|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:11:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Originally posted by latinijral
The JREF is a skeptic organisation that is part of the skeptic society.
If something happened ( internal affair) with donators money ,then it should be known in other sceptics organizations …….like this one.
And we have listened, examined the arguments you have submitted.
Our conclusion (and there seems to be consensus among SFN about this since none has spoken up on your side) has been: We don't care what happened at JREF.
Now, realise that anything further from your part only serves to make us think of you as a raving loonie. For the sake of SFN, and your image and mental health, please move on.
Another credulous poster who thinks he is spoken in name of the SFN (like a “holy skeptic church”) without any evidence.
This in an open forum for lurkers and potential donators of the JREF that has the right to know about the scandal happened at the JREF with the donator's money.
They will decide.
If you feel piss off because I brought the topic , then make your money be a “good example” to your “dudes”. Donate to the JREF.
So I'll ask again. Why should any of us care for a 'scandal' (if it ever was such) regarding unclear guidelines which were subsequently clarified? You still haven't provided any reason (as well as any support for your allegations, but let's not venture there again). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:13:34 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. By latinijral's reasoning then, we should all be stalking @tomic. 
'Jarl, this passed the ridiculous some time ago and has now gone even beyond the asinine. If you have a beef with Randi, why the hell don't you take it up with him? Me, I don't care and I rather doubt if anyone else here gives a necrotic rat's ass about this so-called 'scandel,' either. If scandel indeed, it is.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:20:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Originally posted by latinijral
The JREF is a skeptic organisation that is part of the skeptic society.
If something happened ( internal affair) with donators money ,then it should be known in other sceptics organizations …….like this one.
And we have listened, examined the arguments you have submitted.
Our conclusion (and there seems to be consensus among SFN about this since none has spoken up on your side) has been: We don't care what happened at JREF.
Now, realise that anything further from your part only serves to make us think of you as a raving loonie. For the sake of SFN, and your image and mental health, please move on.
Another credulous poster who thinks he is spoken in name of the SFN (like a “holy skeptic church”) without any evidence.
This in an open forum for lurkers and potential donators of the JREF that has the right to know about the scandal happened at the JREF with the donator's money.
They will decide.
If you feel piss off because I brought the topic , then make your money be a “good example” to your “dudes”. Donate to the JREF.
So I'll ask again. Why should any of us care for a 'scandal' (if it ever was such) regarding unclear guidelines which were subsequently clarified? You still haven't provided any reason (as well as any support for your allegations, but let's not venture there again).
Did you post my reply to you?
It was with your nick on.
Read it.
There are the reasons.Page 12 , before my DR mabuse reply. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:29:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
latinijral:
This in an open forum for lurkers and potential donators of the JREF that has the right to know about the scandal happened at the JREF with the donator's money.
They will decide.
It is not, however, an open forum to post unsupported claims and to do that in a most belligerent way. We are not here to serve any members need to spread rumor and innuendo. We are not obligated to indulge your obsessions. You have been allowed to do that because we have let you. We have been much more gracious to you as hosts than you have been to us. You may, if you persist in your quest to redefine our mission, become the first person ever banned from our boards. Consider this warning number two. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:31:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Did you post my reply to you?
It was with your nick on.
Read it.
There are the reasons.Page 12 , before my DR mabuse reply.
I asked, already some pages ago, why anyone would care about the 'scandal' if subsequently the rules were clarified. As of yet, you have provided no answer. Page 12, no answer there either. So I'll ask again, if there was a scandal concerning the rules of a scholarship and subsequently the rules were clarified, why should anyone care (other than giving more trust in the JREF, that is).
And another thing you still haven't answered, why especially should anyone who is not donating money to the JREF care, more specifically members of SFN? Are you going to cough up some real answers anywhere soon?
Also, I'm still waiting (and with me some others here) on the answer to the question what the 'new skepticism' exactly is and what makes you the father of it. Come on, cough up the answer already, we've asked for it often enough. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:41:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Did you post my reply to you?
It was with your nick on.
Read it.
There are the reasons.Page 12 , before my DR mabuse reply.
I asked, already some pages ago, why anyone would care about the 'scandal' if subsequently the rules were clarified. As of yet, you have provided no answer. Page 12, no answer there either. So I'll ask again, if there was a scandal concerning the rules of a scholarship and subsequently the rules were clarified, why should anyone care (other than giving more trust in the JREF, that is).
And another thing you still haven't answered, why especially should anyone who is not donating money to the JREF care, more specifically members of SFN? Are you going to cough up some real answers anywhere soon?
Also, I'm still waiting (and with me some others here) on the answer to the question what the 'new skepticism' exactly is and what makes you the father of it. Come on, cough up the answer already, we've asked for it often enough.
The SFN is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
The JREF is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
It is a collective like a church.
When a large number of people are calling themselves skeptics it does not mean they ARE skeptics. It is just a pseudo skepticism.
When YOU wrote this : “The skeptic society doesn't care one bit, since this is just a JREF internal affair”, YOU pretended to speak in the name of the skeptic society.You are making the same mistake as Dr.Mabuse
Next time just show your particular opinion and don't do the same mistakes pseudo skepticks do so often.
If both ( SFN and JREF )are central structures with a large number of people trying and pretending to be skeptics, they should know about the mistakes they did, in order to don't make the same mistakes.
The JREF rules where NOT clarified, The rules where CHANGED after the scandal in order to justify their mistake.
JREF Donators where the one who protested about it.
Those donators where insulted.
The most the scandal is known , the most the future JREF potential donators can take their choise.
SFN can help on this.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:47:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And we have listened, examined the arguments you have submitted.
Our conclusion (and there seems to be consensus among SFN about this since none has spoken up on your side) has been: We don't care what happened at JREF.
Now, realise that anything further from your part only serves to make us think of you as a raving loonie. For the sake of SFN, and your image and mental health, please move on.
Another credulous poster who thinks he is spoken in name of the SFN (like a “holy skeptic church”) without any evidence.
This in an open forum for lurkers and potential donators of the JREF that has the right to know about the scandal happened at the JREF with the donator's money.
They will decide.
If you feel piss off because I brought the topic , then make your money be a “good example” to your “dudes”. Donate to the JREF.(emphasis added)
Actually, latinijral, the assertion that Mab is speaking "in name of the SFN . . . without any evidence" is slightly incorrect. Note his argument: "there seems to be consensus among SFN about this since none has spoken up on your side."
His "evidence" is that no one here has posted a defense of your claims. Indeed, it's quite the contrary: every post made in regards to your allegations have been skeptical (I'm not sure if it's old or new...) of your claims and challenged them.
Moreover, as a moderator, Mab participates in private discussions with the administrators of the site. None of them have expressed support for you or have noted that others support you.
In light of this, it is not difficult to conclude that Mab is right-- at least tentatively. Of course, the aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" holds true. But thus far, it's a pretty compelling case-- unless there is a barrage of posts supporting your claims, it's hard to imagine a conlcusion other than the one Mab has drawn: that indeed, SFN does not care about what happened at JREF.
Relax. Son.
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:56:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
The SFN is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
The JREF is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
It is a collective like a church.
When a large number of people are calling themselves skeptics it does not mean they ARE skeptics. It is just a pseudo skepticism.
Which does not answer my question in any way. In fact, your rambling here is totally irrelevant to my questions.
quote:
When YOU wrote this : “The skeptic society doesn't care one bit, since this is just a JREF internal affair”, YOU pretended to speak in the name of the skeptic society.You are making the same mistake as Dr.Mabuse
Next time just show your particular opinion and don't do the same mistakes pseudo skepticks do so often.
I should have expressed myself differently, yes. But seeing as noone on the threads you have started here supports you, and seeing that there were very few who supported your allegations on the JREF-forum and on other places, my conclusion that the skeptic community doesn't care much is very supportable.
quote:
If both ( SFN and JREF )are central structures with a large number of people trying and pretending to be skeptics, they should know about the mistakes they did, in order to don't make the same mistakes.
Since SFN does not give out grants to people, how is this mistake relevant?
quote:
The JREF rules where NOT clarified, The rules where CHANGED after the scandal in order to justify their mistake.
JREF Donators where the one who protested about it.
Those donators where insulted.
The most the scandal is known , the most the future JREF potential donators can take their choise.
SFN can help on this.
Clarified or changed, they reflect clearly how people will receive scholarships now. So people can already make that decision without your unsupported rants. So again, why should people care? And why should SFN care? The reasons you give are not sufficient in any way. If anything, they're nonsense.
And again, what makes you the father of the new skepticism and what is 'new skepticism' anyway. Give me some good reasons for a change. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 03/06/2005 15:57:31 |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 16:37:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
The SFN is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
The JREF is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
It is a collective like a church.
When a large number of people are calling themselves skeptics it does not mean they ARE skeptics. It is just a pseudo skepticism.
Which does not answer my question in any way. In fact, your rambling here is totally irrelevant to my questions.
When you tried to put this as a fact :” I would posit that there is indeed a skeptic society. A large number of people trying to be skeptics. However, that all it is. It is not a collective like a church with a central structure. It is just a large number of people calling themselves skeptics. “
It is a relevant to your wrong previous argument
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
When YOU wrote this : “The skeptic society doesn't care one bit, since this is just a JREF internal affair”, YOU pretended to speak in the name of the skeptic society.You are making the same mistake as Dr.Mabuse
Next time just show your particular opinion and don't do the same mistakes pseudo skepticks do so often.
I should have expressed myself differently, yes. But seeing as noone on the threads you have started here supports you, and seeing that there were very few who supported your allegations on the JREF-forum and on other places, my conclusion that the skeptic community doesn't care much is very supportable.
Yes , you should expressed yourself differently.
If the skeptic community doesn't care so much as you empathize, the JREF scholarship scandal would not be discussed in other alternative skeptics forums.
At least they are five of them. Then your assumption is wrong
I only participated in two ( counting THIS one that was not aware of the JREF scandal)
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
If both ( SFN and JREF )are central structures with a large number of people trying and pretending to be skeptics, they should know about the mistakes they did, in order to don't make the same mistakes.
Since SFN does not give out grants to people, how is this mistake relevant?
Are you speaking again in name of the SFN?
It is not only about grants. You know that.
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 16:56:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
The SFN is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
The JREF is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
It is a collective like a church.
When a large number of people are calling themselves skeptics it does not mean they ARE skeptics. It is just a pseudo skepticism.
Which does not answer my question in any way. In fact, your rambling here is totally irrelevant to my questions.
When you tried to put this as a fact :” I would posit that there is indeed a skeptic society. A large number of people trying to be skeptics. However, that all it is. It is not a collective like a church with a central structure. It is just a large number of people calling themselves skeptics. “
It is a relevant to your wrong previous argument
First, I posited a statement, I was not trying to put it as fact. Learn the difference. I'd say that my wording was clear enough. If I would have tried to put it as fact, I would have said that it was a fact.
So how is my statement wrong? Where is the central structure? The SFN is not a centrally regulated society with people telling others what to believe. It in no way resembles a church or congregation. The same for the JREF or any other skeptic forum I've been on. There are no holy cows in skepticism.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
When YOU wrote this : “The skeptic society doesn't care one bit, since this is just a JREF internal affair”, YOU pretended to speak in the name of the skeptic society.You are making the same mistake as Dr.Mabuse
Next time just show your particular opinion and don't do the same mistakes pseudo skepticks do so often.
I should have expressed myself differently, yes. But seeing as noone on the threads you have started here supports you, and seeing that there were very few who supported your allegations on the JREF-forum and on other places, my conclusion that the skeptic community doesn't care much is very supportable.
Yes , you should expressed yourself differently.
If the skeptic community doesn't care so much as you empathize, the JREF scholarship scandal would not be discussed in other alternative skeptics forums.
At least they are five of them. Then your assumption is wrong
I only participated in two ( counting THIS one that was not aware of the JREF scandal)
So how many people agree with you there?
q |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 17:50:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Are you speaking again in name of the SFN?
It is not only about grants. You know that.
Speaking officially for the SFN, I can tell you that the SFN does not offer scholarships, or educational awards, nor does the SFN have any internship programs. Only four people have ever donated money to the SFN, and three of them are on the staff here.
With that in mind, how would it be possible for the SFN to make any of the mistakes the JREF has (granting for argument's sake that the JREF has made mistakes)? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 20:17:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
First, I posited a statement, I was not trying to put it as fact. Learn the difference. I'd say that my wording was clear enough. If I would have tried to put it as fact, I would have said that it was a fact.
So how is my statement wrong? Where is the central structure? The SFN is not a centrally regulated society with people telling others what to believe. It in no way resembles a church or congregation. The same for the JREF or any other skeptic forum I've been on. There are no holy cows in skepticism.
The SFN is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
The JREF is a central structure where a large number of people are trying and pretending to be sceptics.
Both are a collective like a church.
Both have the same goals.
How do you prefer to call the holy cows?
“Amazing” or “stars”.
Was Dave the one who called someone the “star of skepticism”?Hmmmmm.
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
So how many people agree with you there?
You have to question yourself if the whole skeptic society agreed with you as you claimed before.
Find yourself the reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
No, I'm asking a question. I know SFN doesn't give out grants or scholarships. That is clear enough from the site.
So what is this all about Latinijral? The only thing you've brought to the table are the scholarships, nothing else. So what's it about then? The 'new' skepticism? From what you have written on this forum, that is centered entirely on the JREF scholarships. People asking you what it is all about get no answer from you. What is it all about then Latinijral?
It can be the scholarship ,the million dollar challenge , or whatever any point involved to any skeptic/psedo skeptic/true believer organization..
Or do you prefer something else in order that your “stars” keep on be sacred?
quote:
Originally posted by Tomk80
Very little for the current situation. If I am considering donating to the JREF, I can see what the current rules are and how they will be enforced. Seeing that there was something to do about it in the past, these rules will probably be upheld. So I have no reason not to give them money. Again, if your ramblings here would amount to anything, it would be an enhanced trust in the regulations.
Your opinion was not shared by the JREF donators who stopped donating money when they were aware of the JREF scholarship scandal.
Or do you consider yourself “more” skeptick than them?
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 20:18:05 [Permalink]
|
Latin, I have just spoken with a man name Bob Hendrickson, he does in fact speak for the entire skeptic society. He has stated for the record that the entire skeptic society wants you to shut the fuck up and go away.
Take care and get some counseling.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 20:31:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
[br Only four people have ever donated money to the SFN, and three of them are on the staff here.
With that in mind, how would it be possible for the SFN to make any of the mistakes the JREF has (granting for argument's sake that the JREF has made mistakes)?
You have now a new potential donator : DR.MABUSE.
He will do it ,before he donates to the JREF.
Do you have any rules here?
Did you ever apply them? |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 20:45:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
You have now a new potential donator : DR.MABUSE.
He will do it ,before he donates to the JREF.
Dr. Mabuse already donates his time to us by moderating chats. That's much more important that a financial donation.
But this is beside your point, which is that we shouldn't make the same mistakes as the JREF. I asked you how it would be possible for us to make the same mistakes as they did. You failed to answer me. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
