Thunderf00t -- The Julian Assange of Skepticism(tm)

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose it's because, as the person whose name I can't remember said in her blog, "the scepticism movement" seems to be a minor facet of "the atheist community", and that's a group of people getting together because they all don't believe in the same thing.

Also I'm sure that a big part of it is that I'm incredibly ungregarious myself. I'm very, very asocial and don't really have much of a drive to be around other people and, in fact, given the choice, choose not to. I don't think that's all of it, but I'd be surprised if it didn't play its part.

[ConspicuousCarl]

I don't know enough about FTB to declare it wholly one thing or another, but their enforcement against "incoherent, unprofessional rages" is clearly not universal.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I suppose it's because, as the person whose name I can't remember said in her blog, "the scepticism movement" seems to be a minor facet of "the atheist community", and that's a group of people getting together because they all don't believe in the same thing.

I don't think that seeing skepticism as a subset of atheism is accurate. Skepticism is a philosophy, whereas atheism is just non-belief in something. In any case, atheists have shared interests, and skeptics have shared interests, so it makes sense to me that they would have communities.

Quote:

Also I'm sure that a big part of it is that I'm incredibly ungregarious myself. I'm very, very asocial and don't really have much of a drive to be around other people and, in fact, given the choice, choose not to. I don't think that's all of it, but I'd be surprised if it didn't play its part.

Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly the exception rather than the rule among humans. That makes you different (again, nothing wrong there), but it doesn't make other humans "silly".

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Major Billy

Damn, the straw-men never let up.

No, Thunderf00t did not 'take advantage of a hole in the software'. (Or break into anyone’s private email.)

Thunderf00t was invited to the list and because of the administrators’s mistakes, he remained invited to the list. It was not Thunderf00t’s responsibility to fix the admin’s mistakes for them when they (allegedly) sent the list to him by mistake.

What the heck was Rebecca's fault?

I see, because the software was faulty Thunderf00t has no blame he was entitled to exploit that loophole.

ETA: Rebecca was given mod privileges here at JREF due to a software glitch she was banned when she used them so if you think Thunderf00t has the right of it you need to tell the mods here that it's OK to hack the system.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Um, are you saying that accusing FTB of group think is group think?

LULZ.

You know, of course, that accusing someone of accusing FTB of group think is group think, is group think?!

You didnt think this one through, obviously.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by Moss

That they use exactly the same emotive language and hyperbole they accuse RW and PZ of for starters. The faulty generalizations about FTB in toto when they have issues with specific posters.

Unfair. In my own experience, those handful of "specific posters" were wholeheartedly supported by PZ himself.

(I started to expound on this further here but decided I really dont care anymore)

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Do you mean, faulty generalizations like holding Michael Payton as representative of all people who "bash" FtB?

And is calling Payton's opinion "bashing" an example of the kind of emotive language and hyperbole you're talking about?

I forgot to mention the Payton is not just another guy with a Twitter account. He's the National Director for the Centre for Inquiry, Canada. CFI is a major skeptical organization. Randi was associated with the group for many years when it was known as CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal).

According to Thunderf00t:

Quote:

A week or so ago a guy called Michael Payton who works for CFI Canada (Center for Inquiry) put up a tweet about finding FTB unreadable. Now it turns out ironically Michael is on FTBs side on the issue of harassment policies at conferences (well mostly), however that didn’t matter if he was going to speak ill of freethoughtblogs and this precipitated an angry torrent of twitters from at least one FTBer and another to write an entire blog post about it (promoted by PZ Myers of course), and as with all such posts on FTB he (Payton) was repeatedly branded in the comments section with pejorative terms such as misogynist and MRA (the irony being that he posted an article on skepchick ‘speaking out against hate against women‘ FACEPALM). Indeed it turned out that merely hours after this tweet, CFI Canada had been contacted with calls for his dismissal. Yes his real life job was being threatened because of one tweet about FTBs!

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.c...ointless-crap/

The offensive (to the easily offended) tweet was discussed on FTB here and here.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by tsig

I see, because the software was faulty Thunderf00t has no blame he was entitled to exploit that loophole.

ETA: Rebecca was given mod privileges here at JREF due to a software glitch she was banned when she used them so if you think Thunderf00t has the right of it you need to tell the mods here that it's OK to hack the system.

Rebecca broke forum rules and was banned for it. Just like almost everyone who's been banned from the forum, the ban was for doing things the software permitted her to do. No one accused her of breaking into the system, or of any criminal offense. To do so would possibly incur liability, because it would be false and defamatory.

That is the distinction people have been trying to explain as pertains to Thunderf00t's use of the mailing list software, as far as is known. No crime. No hacking. Blame him all you want for a breach of a relevant user agreement or for poor Internet etiquette.

When weighing that against the activity that Thunderf00t's reporting of the emails exposed, please consider this: members have also been banned from this forum for contacting other members' employers to harass them in retaliation for opinions expressed on the forum.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by tsig

I see, because the software was faulty Thunderf00t has no blame he was entitled to exploit that loophole.

It's not faulty. The admins just didn't know how to use it, and/or didn't anticipate that he would do what he did (which was simply reuse an invitation code that he'd received previously).

[jasonpatterson]

Originally Posted by Major Billy

Thunderf00t was invited to the list and because of the administrators’s mistakes, he remained invited to the list. It was not Thunderf00t’s responsibility to fix the admin’s mistakes for them when they (allegedly) sent the list to him by mistake.

They didn't send him the list by mistake. He was invited, then kicked out, and then re-entered the list using the original invitation. He was removed from the list, if only for a short time and ineffectively. This is comparable to claiming that if I invite someone to a party then throw him out because he's being a jerk, it is my fault if he returns to the party because he'd received the initial invitation and I never took it away from him.

[devnull]

Youll excuse me if I dont become irate and grab a pitchfork because of TF's "indiscretion".

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

I don't think that seeing skepticism as a subset of atheism is accurate. Skepticism is a philosophy, whereas atheism is just non-belief in something.

I didn't say that scepticism was a subset of atheism, I said that the sceptical movement was subsumed within the atheist community. And this is true, go to any sceptical blog or YouTube channel and what's the main topic of conversation? It's not sceptical thought. For example, this thread is about thunderf00t, and what's he most famous for? The "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series.

Quote:

In any case, atheists have shared interests, and skeptics have shared interests, so it makes sense to me that they would have communities.

Some atheists and sceptics have shared interests. But, then, you could say that about absolutely any subject. Being an atheist or sceptic does not mean that you will necessarily have anything in common with someone else who defines themselves as an atheist and/or a sceptic.

Quote:

Well, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly the exception rather than the rule among humans. That makes you different (again, nothing wrong there), but it doesn't make other humans "silly".

You may not think so, but I do. Seeing as this is an opinion of mine, rather than something I am claiming is an objective fact, I am neither right nor wrong about this. You're perfectly free to have a completely different opinion to mine, but that doesn't make my opinion wrong.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I didn't say that scepticism was a subset of atheism, I said that the sceptical movement was subsumed within the atheist community. And this is true, go to any sceptical blog or YouTube channel and what's the main topic of conversation?

The ones I frequent? Alternative medicine, science education, and economics.

I think you have a bad case of selection bias there.

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I didn't say that scepticism was a subset of atheism, I said that the sceptical movement was subsumed within the atheist community. And this is true, go to any sceptical blog or YouTube channel and what's the main topic of conversation? It's not sceptical thought. For example, this thread is about thunderf00t, and what's he most famous for? The "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series.

There's certainly quite a lot of overlap. (But I don't assume that just because someone's a skeptic, they must be an atheist, or vice versa.)

So, you believe that the two movements have become one now?

Quote:

Some atheists and sceptics have shared interests. But, then, you could say that about absolutely any subject. Being an atheist or sceptic does not mean that you will necessarily have anything in common with someone else who defines themselves as an atheist and/or a sceptic.

I can, and do, say that about absolutely any subject. The members of a book club, or sewing circle, or Spanish-speaking group all have shared interests...namely, books, sewing, and the Spanish language, respectively.

It would be silly for me to go to the book club expecting everybody there to share my enthusiasm for Spanish. But it would be reasonable for me to assume that everybody (or, at least, the vast majority of people there) share my love of books.

Quote:

You may not think so, but I do. Seeing as this is an opinion of mine, rather than something I am claiming is an objective fact, I am neither right nor wrong about this. You're perfectly free to have a completely different opinion to mine, but that doesn't make my opinion wrong.

Your opinion's not "wrong". I did not say that it was.

There are people who are asexual, which means that they have zero interest in sex. Suppose that I meet a person like this, and they say, "Have you heard of these things called 'singles groups'? It is the weirdest thing! People actually meet together, in a group, and try to make friends and have sex with them!"

I would find this opinion very amusing. Hilarious, even. Certainly not "wrong", though.

[Lamuella]

Whether what he did was hacking or not, it should have been staggeringly obvious to him that this was a list where he was not wanted. His continued presence there was against the wishes of people participating. His logging of sensitive information (which he admits to) was vastly distasteful, especially as several of the people posting of ftb do so pseudonymously and may face consequences if their real identities were revealed.

The fact that anyone could defend him on this blows my mind and makes me wonder what the hell I actually have in common with some of you people.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

I didn't say that scepticism was a subset of atheism, I said that the sceptical movement was subsumed within the atheist community. And this is true, go to any sceptical blog or YouTube channel and what's the main topic of conversation? It's not sceptical thought. For example, this thread is about thunderf00t, and what's he most famous for? The "Why People Laugh At Creationists" series.

A very parochial view of things. Creationism, and fundamental Christianity, is nearly a non-issue in most parts of the civilised world.

Your statement would imply there are no non-atheists in the skeptical movement; again, that's not true, I've even met some at TAM. And, except for what some might regard as a sizable lacuna, of then being Christian, I'm pretty much as skeptical now as I was when I was in my teens. I read Martin Gardner, watched Carl Sagan and other science based programming I could, saw Uri Geller get debunked. If I'd been aware of the term, I'd have self-identified as a skeptic then.

There is a big overlap between skeptics and atheists, yes, but neither is a subset of the other.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

I think you have a bad case of selection bias there.

Perhaps. As I say, I don't usually read those kinds of blogs as, when I have, I've usually found them both uninteresting and childish.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

(But I don't assume that just because someone's a skeptic, they must be an atheist, or vice versa.)

I don't either.

Quote:

So, you believe that the two movements have become one now?

It's certainly been my experience that the main focus of most people/blogs who are held up as leading figures in the scepticism movement (and, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not even really sure what that term is supposed to mean - is there really a unified front of sceptics? What are their goals? How are they working to achieve them?) is religion.

Quote:

Your opinion's not "wrong". I did not say that it was.

No, what you did was corrected me when I said that the idea of a sceptical movement "seems somewhat silly to me". I'm not sure I can see how that's substantively different from telling me I'm wrong.

Quote:

I would find this opinion very amusing. Hilarious, even. Certainly not "wrong", though.

Good.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

A very parochial view of things.

Where do you think I'm from?

Quote:

Creationism, and fundamental Christianity, is nearly a non-issue in most parts of the civilised world.

Your statement would imply there are no non-atheists in the skeptical movement; again, that's not true, I've even met some at TAM. And, except for what some might regard as a sizable lacuna, of then being Christian, I'm pretty much as skeptical now as I was when I was in my teens. I read Martin Gardner, watched Carl Sagan and other science based programming I could, saw Uri Geller get debunked. If I'd been aware of the term, I'd have self-identified as a skeptic then.

There is a big overlap between skeptics and atheists, yes, but neither is a subset of the other.

I think perhaps the issue some people are having in understanding me is that I'm typing things as if everybody has read the blog post I'm referring to, and not everybody reading my posts has. Perhaps I ought to link to it, so that everybody reading my posts can be up to speed with what it is I'm agreeing with: http://freethoughtblogs.com/natalier.../08/10/all-in/

[Axiom_Blade]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

Whether what he did was hacking or not, it should have been staggeringly obvious to him that this was a list where he was not wanted. His continued presence there was against the wishes of people participating. His logging of sensitive information (which he admits to) was vastly distasteful, especially as several of the people posting of ftb do so pseudonymously and may face consequences if their real identities were revealed.

The fact that anyone could defend him on this blows my mind and makes me wonder what the hell I actually have in common with some of you people.

I don't think anyone was defending him; they were just saying that what he did wasn't "criminal hacking", like some of the FTBers seem to think.

Seriously, FTB is like some kind of ridiculous soap opera. I want to look away, but I can't. What asinine BS are they going to get up in arms about next??

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

I don't think anyone was defending him; they were just saying that what he did wasn't "criminal hacking", like some of the FTBers seem to think.

Seriously, FTB is like some kind of ridiculous soap opera. I want to look away, but I can't. What asinine BS are they going to get up in arms about next??

So you're not defending him, but complaining about him eavesdropping on private conversations containing sensitive information is "asinine BS".

[LandR]

I can't be bothered reading all the drama, someone let me know is this still just even more pointless fallout from the elevator non-incident ?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It's certainly been my experience that the main focus of most people/blogs who are held up as leading figures in the scepticism movement (and, again, I'd like to point out that I'm not even really sure what that term is supposed to mean - is there really a unified front of sceptics? What are their goals? How are they working to achieve them?) is religion.

Does James Randi count as a 'leading figure'? Because he's very careful to not go after religion, per se, and a number of people working for the JREF have been non-atheists.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Where do you think I'm from?

Well, I did wonder as you're spelling 'scepticism' with a 'c', but what you were saying only seemed to make sense if you were in the US.

The s[ck]eptical movement in the UK is mainly concerned with things like alternative medicine, UFOs, cryptozoology, mediums, faith healers. There isn't a big focus on atheism, as such, more of a push for a more secular society, which is not the same thing.

Quote:

I think perhaps the issue some people are having in understanding me is that I'm typing things as if everybody has read the blog post I'm referring to, and not everybody reading my posts has. Perhaps I ought to link to it, so that everybody reading my posts can be up to speed with what it is I'm agreeing with: http://freethoughtblogs.com/natalier.../08/10/all-in/

Well, your statement was a very sweeping one about the whole skeptical movement, and I don't see how that depends on one blog post.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by tsig

So when someone takes advantage of a hole in the software it's OK? You might want to talk with the JREF mods who banned a poster for doing that very thing.

Yes it was Rebecca's fault.

That is pretty ironic in a weird roundabout way.

Anyway, my opinion of both Thunderf00t and Myers has dropped significantly since this whole pissing match began. It's just too silly for words.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Does James Randi count as a 'leading figure'? Because he's very careful to not go after religion, per se, and a number of people working for the JREF have been non-atheists.

And he isnt exactly a paragon of skepticism - recall his take on global warming.

But I love him anyway

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

So you're not defending him, but complaining about him eavesdropping on private conversations containing sensitive information is "asinine BS".

The evesdroppung is not right or at all justified, but the sensitive information people are concerned about (the real name of Natalie Reed) is information why she had already knowingly given him. It is perfectly possible to criticize TF for his actions without blowing what he did out of proportion, which is what a few bloggers and many commentators are doing.

[chillzero]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

No, what you did was corrected me when I said that the idea of a sceptical movement "seems somewhat silly to me". I'm not sure I can see how that's substantively different from telling me I'm wrong.

There's an article on this topic that might interest you:
http://www.skepticism-uk.org/content...bably%29-in-it

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by devnull

And he isnt exactly a paragon of skepticism - recall his take on global warming.

Did you read his follow-up piece? He clarified his position, and also changed it, somewhat, in response to evidence.

Quote:

But I love him anyway

Ditto.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

Perhaps. As I say, I don't usually read those kinds of blogs as, when I have, I've usually found them both uninteresting and childish.

I used to read PZ, but... What you said.

Of course there's a selection bias to the blogs I read too; just pointing out that what you've seen isn't necessarily representative.

[devnull]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Did you read his follow-up piece? He clarified his position, and also changed it, somewhat, in response to evidence.

I hadnt seen it, but how can one man be so wrong, and so right, in one article?

Quote:

Yes, I'm aware of the massive release of energy -- mostly heat -- that we've produced by exhuming and burning oil, natural gas, and coal.

Quote:

I must quickly add that PZ and I are friends and allies, and that we're not at odds. However, I perceive that he often tends to rush to publication without first checking with the author of some provocative item. This provides PZ with lots of controversy and attention, but at the expense of the author in question.

I winced at the first, giggled at the second

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by devnull

I hadnt seen it, but how can one man be so wrong, and so right, in one article?

I think he also needs to be cut some slack since, as I think he mentioned, he was still recovering from treatment for cancer.

Quote:

I winced at the first, giggled at the second

[16.5]

Originally Posted by devnull

You know, of course, that accusing someone of accusing FTB of group think is group think, is group think?!

You didnt think this one through, obviously.

No, no, I thought the same thing.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Major Billy

I must say I rather enjoyed reading the posts and responses, following the debate. Although there wasn't much debate, mostly slandering the post writers. I have to say I agree with Michael Payton (Center for Inquiry Canada) who said this:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajo...8/payton-1.png

For example in the first link Zinnia Jones says the following:
"Do you (Thunderf00t) plan to break into everyone’s private email, just in case they might eventually plan on writing something critical about someone and you need to show this to the world?"

Now Thunderf00t did not, in fact, 'hack' into Ms. Jones's private email, or anyone else's. He was quoting from a listserv-type internet service that was invited to join.

Since so many at Free Thought blogs have repeated the falsehood that thunderf00t ‘hacked’ into that mailing list, let FTB member Jason Thibeault explain what really happened:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycan...0t-did-and-how

Now Mr. Thibeault is clearly trying to cover their admin’s asses here, but thunderf00t DID NOT NEED to ‘hack’ the list, because FTB’s admins FAILED to ban him from it. Can’t tell from the article if they simply forgot to ban him, or did not read their software manual or did not know how to.

The fact remains that thunderf00t was invited to the list and because of the list administrators’s mistakes, he remained invited to the list. It was not thunderf00t’s responsibility to fix the admin’s mistakes for them when they (allegedly) sent the list to him by mistake.

Originally Posted by Major Billy

Damn, the straw-men never let up.

No, Thunderf00t did not 'take advantage of a hole in the software'. (Or break into anyone’s private email.)

Thunderf00t was invited to the list and because of the administrators’s mistakes, he remained invited to the list. It was not Thunderf00t’s responsibility to fix the admin’s mistakes for them when they (allegedly) sent the list to him by mistake.

What the heck was Rebecca's fault?

No. Thunderf00t's access to an email list was terminated and he was notified of this fact. He used a defect in the software running the list to re-establish access, i.e. he gained access to a computing resource to which he had not been granted access (or rather that access permission was explicitly withdrawn) with the owner of that resource permitting that access. Illegal.

[Kwalish Kid]

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

I don't think anyone was defending him; they were just saying that what he did wasn't "criminal hacking", like some of the FTBers seem to think.

Given the rather broad interpretation of what counts as criminal access in the law of the USA, it seems to be quite obviously criminal.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Major Billy

No, Thunderf00t did not 'take advantage of a hole in the software'.

I disagree. Allowing a user who has been booted from the mailing list to re-subscribe using the original invitation email is absolutely a hole in the software. Once the invitation email was successfully used to subscribe the person, subsequent attempts to use the same link should not do anything.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

No. Thunderf00t's access to an email list was terminated and he was notified of this fact. He used a defect in the software running the list to re-establish access, i.e. he gained access to a computing resource to which he had not been granted access (or rather that access permission was explicitly withdrawn) with the owner of that resource permitting that access. Illegal.

It was not a software defect, it was a software property which the admin might have misunderstood and wrongly thought they had a security when there was not. They might have removed him orally the permission, but they did not change the software setup to remove him. So technically while staying in some mailing list you were told to go isn't very nice, it is neither an exploit, nor illegal to again get into the mailing list if nobody stops you. The difference is quite important.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I disagree. Allowing a user who has been booted from the mailing list to re-subscribe using the original invitation email is absolutely a hole in the software. Once the invitation email was successfully used to subscribe the person, subsequent attempts to use the same link should not do anything.

From most listserv mailing software I know of, it is intentional. Those were not done with the strict purpose to have such security tightened in. In fact it was done with the express purpose that if you had the original invitation you could subscribe/unsubscribe easily.

[lopeyschools]

The whole argument between Meyers and Thunderfoot reminds me of the ol'high school msn messenger dramas.

God, we were a bunch of melodramatic kids.

PZ and TF should simply stop talking to each other. A cool off period is required before anyone actually starts listening to the other.

[iknownothing]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

They might have removed him orally the permission, but they did not change the software setup to remove him. So technically while staying in some mailing list you were told to go isn't very nice, it is neither an exploit, nor illegal to again get into the mailing list if nobody stops you. The difference is quite important.

No, they did remove him from the list. They just didn't realize he was going to try to get back in. (And then after being removed again, apparently kept trying over and over. He seriously should let it go.)

He did not "stay" in the list; he snuck back in. There's a difference.