SHARE OUR PROBLEM -- Please!

Moochie · 16th November 2007, 01:36 PM

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

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

M.

LibraryLady · 16th November 2007, 01:38 PM

???

Alice Shortcake · 16th November 2007, 01:45 PM

????!

wahrheit · 16th November 2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

???

Methinks Moochie means this:

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

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

fls · 16th November 2007, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by wahrheit

Methinks Moochie means this:

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

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

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

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

Linda

Puppycow · 19th November 2007, 07:35 PM

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

ravdin · 19th November 2007, 07:57 PM

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

shadron · 20th November 2007, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Moochie

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

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

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

Wolfman · 23rd November 2007, 07:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Ian Osborne · 24th November 2007, 07:01 AM

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

Madness!

qayak · 24th November 2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

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

Madness!

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

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

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

Ian Osborne · 24th November 2007, 01:21 PM

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

Wolfman · 25th November 2007, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

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

But he actively woos the non-woo-woos who get woozy at woo-woo.

delphi_ote · 25th November 2007, 09:27 PM

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

16th November 2007, 01:36 PM	#1
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	SHARE OUR PROBLEM -- Please! Reading Mr. R's latest missive, especially the part alluded to in the topic to this thread, brings home to me the salient fact that Mr. R is as deeply reliant on what I have termed the "woo economy" as most of those he seeks to expose. It's all entertainment, isn't it, James? M.
Moochie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,495	__________________

16th November 2007, 01:38 PM	#2
LibraryLady ...but not JUST a LibraryLady Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Building a house in the common ground Posts: 13,125	???
	__________________ What would Hüsker Dü? I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about. Mildred Loving

16th November 2007, 01:45 PM	#4
wahrheit Pac-Man Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,591	Originally Posted by LibraryLady ??? Methinks Moochie means this: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/127/27/#i12 Though I don't get the point he's trying to make.
wahrheit Pac-Man Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5,591	__________________ For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen. D. Adams -- THHGTTG You're a sick man. The Atheist

16th November 2007, 01:55 PM	#5
fls Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 10,236	Originally Posted by wahrheit Methinks Moochie means this: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/127/27/#i12 Though I don't get the point he's trying to make. I think he means that this kind of person is also James Randi's bread and butter. May I suggest, that in this case, Randi would be tickled pink to find himself subject to abject poverty? Linda
	__________________ God:a capricious creative or controlling force said to be the subject of a religion. Evidence is anything that tends to make a proposition more or less true.-Loss Leader SCAM will now be referred to as DIM (Demonstrably Ineffective Medicine) Look how nicely I'm not reminding you you're dumb.-Happy Bunny When I give an example, do not assume I am excluding every other possible example. Thank you.

19th November 2007, 07:35 PM	#6
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 16,012	Randi is a magician by trade. This is his hobby. Do you think he needs to do this?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

16th November 2007, 01:45 PM	#3
Alice Shortcake Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: York, England Posts: 750	????!

19th November 2007, 07:57 PM	#7
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,609	I don't want to presume to speak for Randi. But if he wouldn't be immensely gratified to be out of business, I'd be sorely disappointed in him.

20th November 2007, 10:42 AM	#8
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by Moochie ...the salient fact that Mr. R is as deeply reliant on what I have termed the "woo economy" as most of those he seeks to expose. It's all entertainment, isn't it, James? People do what people do. What is your point - that he's too mercenary or that he gets too much enjoyment from it? And why should you feel the need to speculate and be sarcastic about anyone's motives for being here?
	Last edited by shadron; 20th November 2007 at 10:43 AM.

23rd November 2007, 07:14 AM	#9
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,841	I'm assuming that the OP refers to the fact that JREF as an organization is entirely dependent on woo, and the perceived need to combat it. If woo were to disappear, or if people were to cease to believe it needed to be opposed, the JREF would most likely disappear as an entity, and James Randi would more than likely fade into relative obscurity. One could likewise argue that minority rights organizations are, in fact, entirely dependent upon the racism and discrimination that they oppose -- if racism and discrimination disappeared, then those organizations would no longer have any purpose. However, I doubt that many of the people involved in such organizations (whether it be the JREF or any other) would be terribly upset over having to close down their organizations because they'd been too SUCCESSFUL. This is, in fact, one of the big differences between profitable companies, and many non-profit organizations. A company set up for profit demonstrates success by generating profits -- the more profits there are, the more successful they are. Whereas for non-profits such as the JREF, or minority rights organizations, or environmental organizations, or many other such entities, success is not measured in terms of dollars -- it is measured in terms of how effective they are at meeting their goals. If they get a LOT of money (ie. donations), but aren't effective, they're not successful. If, on the other hand, they eliminate the problem that they set out to oppose, and as a result are pushed out of business, they have been overwhelmingly successful! In the case of the OP, the author has begun with a partially legitimate observation, but has failed to include the full perspective surrounding that observation.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated" Last edited by Wolfman; 23rd November 2007 at 07:15 AM.

24th November 2007, 07:01 AM	#10
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,401	Would you also say that doctors and surgeons are living off the backs of the sick, and that the police should be grateful to criminals for keeping them in work? Madness!
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

24th November 2007, 12:55 PM	#11
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,772	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne Would you also say that doctors and surgeons are living off the backs of the sick, and that the police should be grateful to criminals for keeping them in work? Madness! Actually, not madness, completely true. The question is: "Is there something wrong with that or is it just a perception bias?" I fix cars for people who crash them. It is never their fault and they get very angry at me for charging them. They see my fees as outrageous and yet they drive nicer vehicles and live in better houses than I do. Do I feel guilty about charging someone when they are desperate? No! Like I always tell them, "I'm here to make money, not friends!" I am sure that Mr. Randi feels the same although I doubt he does this so much for the money as for other reasons of his own. I see nothing wrong with doing something for money, or for the entertainment value, or because you get to travel, or meet people, or . . . any of the innumerable reasons one can find.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,772	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

24th November 2007, 01:21 PM	#12
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,401	I see your point, but what I'm saying is it's madness to suggest the relationship between these groups is an exploitative one. Randi no more exploits the woo-woos than you exploit accident victims.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

25th November 2007, 03:23 AM	#13
Wolfman Chief Solipsistic Autosycophant Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Dongguan, China Posts: 11,841	Originally Posted by Ian Osborne I see your point, but what I'm saying is it's madness to suggest the relationship between these groups is an exploitative one. Randi no more exploits the woo-woos than you exploit accident victims. But he actively woos the non-woo-woos who get woozy at woo-woo.
	__________________ The Meta-Solipsistic Autosycophant mantra: "I post, therefore I am nominated"

25th November 2007, 09:27 PM	#14
delphi_ote Debunking Ninja Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006	I know Moochie has a lot of posts, but why are we trying to understand the meaning of a completely incoherent complaint? Why do his work for him? If he doesn't want to put in the the effort necessary to articulate the basic idea he wants to express, could it really be all that important? Apparently, he doesn't even think it's worth bothering about!
	__________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.