport. Or how about we condemn all academicians because of the rampant publish or perish syndrome and the various researchers who've knowingly submitted bogus research and bogus results. Okay, we get it. You want a higher class of spokesperson. By that, I take it you'd eliminate all athletes. Meh? I don't much care - I like sports and if someone who's popular in their field can expand the people who are paying attention, well... good.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

8th June 2012, 09:49 PM	#64
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Mine was a legitimate question - don't you say you don't watch television? I was curious how you'd have seen MMA without television. Why would you think I've never seen P&T, though. Do you think we're incapable of keeping up with you level of skeptic research? Hint: All professional sports is a racket in some form or another. If David Beckham came out in support of critical thinking should we dismiss him as just a part of the football "racket". I mean look at the match fixing, racism, hooligan violence, et al. How about Lance Armstrong? Surely bicycling is a clean cut sport. Or how about we condemn all academicians because of the rampant publish or perish syndrome and the various researchers who've knowingly submitted bogus research and bogus results. Okay, we get it. You want a higher class of spokesperson. By that, I take it you'd eliminate all athletes. Meh? I don't much care - I like sports and if someone who's popular in their field can expand the people who are paying attention, well... good. If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out. My choices aren't stopping you in the least. And if the end result is the inability to do anything more than parrot strawmen, and string together fallacies like that, I'll stick to my approach, thanks.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

8th June 2012, 11:36 PM	#65
GrouchoMarxist Cowardly insulter of Buddhism Join Date: May 2008 Location: Surly Bonds correctional facility Posts: 942	Originally Posted by crimresearch Yes. Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows? Just because there are two capable fighters (be it MMA, boxing, or whatever) trying to hurt each other, doesn't mean that the business isn't a racket. Look up Don King. Why besmirchify Don King?
	__________________ I can't believe that having said what I said was interpreted as having been what I said when I said it, because I said it where I said it, when I said it, and who I said it to. Only in America!

9th June 2012, 06:17 AM	#66
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,879	Originally Posted by crimresearch If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out. My choices aren't stopping you in the least. And if the end result is the inability to do anything more than parrot strawmen, and string together fallacies like that, I'll stick to my approach, thanks. Ah, yes, because asking you how you know about MMA if you don't watch television is easily translated into: "Because I, Foolmewunz, get my entire worldview from Desilu Productions." Uh, no,.. actually it doesn't. It is an enquiry, which you did not answer, as to how you know (or want us to believe you know) so much about MMA, since it's essentially a television-created "sport'. Do you attend matches regularly? Hang around at Gold's Gym and talk to the up-and-coming talent? Do research work for the President's Council on Physical Fitness? How would someone who eschews the glass teat learn about it? If not so predictable, I'd find it ironic that you accuse me of creating a strawman when you've clearly, not for the first time, created one yourself in dodging the question by accusing me of getting my worldview from television.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

9th June 2012, 08:58 AM	#67
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Ah, yes, because asking you how you know about MMA if you don't watch television is easily translated into: "Because I, Foolmewunz, get my entire worldview from Desilu Productions." Uh, no,.. actually it doesn't. It is an enquiry, which you did not answer, as to how you know (or want us to believe you know) so much about MMA, since it's essentially a television-created "sport'. Do you attend matches regularly? Hang around at Gold's Gym and talk to the up-and-coming talent? Do research work for the President's Council on Physical Fitness? How would someone who eschews the glass teat learn about it? If not so predictable, I'd find it ironic that you accuse me of creating a strawman when you've clearly, not for the first time, created one yourself in dodging the question by accusing me of getting my worldview from television. If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer. And then, instead of engaging in rational discourse, you chose to fabricate strawmen and play trite internet commando games in an apparent bid to derail. Now, do you have anything relevant to the thread topic that is either correct or useful?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

9th June 2012, 10:17 AM	#68
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	OK, so more than one of us are getting this impression of crimresearch's complaint, and have asked for clarification without success. Originally Posted by carlitos ...You seem to feel that physical sports are too commonplace / ordinary / lowlife for the front page of the JREF. Is that a fair characterization of your point? Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Okay, we get it. You want a higher class of spokesperson. By that, I take it you'd eliminate all athletes. Meh? I don't much care - I like sports and if someone who's popular in their field can expand the people who are paying attention, well... good. Could crimresearch possibly, pretty please with sugar on top, clarify the objection to an MMA person speaking about skeptical issues at the JREF? Originally Posted by crimresearch If television is your preferred means of learning about the world, knock yourself out. Originally Posted by crimresearch Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Have you ever actually seen MMA? Yes. Have you ever actually seen Penn and Teller's skeptical shows? Originally Posted by crimresearch As I mentioned, Penn and Teller did a pretty good debunking on Martial Arts, Penn and Teller are on television, yes? Anyway, more seriously: Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking?

9th June 2012, 11:14 AM	#69
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by carlitos OK, so more than one of us are getting this impression of crimresearch's complaint, and have asked for clarification without success. Could crimresearch possibly, pretty please with sugar on top, clarify the objection to an MMA person speaking about skeptical issues at the JREF? Penn and Teller are on television, yes? Anyway, more seriously: Might you concede that using characters in popular culture who are themselves skeptics could be useful in spreading the JREF message beyond folks who are fans of Steven Hawking? If you want to see P&T BS sans TV or commercials, YouTube is your friend. I've made my point quite clearly. I find the stated concerns over protecting JREF's image on the internet to be inconsistently applied on the factors I cited. And I'm not aware of a shortage of either advertisers, or spokespersons for skepticism, that would limit the choices to only those under discussion. Feel free to make your points about your sacred cows being gored, in the Personal Issues/Rants section of the forum.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 9th June 2012 at 11:16 AM.

9th June 2012, 11:23 AM	#70
zooterkin Nitpicking dilettante Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 25,025	Originally Posted by crimresearch I've made my point quite clearly. No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

9th June 2012, 11:27 AM	#71
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by zooterkin No, really, you haven't, but don't let that stop you being condescending. Your assertion in direct contradiction to facts in evidence, is so... uncompelling.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

9th June 2012, 01:13 PM	#72
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	Originally Posted by crimresearch Feel free to make your points about your sacred cows being gored, in the Personal Issues/Rants section of the forum. Sacred cows? I can't even watch MMA. It's way too violent for me, and I really like boxing. Several of us have gotten the same (apparently wrong) impression from the words you have posted here, so respectfully the communication problem appears to be at your end. I'll drop it. Being snooty about "television" when you watch youtube is pretty funny though. Thanks for that. Some of the 9/11 truthers do that - tell me I'm brainwashed by the "media" when they get their info on youtube. Precious.

9th June 2012, 07:09 PM	#73
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,879	Originally Posted by crimresearch If you had asked that question, you could have gotten an answer. But of course, you didn't ask that question, you asked a pointless Yes/No question and got the correct answer. And yet, curiously, when I asked the question.... You Did Not Answer. You replied with a condescending strawman about me choosing to get my information from television. Quote: And then, instead of engaging in rational discourse, you chose to fabricate strawmen and play trite internet commando games in an apparent bid to derail. Now, do you have anything relevant to the thread topic that is either correct or useful? Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube. That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch. Useful? That depends, of course, on what one considers useful. Since I'm not sure that my goal in life is to support your ridiculous contentions, I think some may have found my comments useful. Relevant? I stated my piece. I think having "celebrity" spokespersons for critical thinking and skepticism is a good thing. If those persons happen to come from (to me) fringe sports, so what? Ya know what I think? I think you made a mistake in your OP and you're backing and filling with the pseudo-elitist approach to it just being unseemly. Not actually knowing what MMA was, you assumed it was "MA", i.e. Martial Arts and with your vast education (which is apparently from YouTube), you associated it with the lengthy research Penn & Teller and their bit on the nonsense surrounding all the Asian and pseudo-Asian martial arts. (And here's the irony... I think P&T are great. I recognize them as entertainers, though and I'd never use them as a primary source for anything other than The Penn & Teller Story.)
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i] Last edited by Foolmewunz; 9th June 2012 at 07:10 PM.

11th June 2012, 04:08 AM	#74
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Originally Posted by crimresearch Now, do you have anything relevant to the thread topic that is either correct or useful? Do you?
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

11th June 2012, 12:56 PM	#75
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz And yet, curiously, when I asked the question.... You Did Not Answer. You replied with a condescending strawman about me choosing to get my information from television. Correct? Everything I've said is correct insofar as all I've done is ask you some questions. We now have the answer to one.... you learned all about the MMA on YouTube. That's some pretty heady company you're keeping there, Crimeresearch. Useful? That depends, of course, on what one considers useful. Since I'm not sure that my goal in life is to support your ridiculous contentions, I think some may have found my comments useful. Relevant? I stated my piece. I think having "celebrity" spokespersons for critical thinking and skepticism is a good thing. If those persons happen to come from (to me) fringe sports, so what? Ya know what I think? I think you made a mistake in your OP and you're backing and filling with the pseudo-elitist approach to it just being unseemly. Not actually knowing what MMA was, you assumed it was "MA", i.e. Martial Arts and with your vast education (which is apparently from YouTube), you associated it with the lengthy research Penn & Teller and their bit on the nonsense surrounding all the Asian and pseudo-Asian martial arts. (And here's the irony... I think P&T are great. I recognize them as entertainers, though and I'd never use them as a primary source for anything other than The Penn & Teller Story.) I answered your Yes/No question 'Yes'. That's the reality. To that, you've offered nothing factual on the topic. You can make up things I never said, and pretend I didn't say what I did, all you want... I don't think it demonstrates what you hope. What is does do, is try to derail this thread and avoid actual rational discourse about the topic by replacing it with personal issues.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 11th June 2012 at 01:01 PM.