|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
 Posted - 03/06/2005 : 21:00:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
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.
Never change a rule after you did a mistake in order to hide your mistake. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 23:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Another credulous poster who thinks he is spoken in name of the SFN (like a “holy skeptic church”) without any evidence.
Please do have a look at the SFN-staff page. Being a member of the staff qualifies me as more than just a credulous poster.
Although absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, the silence on your behalf speaks volumes. This last half year, I haven't read any post that is on your side in this conflict. Everyone seems mostly indifferent.
quote:
This in an open forum for lurkers and potential donors of the JREF that has the right to know about the scandal happened at the JREF with the donator's money.
Yes, and you've had the opportunity to present your evidence.
Now, rest your case and don't get upset when people don't believe you.
quote:
They will decide.
Indeed they will.
Obviously, those that agree with you here on SFN have chosen to remain silent about it. And that's their prerogative. Don't blame us regular posters for that.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 00:56:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Never change a rule after you did a mistake in order to hide your mistake.
If it was within the rules, then the rules were flawed and needed to be improved upon, which appears to have been exactly the case.
I must ask; why should you care? Did you have a dog in that fight? Was any of the money in question yours? Did MoeFaux turn you down? What?
And are you now becoming concerned about SFN's capital, such as it might be? And if so, why?
I honestly don't understand this narrow fixation of yours, or indeed, why you chose to bring it here. Even if we all agreed with you, what could we do about it, apart from clogging up the 'net with more pointless bitching, of course?
Damn 'Jarl, go buy yourself an SFN tee shirt, take a big dose of your favorite, legal intoxicant, and then, as you say, relax!
Oh, and give up the crack pipe, eh? That is some evil shit and it is very bad for you.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 05:47:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
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.
But they are not beyond reproach, which is definitely how it is in church. No arguments are, which is very unlike a church. Again, there are no holy cows who cannot be criticized. There are people who earn respect because of their efforts, but there are no holy cows.
And how do SFN and a church have the same goals. I go to a dancing association were people are trying to become good dancers? Is that like a church also? Is that like the SFN also? Why, why not?
quote:
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.
Dodging the question again? How many people agree with you or your ilk there Latinijral. Come on, cough up.
quote:
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?
No stars are sacred in skepticism, Randi included. Randi has been criticized by members of the skeptics community. As I said earlier, people can be respected for their efforts (and that way become 'stars'), but noone is sacred. But you are again not answering the question. I asked you what it is all about? Your answer: "anything". That is not an answer Latinijral. So I'll ask again, what is it all about for you?
quote:
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?
They don't have to share my opinion. The rules were changed to reflect actual practic. If actual practice and rules conflict, you can do two things. Either you can change the rules to reflect the practice, or you can change the practice to reflect the rules, depending on the circumstances. In this case, the rules were changed to reflect the practice. They are clear now, where they weren't before. Some people disagreed with that, others did not. At present, if you want to donate money, you know the rules, and you know the rules reflect the practice. So trust is enhanced. Some people disagreed with the new rules, so they stopped donating. That has nothing to do with whether I would want to donate based on the current rules. |
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 - 03/07/2005 : 06:27:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Please do have a look at the SFN-staff page. Being a member of the staff qualifies me as more than just a credulous poster.
I will wait for your money donation to the SFN as you claimed.
That will convert you a complete credulous member. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 06:36:05 [Permalink]
|
| Just as you're credulous of the so-called new skepticism that not even you know what is. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 07:11:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80.
But they are not beyond reproach, which is definitely how it is in church. No arguments are, which is very unlike a church. Again, there are no holy cows who cannot be criticized. There are people who earn respect because of their efforts, but there are no holy cows.
Are you aware of how many religious people criticize their own church and their leaders?
Have you read religious history for a while? Do you need examples?
No ,this is not exclusive from a skeptick organization as you claimed.
Call them holy cows ,stars ,amazing or genius. Metaphorically is the same shit.
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80.
They don't have to share my opinion. The rules were changed to reflect actual practic. (snip)
So trust is enhanced. Some people disagreed with the new rules, so they stopped donating. That has nothing to do with whether I would want to donate based on the current rules.
They stopped donating because the rules were changed to hide and “justify” the scholarship scandal.
And the JREF scandal was full of questions without answers.
When they questioned the JREF , they were insulted.
Yes ,they don't share your opinion.
Then you can not ever speak in name of the skeptic society….again.
|
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 07:19:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80.
But they are not beyond reproach, which is definitely how it is in church. No arguments are, which is very unlike a church. Again, there are no holy cows who cannot be criticized. There are people who earn respect because of their efforts, but there are no holy cows.
Are you aware of how many religious people criticize their own church and their leaders?
Have you read religious history for a while? Do you need examples?
No ,this is not exclusive from a skeptick organization as you claimed.
Call them holy cows ,stars ,amazing or genius. Metaphorically is the same shit.
No.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80.
They don't have to share my opinion. The rules were changed to reflect actual practic. (snip)
So trust is enhanced. Some people disagreed with the new rules, so they stopped donating. That has nothing to do with whether I would want to donate based on the current rules.
They stopped donating because the rules were changed to hide and “justify” the scholarship scandal.
And the JREF scandal was full of questions without answers.
When they questioned the JREF , they were insulted.
Yes ,they don't share your opinion.
Then you can not ever speak in name of the skeptic society….again.
I never did. Any chance of answering the questions you dodged? |
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 - 03/07/2005 : 07:28:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80.
But they are not beyond reproach, which is definitely how it is in church. No arguments are, which is very unlike a church. Again, there are no holy cows who cannot be criticized. There are people who earn respect because of their efforts, but there are no holy cows.
Are you aware of how many religious people criticize their own church and their leaders?
Have you read religious history for a while? Do you need examples?
No ,this is not exclusive from a skeptick organization as you claimed.
Call them holy cows ,stars ,amazing or genius. Metaphorically is the same shit.
No.
No what?
Afraid to elaborate?
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80.
They don't have to share my opinion. The rules were changed to reflect actual practic. (snip)
So trust is enhanced. Some people disagreed with the new rules, so they stopped donating. That has nothing to do with whether I would want to donate based on the current rules.
They stopped donating because the rules were changed to hide and “justify” the scholarship scandal.
And the JREF scandal was full of questions without answers.
When they questioned the JREF , they were insulted.
Yes ,they don't share your opinion.
Then you can not ever speak in name of the skeptic society….again.
I never did. Any chance of answering the questions you dodged?
Yes you did, pinochio. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 07:38:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
No what?
Afraid to elaborate?
Not afraid, your just not worth the trouble.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I never did. Any chance of answering the questions you dodged?
Yes you did, pinochio.
[/quote]
I already said that I should have worded that differently, so no, I didn't. However, given the responses here, concluding that the skeptic community at large doesn't give a shit seemed pretty accurate. As of yet, you have not provided anything to conclude the contrary. |
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- |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 09:49:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
I will wait for your money donation to the SFN as you claimed.
And you really believe I or anyone else will tell you when it happens? If so, why?
quote:
That will convert you a complete credulous member.
No it won't, but for the sake of argument, please explain why it should. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/07/2005 09:59:07 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2005 : 13:40:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
They stopped donating because the rules were changed to hide and “justify” the scholarship scandal.
That's your interpretation of what happened. My interpretation is different.
quote:
And the JREF scandal was full of questions without answers.
You think so. I disagree. Actually, I don't care. In my not-so-humble opinion you're just wasting bandwidth here.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 07:25:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Mabuse.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Originally posted by latinijral
They stopped donating because the rules were changed to hide and “justify” the scholarship scandal.
That's your interpretation of what happened. My interpretation is different.
Mine was supported with evidence : the quotes of the JREF donators who stopped donating when the JREF scholarship scandal was revealed …by a donator.
And your interpretation is? Silence and fear to put it on?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
And the JREF scandal was full of questions without answers.
You think so. I disagree. Actually, I don't care. In my not-so-humble opinion you're just wasting bandwidth here.
Disagree because of what?
If you don't care, what are you doing here crying defending your sacred cows of skepticism?
|
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 - 03/08/2005 : 08:42:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Mine was supported with evidence : the quotes of the JREF donators who stopped donating when the JREF scholarship scandal was revealed …by a donator.
Oh? Was there a quote from someone who specifically said they wouldn't donate anymore because the "rules" (weren't which rules) were "changed to hide and 'justify' the scholarship scandal"? If so, I missed it. Please post those specific quotes again.quote:
Originally posted by Dave.
No, it was Dr. Mabuse again. Please try to keep attribution correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2005 : 10:29:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Dr.Mabuse.
That's your interpretation of what happened. My interpretation is different.
Mine was supported with evidence : the quotes of the JREF donators who stopped donating when the JREF scholarship scandal was revealed …by a donator.
Your conclusion is based on your interpretation of the evidence.
My conclusion is based on my interpretation of evidence not necessarily the same evidence you use.
Your conclusion is obviously coloured by the fact that you feel betrayed by JREF, it's staff, and it's community. Wake up and smell it: I don't give a shit you don't like it. Just don't dump it here.
My conclusion about the happenings regarding JREF and Randi is not coloured any way, because I barely knew anything about neither JREF nor Randi before you started ranting about it. My opinion of you on the other hand has become very coloured since you came here several months ago: You have acted insulting, and condescending toward people here. You have managed to alienate all regular posters at SFN this far, and I dislike your attitude.
Proclaim to the world that Randi is our sacred cow. It will be a lie, and none will believe you once you start ranting about him.
quote:
And your interpretation is?
I've already told you several times in this thread. I can't help that you're so stubbornly thickheaded that you refuse to understand what I'm saying to you.
Let me rephrase and iterate it again: The evidence does not support criminal act of the behalf of JREF. Your (and the "retired" donors) interpretation is coloured by personal emotions that makes you draw the wrong conclusions about what really happened.
quote:
Silence and fear to put it on?
What are you implying? Spell it out!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
And the JREF scandal was full of questions without answers.
You think so. I disagree. Actually, I don't care. In my not-so-humble opinion you're just wasting bandwidth here.
Disagree because of what?
I disagree because I can not see there is an issue.
I disagree that there was any JREF scandal, and I disagree that there were many questions without answers. There were plenty of answers, you just ignored them, or asked the wrong questions.
quote:
If you don't care, what are you doing here crying defending your sacred cows of skepticism?
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/08/2005 10:32:56 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
