ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Yesterday, 09:56 AM   #241
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,650
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That the UK has a special rule suggests a special problem with UKians.
How so?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:57 AM   #242
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,788
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Presumably people are much the same everywhere. But not every jurisdiction that has jury trials also has this kind of prohibition on reporting. That the UK has a special rule suggests a special problem with UKians.

If you don't trust a UKian juror to filter out Tommy Robinson, why would you trust them to render a sensible verdict at all? Why would you want them to have that responsibility?
The second paragraph doesn't follow from the first.

You do know the real reason, which is that English legal system tries to avoid prejudicing trials and if there are two simultaneous trials, it's only just for each group of jurors to arrive at their decisions independently of each other. One doesn't want to have a mistrial simply because reporting restrictions were lifted early and the defence in the second trial could claim their jury was influenced by the verdicts in the first trial.

This is very basic stuff, which I'm sure you understand if you want to.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:09 AM   #243
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,788
Meanwhile - Newsthump
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:16 PM   #244
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Oh, for crissake. Tommy's cleaned up his act because he wants to run for Parliament, I feel.
Do try and keep up, I gave the details of his delving into politics earlier.

Quote:
Please hand-wave away this little performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j7I...ature=youtu.be

"Every single Muslim watching this... on 7/7 you got away with killing and maiming British citizens... you had better understand that we have built a network from one end of the country to the other end... and the Islamic community will feel the full force of the English Defence League if we see any of our British citizens killed, maimed, or hurt on British soil ever again."
Again proactively ascribing an outcome right out of your arse. It's tiresome and I won't play your stupid little game other than to say you look ******* stupid with this tactic.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:48 PM   #245
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,213
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That the UK has a special rule suggests a special problem with UKians.
Now you are going to have to explain your reasoning here because you somehow managed to come to an incredibly unsound conclusion.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:01 PM   #246
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The second paragraph doesn't follow from the first.

You do know the real reason, which is that English legal system tries to avoid prejudicing trials and if there are two simultaneous trials, it's only just for each group of jurors to arrive at their decisions independently of each other. One doesn't want to have a mistrial simply because reporting restrictions were lifted early and the defence in the second trial could claim their jury was influenced by the verdicts in the first trial.

This is very basic stuff, which I'm sure you understand if you want to.
I don't see a problem. In the US, civil trials follow criminal trials all the time, without having difficulty about the jury being influenced by the preceding verdict.

And again, it comes back to the same question: If you can't trust a UKian juror to disagree with other verdicts and make up their own mind based on the evidence presented in their own trial, then why would you want them to have the responsibility of jury duty at all?

Last edited by theprestige; Yesterday at 02:06 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:05 PM   #247
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Now you are going to have to explain your reasoning here because you somehow managed to come to an incredibly unsound conclusion.
I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer, but I'll try.

One makes a rule to address a problem.

A universal problem is likely to have a universal rule.

When the rule is not universal, but rather specific ("special") to a particular circumstance, it suggests that there is something about that specific circumstance that is problematic.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:22 AM   #248
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,684
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Presumably people are much the same everywhere. But not every jurisdiction that has jury trials also has this kind of prohibition on reporting. That the UK has a special rule suggests a special problem with UKians.

If you don't trust a UKian juror to filter out Tommy Robinson, why would you trust them to render a sensible verdict at all? Why would you want them to have that responsibility?
No it suggests no such thing.
It suggests we take the idea of jury neutrality seriously, and realise the trouble that can be caused by external influences polluting a trial.

Unlike, say, the US where trials seem to be treated more as entertainment.

See?
I can spout ignorant bollocks as well...
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:14 AM   #249
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,256
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
You are getting yourself rather muddled. It was not an appeal to popularity, it was a conclusion based on empirical evidence.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:19 AM   #250
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,256
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
No it suggests no such thing.

It suggests we take the idea of jury neutrality seriously, and realise the trouble that can be caused by external influences polluting a trial.



Unlike, say, the US where trials seem to be treated more as entertainment.



See?

I can spout ignorant bollocks as well...
Also given the shenanigans in jury selection in the USA one would say they also have a problem but choose not to do anything about it...
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:56 AM   #251
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,376
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Opinion in the pub is divided but leans slightly (by numbers) towards Tommy being the next Prime Minister.
Have you considered finding a new watering hole?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:59 AM   #252
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not where I should be.
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Have you considered finding a new watering hole?
That's an interesting response to a strawpoll. Care to elaborate?
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:31 AM   #253
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,166
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Have you considered finding a new watering hole?
I frequent 3 or 4 pubs around the town. It's pretty much pro Brexit and pro Tommy plus Boris for PM in all of them.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:40 AM   #254
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Yup, we totally buy that.
Who's "we"? Local troll farm?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:47 AM   #255
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,813
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
I frequent 3 or 4 pubs around the town. It's pretty much pro Brexit and pro Tommy plus Boris for PM in all of them.
Which town? We might well be decamping back to the UK before long and would like to avoid this town of yours
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:47 AM   #256
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,621
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
An inability to differentiate between a bigoted, racist, thuggish, pondscum advocate for making the lives of innocent people worse and a person laughing at a bigoted, racist, thuggish, pondscum advocate for making the lives of innocent people worse getting his comeuppance in an ironic way.
Not all things that feel good are good things. Look at sugar.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:53 AM   #257
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,788
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Which town? We might well be decamping back to the UK before long and would like to avoid this town of yours
I seem to recall Captain_Swoop is a smoggy.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:01 AM   #258
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Not all things that feel good are good things. Look at sugar.
Sugar is a good thing, though.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:07 AM   #259
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,166
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Which town? We might well be decamping back to the UK before long and would like to avoid this town of yours
Any pub in any town. It's pretty much across the board in my experience.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:10 AM   #260
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,166
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I seem to recall Captain_Swoop is a smoggy.
No, I live on the edge of the North Yorkshire Moors, not on Teesside.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:14 AM   #261
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,213
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A universal problem is likely to have a universal rule.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the same kind of problems are tackled in many different and sometimes incredibly dissimilar ways. In fact sometimes people choose to not do something about problems, no matter how obvious and acute they are.

Quote:
When the rule is not universal, but rather specific ("special") to a particular circumstance, it suggests that there is something about that specific circumstance that is problematic.
Historical legal, cultural and political practices, customs and experiences heavily factors in the eventual shape of political structures, legal systems and of how their laws are written and interpreted.

That is more often than not the main reason for why different countries have different laws, not because the actual circumstances are somehow significantly different.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:32 AM   #262
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Meanwhile, in the real world, the same kind of problems are tackled in many different and sometimes incredibly dissimilar ways. In fact sometimes people choose to not do something about problems, no matter how obvious and acute they are.



Historical legal, cultural and political practices, customs and experiences heavily factors in the eventual shape of political structures, legal systems and of how their laws are written and interpreted.

That is more often than not the main reason for why different countries have different laws, not because the actual circumstances are somehow significantly different.
Fair enough.

I still think it's an interesting question, though. If you can't trust jurors to make up their own minds, why entrust them with jury duty at all?

Your reference to historical factors suggests an argument based on tradition and Chesterton's Fence. This is a perfectly cromulent opinion, but also a very conservative one.

On a related note, *is* there an obvious and acute problem with jury pool contamination in the UK? Or I guess, *would there be*, if not for this rule?

Even in the US, the issue of juror contamination comes up. Usually it's handled through the change of venue process, but I'm dubious that this actually solves it in most cases. I think it probably made more sense when news was local, communities were smaller, and separating the jurors from the lynch mob could be difficult.

The US is generally more wary of media blackouts than the UK, I think. I don't think a US judge could prohibit private citizens from talking about publicly available details of a court case. At most, he could sanction someone for making confidential information public. It would be up to the lawyers in the case to argue that the public information had tainted the jury. Remedies for that would be a mistrial and retrial with new jury, or a change of venue.

---

I've long speculated that many institutional differences between the US and the UK have to do with the fact that the UK is an island (more or less), and much more densely populated than the US. So I figure a lot of the "nanny state" type stuff that seems to go on there is actually a form of social "control rod" that has evolved because social stability in the UK depends much more on going along to get along than it does in the US.

So some stuff that Americans are willing to put up with, in the service of individual freedom and with the luxury of more elbow room, UKians crack down on, in the service of maintaining social order on an island.

But that is all just speculation on my part. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with a national chauvinist argument that UKians are just better people, or something. And that would be a fair retort, come to think of it, given how I started this sidebar. Carry on!
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:33 AM   #263
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,650
Weirdly the idea of sequestering juries, putting them up in hotels and keeping them from media input seems to happen much more in the US than it does in the UK (where it is more or less unheard of).

Guess there must be a particular problem with Americans on juries.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:57 AM   #264
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,213
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Weirdly the idea of sequestering juries, putting them up in hotels and keeping them from media input seems to happen much more in the US than it does in the UK (where it is more or less unheard of).

Guess there must be a particular problem with Americans on juries.
It suggests that American's can't handle juries.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 10:59 AM   #265
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Weirdly the idea of sequestering juries, putting them up in hotels and keeping them from media input seems to happen much more in the US than it does in the UK (where it is more or less unheard of).

Guess there must be a particular problem with Americans on juries.
Well, it suggests there might be a problem. Even I wouldn't go so far as to say there must be.

But you're right: Jury sequestration seems to be the more idiomatically "American" approach to the common problem. This is probably my national chauvnism showing, but I think it's probably the better approach. Sequestering the jury is a much more narrow solution than trying to silence literally everyone else.

I suppose in the UK, it's much more likely that citizens will agree to such muzzling, in the service of maintaining collective order. In the US, you'd end up getting a lot more individualistic push-back about such an approach.

I'm not sure either solution really works, though. Information is global, and access to information is ubiquitous. If there's something out there that might "contaminate" the jury, it's probably reasonable to assume it has done so, and that you'll just have to deal with it.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:41 AM   #266
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,820
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Fair enough.

I still think it's an interesting question, though. If you can't trust jurors to make up their own minds, why entrust them with jury duty at all?

Your reference to historical factors suggests an argument based on tradition and Chesterton's Fence. This is a perfectly cromulent opinion, but also a very conservative one.

On a related note, *is* there an obvious and acute problem with jury pool contamination in the UK? Or I guess, *would there be*, if not for this rule?

Even in the US, the issue of juror contamination comes up. Usually it's handled through the change of venue process, but I'm dubious that this actually solves it in most cases. I think it probably made more sense when news was local, communities were smaller, and separating the jurors from the lynch mob could be difficult.

The US is generally more wary of media blackouts than the UK, I think. I don't think a US judge could prohibit private citizens from talking about publicly available details of a court case. At most, he could sanction someone for making confidential information public. It would be up to the lawyers in the case to argue that the public information had tainted the jury. Remedies for that would be a mistrial and retrial with new jury, or a change of venue.

---

I've long speculated that many institutional differences between the US and the UK have to do with the fact that the UK is an island (more or less), and much more densely populated than the US. So I figure a lot of the "nanny state" type stuff that seems to go on there is actually a form of social "control rod" that has evolved because social stability in the UK depends much more on going along to get along than it does in the US.

So some stuff that Americans are willing to put up with, in the service of individual freedom and with the luxury of more elbow room, UKians crack down on, in the service of maintaining social order on an island.

But that is all just speculation on my part. I'm sure someone will be along shortly with a national chauvinist argument that UKians are just better people, or something. And that would be a fair retort, come to think of it, given how I started this sidebar. Carry on!
Court hearings - aside from Family Courts, which are often conducted in secret for privacy towards children - are public in the UK. Any member of the public can walk in and sit in on any hearing going on.

The grooming case is very unusual in that there is not normally a news blackout, although sometimes the names of a co-defendant may be suppressed if he is yet to stand trial. Previous convictions are also kept secret until after the verdict and before sentencing.


In a sense I don't see why the grooming case should have been kept secret. It only encourages the likes of Y-L to agitate.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:10 PM   #267
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,675
Part of it for me is that the approach of "this information shouldn't have gotten out, and so now everyone has to pretend they don't know it and can't talk about it, and we'll criminalize anyone who doesn't play along" seems weird.

I always thought it was one of the better parts of the American culture that we will absolutely prosecute someone who leaks confidential information, but will also tolerate those who publicize the information once it has been leaked. I'm speaking specifically about espionage and state secrets here, which is not strictly analogous, but I think the principle is informative.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:17 PM   #268
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,650
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I suppose in the UK, it's much more likely that citizens will agree to such muzzling, in the service of maintaining collective order. In the US, you'd end up getting a lot more individualistic push-back about such an approach.
I can't say I've noticed much push-back on the sequestration of juries over there. Perhaps you can point it out to me.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.