Scepticism,a new religious order?

[Me]

mesmo said:

Sorry if I'm missing something here (going back a few posts) but what exactly would the ''believers'' have us sceppies test Randi for? It is the mediums who are asserting a ''power/gift'' of some kind - he who asserts - proves. If Randi's tests are genuine then a genuine medium/psychic has yet to be found. How can they be fixed in some way - please tell me how you could falsly test a medium/psychic?

If you start out investigating someone with the belief they are 100% tip top..the dollar(in Mr Randis case) you will never find any decption,fraud etc etc
These people who have been tested by Randi and claim he dismissed or fixed it in someway or the conclusions though they hsould have passed and he classed it a fail etc etc couldnt they be looked into .....or is it becaus ethey are believers and Randi states they failed that is it..gpd has spoken as such.?

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

cheyanne71 said:

Do the rules state wemust all act like disciples following our messiah? If they do maybe i missed that.

Again I will post my opinion in whatever manner i see fit, if that offends someone tough, if I break the rules tough, If you dont want me on the forum then ban me, but lets stop with these petty warnings, as I think we both know they are a bunch of tosh.

I do have a low opinion of some people, but i do not know anyone on that forum well enough to have made such a judgement yet.
Many people on there will have a low opinion of me i am sure, and that is their right.
If someone is an idiot, then i will say so, as i would expect someone to say the same to me if thats what they think

Recognise the above words Jon! Your words, your thoughts. So why do you attack me for voicing my opinions. You seem to think your opinion should be stated AS YOU SEE FIT!

You were not voicing your opinions, you saw a chance to attack me, you took it, and you did not make any effort to further the discussion in any way.

I stand by the comments I made on the communist forum.

The reply you got to those words was:

If you are genuine in your quest for debate then please make your point without reference to your clearly low opinion of your fellow members. If you want your view to be taken seriously and discussed, then please offer it respectfully and without insult.

You obviously disagreed with the above so please can you tell me why my thoughts and opinion should be so vehemently attacked by you. Or do you change your mind like you change your socks!

I disagreed with the admin of the communist forum because they are arse licking noobs so desperate for Derek to like them and to be their friend it makes me sick.

They are being PAID to do a job, paid quite well too.
Dont forget that.

You seem only interested in insulting people.

Something you seem quite capable of elsewhere

Trust me what i said on the communist forum is not insults.
When i insult someone they bloody well know about it, those noobs would be insulted if someone looked at them.

Do i really need to go back over all of your posts since joining this forum to prove my point?

Yes

Attack me if you like Jon, but please don't be hypocritcal when you accuse me of attacking you when clearly you are quite capable and intent on doing the same thing yourself. Let's be fair AND honest here!

I stand by everything i say and write, how I act on other forums to be fair is nothing to do with this forum,

FACT, you add nothing to any conversation you join, you can only insult people, you do not have the intelligence to have a debate, only crawl up to people like kendra, hoping they will take you under their wing.

I may insult people, but i can also handle myself in ANY debate, i dont crawl to anyone.

Now unless you have anthing to add to the thread, i would advise you stop posting in it.

If you want to continue on your little quest to attack and insult me, then at least do it in a new thread so that the people on this thread dont have to read your vitriol

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

bujin said:

I don't want to tell Jon how to run his own forum, but can you guys please stop arguing or take it elsewhere? It's quite distracting!

Yes boss.
Will do.

Cheyenne, please attack me in a new thread as we are upsetting members here.

[abcde]

The problem with investigating skeptics is that will admit when they've been wrong so there's not likely to be much dirt to dig up.

This is this week's newsletter from Michael Sherner's skeptics society:

e-skeptic

They made an error last week and instead of attempting to cover it up or make excuses, they've admitted they were wrong and done so as publicly as they could.

One of the key aspects of skepticism is changing stance when new evidence comes to light. This is a good example of that.

[Mr. Jon Donnis]

The reason sceptics admit their mistakes is because they know that other sceptics will only expose them for lying, so better to be honest from the start.

[bujin]

kendra said:

These people who have been tested by Randi and claim he dismissed or fixed it in someway or the conclusions though they hsould have passed and he classed it a fail etc etc couldnt they be looked into .....or is it becaus ethey are believers and Randi states they failed that is it..gpd has spoken as such.?

This demonstrates a misunderstanding with the way the JREF tests work, which clearly states that there is no judging required. Tests are designed (in conjunction with the claimant) to produce either a positive or negative outcome whereby the result is obvious. If they fail the test, they fail. If they're not happy with how the test is set up, they don't even take part until they ARE happy with the negotiated rules of the test.

[lowrider]

abcde said:

lowrider said:

But the point is that it seems that if anyone dismisses of challenges Randi they are dismissed as " believer" or not worthy.

What I say to people who complain about the challenge being unfair (or whatever) is to offer suggestions as to how it could be improved.

The usual reply is silence.

Read that again please.
I never mentioned the challenge,i said challenged Randi

lowrider said:

You wouldn't be attacking a person there would you?


Yes. But with validity.

Here's a challenge. Go and read Rense.com and explain how the site is not completely bonkers. ;D

I've even seen articles on there titled (something like): My wife ran off with a bigfoot!!!

So,you still broke a rule you espouse to.
So it is ok to attack the " person" as long as you think so.
Gaps are starting to appear.

[abcde]

Actually, I ridiculed the website.

I'm not against ridiculing idiots - I just don't use Ad Hominems and insults in my argumentation.

There's a difference.

[lowrider]

abcde said:

Actually, I ridiculed the website.

I'm not against ridiculing idiots - I just don't use Ad Hominems and insults in my argumentation.

There's a difference.

So to ridicule someone or something is not an insult??
Ok,as long as you are happy,it don't gel with me.

[abcde]

There's no place for insult in argumentation but that doesn't mean I can't think some people are idiots!

[lowrider]

abcde said:

There's no place for insult in argumentation but that doesn't mean I can't think some people are idiots!

Like i said as long as you are happy,we can get back on topic.
Not worth the hassle of debating semantics.

[Me]

abcde said:

Actually, I ridiculed the website.

I'm not against ridiculing idiots - I just don't use Ad Hominems and insults in my argumentation.

There's a difference.

Inky go wash that mouth out with soap...

[Me]

lowrider said:

abcde said:

There's no place for insult in argumentation but that doesn't mean I can't think some people are idiots!

Like i said as long as you are happy,we can get back on topic.
Not worth the hassle of debating semantics.

;D..nice one