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 Today, 12:09 AM   #1321
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I think reasonable people who value democracy should speak out against social media mobs, and express that it is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to behave in such a way.
Which sums up as "those that don't agree with Emily's Cat view of what is good behaviour should shut up".
__________________
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, 12:12 AM   #1322
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
People are saying "cancel culture" doesn't really exist.

In 2016, they said "political correctness" doesn't really exist.

Donald Trump got elected because enough people understood that political correctness really did exist, and they didn't like it, and Trump was willing to stand up to it.

It was stupid to make that such a big part of their voting decision, to the point that they would elect a moron like Donald Trump, but they did it.

By contrast, Bill Clinton won the White House because he was willing to stand up to it, and not go along with the expected liberal attitude. It was a "Sister Soulja" moment, named because when asked about some violent rap lyrics about killing cops from the artist, Clinton condemned the lyrics instead of brushing them aside and championing downtrodden black people.

You can argue all day long about the significance of "cancel culture", and you can say that people who get caught saying anything at all racist ought to be fired, but I sure hope Joe Biden doesn't do that, because it's a sure fire way to get four more years of Donald Trump.
Of course political correctness exists, it was probably the rights most effective strawman ever.
__________________
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, 02:52 AM   #1323
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,217
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I think reasonable people who value democracy should speak out against social media mobs, and express that it is unsatisfactory and unacceptable to behave in such a way.
Agree 100%.

Either we establish as a norm that you don't try to silence people you disagree with by getting them fired, or we need legislation to protect workers' freedom of expression (which personally I am not opposed to, but economic libertarians might be - and at the moment it seems to be mainly libertarians speaking out against cancel culture).

Otherwise we may as well assume that full participation in democracy (which requires being able to discuss and put forward different ideological viewpoints without fear of anything other than expression of disagreement) is only for the rich and powerful.
Elaedith 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, 03:17 AM   #1324
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 812
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
For the last 2 years I have worked a lot with young adults (the under 20s), I can assure you even more far reaching changes will be coming, some which I know I will not like and feel uncomfortable about but that's tough for me.
What are some of those changes that you expect and know you won't like?
Thabiguy 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, 03:26 AM   #1325
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 90,190
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Which sums up as "those that don't agree with Emily's Cat view of what is good behaviour should shut up".
How is that different from saying "those that don't agree with the popular view should shut up"?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 03:51 AM   #1326
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,217
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How is that different from saying "those that don't agree with the popular view should shut up"?
I assumed that is what Darat is saying (that Emily Cat is basically telling people to shut up, as the social media mobs are). Of course that's just gaslighting. Speaking out against a behaviour or establishing a social norm against it is not the same as trying to get people fired or deplatformed for expressing an opinion.

Of course, under the 'paradox of tolerance', if somebody has participated in a social media mob that attempted to silence somebody else (when that person being silenced had not tried to silence anybody that way first), then doing the same to them (trying to silence the mob) would presumably be acceptable. That's if anybody actually believed in the paradox of tolerance, rather than trying to hide behind it.
Elaedith 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, 03:56 AM   #1327
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Agree 100%.

Either we establish as a norm that you don't try to silence people you disagree with by getting them fired, or we need legislation to protect workers' freedom of expression ...snip....

...snip...
Again you are like Emily's Cat (and I think it is unintentional for both of you) and are in effect saying "people who have views I don't subscribe to should be quiet".
__________________
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, 04:05 AM   #1328
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
I assumed that is what Darat is saying (that Emily Cat is basically telling people to shut up, as the social media mobs are). Of course that's just gaslighting. Speaking out against a behaviour or establishing a social norm against it is not the same as trying to get people fired or deplatformed for expressing an opinion.
Nope and nope.

What you are doing is 100% the same as those that you want to shut up, you want your standards to be the ones that are heard and want other views to shut up.


Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Of course, under the 'paradox of tolerance', if somebody has participated in a social media mob that attempted to silence somebody else (when that person being silenced had not tried to silence anybody that way first), then doing the same to them (trying to silence the mob) would presumably be acceptable. That's if anybody actually believed in the paradox of tolerance, rather than trying to hide behind it.
Nope - your views have nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance , you are simply being as intolerant as those people that you think should shut up are.

You both have views over how your freedom of expression should be used, you think it is fine to use it to oppose those you disagree with, they also think it is fine to use it to oppose those they disagree with.

All you are showing is that you don't believe in Hall's old adage "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

Your version is "I disapprove of what you say, so shut up".
__________________
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, 04:06 AM   #1329
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 90,190
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope - your views have nothing to do with the paradox of tolerance , you are simply being as intolerant as those people that you think should shut up are.
Isn't that also true of people who want to shut up racists?

If you think we're all the same, then what's the fuss all about?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 04:12 AM   #1330
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Isn't that also true of people who want to shut up racists?

If you think we're all the same, then what's the fuss all about?
Nope that is then the paradox of tolerance and we have another thread for that discussion. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=345388
__________________
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, 04:21 AM   #1331
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 90,190
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Nope that is then the paradox of tolerance and we have another thread for that discussion.
You posted it here. I'm asking you if you are A) pointing out hypocrisy on Emily's part or B) arguing that people shouldn't be told to shut up for their opinions.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

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


Belz... 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, 04:26 AM   #1332
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 812
I read an interesting article - not directly related to this thread's topic as such - about a recent pattern of populist politicians across the world getting elected and re-elected even in spite of their opponents leading in pre-election polls. It made me wonder:

If the stated intent of those advocating social retribution against public expression of ideas often held by (for example) Trump supporters is to make it unacceptable to voice such opinions in any kind of public venue, and if they are indeed successful in making a statistically significant portion of holders of those opinions feel unsafe about sharing them with others, wouldn't the logically expected consequence be a statistically significant skewing of the results of public opinion polls, making them less reliable as indicators and predictors?

And another thought: since people casting votes in voting booths are ultimately the ones deciding policies in democratic nations, would it be fair to make voting non-secret, so that these voters can face the consequences they deserve for upholding policies that directly affect the lives of others? And - much more importantly than just yes or no - why?
Thabiguy 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, 04:30 AM   #1333
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
I read an interesting article - not directly related to this thread's topic as such - about a recent pattern of populist politicians across the world getting elected and re-elected even in spite of their opponents leading in pre-election polls. It made me wonder:

If the stated intent of those advocating social retribution against public expression of ideas often held by (for example) Trump supporters is to make it unacceptable to voice such opinions in any kind of public venue, and if they are indeed successful in making a statistically significant portion of holders of those opinions feel unsafe about sharing them with others, wouldn't the logically expected consequence be a statistically significant skewing of the results of public opinion polls, making them less reliable as indicators and predictors?

And another thought: since people casting votes in voting booths are ultimately the ones deciding policies in democratic nations, would it be fair to make voting non-secret, so that these voters can face the consequences they deserve for upholding policies that directly affect the lives of others? And - much more importantly than just yes or no - why?
Interesting question - we've known for a long time about "shy" voters. (Over here it was the disparity between those that would admit to voting for Thatcher and the number that actually did.) But this would be something different, I bet there will be polling experts and academics that have looked into 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, 04:42 AM   #1334
Elaedith
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,217
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Again you are like Emily's Cat (and I think it is unintentional for both of you) and are in effect saying "people who have views I don't subscribe to should be quiet".
Fine. Thinking that everybody, including those whose views I don't subscribe to, should have equal rights to state their opinions without fear of being fired when their opinions have no relevance to their job performance, is intolerant.

I won't lose any sleep over your gaslighting.
Elaedith 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, 07:06 AM   #1335
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,509
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Fine. Thinking that everybody, including those whose views I don't subscribe to, should have equal rights to state their opinions without fear of being fired when their opinions have no relevance to their job performance, is intolerant.

I won't lose any sleep over your gaslighting.
No gaslighting, you should look up what it actually means.

And I am not in fact saying you are intolerant, if you took that from what I said then I didn't communicate my point very well.

I'll try again, a different way.

You want these "social mobs" (a label of convenience) to be quiet, to shut up, you want what they want for their targets.

This is not a false equivalence as all they are doing is exercising their freedom of expression - it is only "speech" that they are expressing - they have no authority to make anyone do anything or make a decision on the future of their target.

(Note: I hope that it is obvious the above does not apply to any illegal actions such as harassment, death threats and the like.)
__________________
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, 07:23 AM   #1336
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,697
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
I read an interesting article - not directly related to this thread's topic as such - about a recent pattern of populist politicians across the world getting elected and re-elected even in spite of their opponents leading in pre-election polls. It made me wonder:

If the stated intent of those advocating social retribution against public expression of ideas often held by (for example) Trump supporters is to make it unacceptable to voice such opinions in any kind of public venue, and if they are indeed successful in making a statistically significant portion of holders of those opinions feel unsafe about sharing them with others, wouldn't the logically expected consequence be a statistically significant skewing of the results of public opinion polls, making them less reliable as indicators and predictors?

And another thought: since people casting votes in voting booths are ultimately the ones deciding policies in democratic nations, would it be fair to make voting non-secret, so that these voters can face the consequences they deserve for upholding policies that directly affect the lives of others? And - much more importantly than just yes or no - why?
No, that's a terrible idea. Do you want your current or prospective future employers poking through your voting record?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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, 07:24 AM   #1337
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,297
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You want these "social mobs" (a label of convenience) to be quiet, to shut up, you want what they want for their targets.
I don't think the issue is with people articulating how they feel. Me saying "I disagree with you", or "I disagree with your ideas", is very different from me trying to identify your employer, family members, bank, advertisers etc and accusing them of supporting the most extreme version of whatever heresy I feel you've committed to try to pressurise you into not speaking.
shuttlt 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, 07:25 AM   #1338
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,053
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
If the stated intent of those advocating social retribution against public expression of ideas often held by (for example) Trump supporters is to make it unacceptable to voice such opinions in any kind of public venue, and if they are indeed successful in making a statistically significant portion of holders of those opinions feel unsafe about sharing them with others, wouldn't the logically expected consequence be a statistically significant skewing of the results of public opinion polls, making them less reliable as indicators and predictors?
Yes. And it happens. And we know it happens. It has been measured. Even more so is people who refuse to answer polls. There is a correlation between party affiliation and willingness to talk to pollsters. Simply put, right wingers are more likely to refuse to talk to pollsters than left wingers.

In the modern world, there's really no such thing as an old fashioned poll. So many people are unreachable by traditional methods that just calling a bunch of people and asking them how they'll vote is pretty useless. I know that if I don't recognize a number on my phone, I don't answer the phone. Polling today consists of mathematical models that use poll data as one input, and then adjust the final numbers based on a set of assumptions about who was willing to talk to them.

Quote:
And another thought: since people casting votes in voting booths are ultimately the ones deciding policies in democratic nations, would it be fair to make voting non-secret, so that these voters can face the consequences they deserve for upholding policies that directly affect the lives of others? And - much more importantly than just yes or no - why?
Dictators get re-elected overwhelmingly because ballots are not secret. If there are "consequences" for voting the wrong way, you have a dictatorship already.

As it turns out, though, voters do face the consequences of their vote. President Donald Trump is the consequence of a vote for Donald Trump. I hope that by November, enough people realize their mistake and correct it.
Meadmaker 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, 07:25 AM   #1339
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,748
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
People are saying "cancel culture" doesn't really exist.

In 2016, they said "political correctness" doesn't really exist.

Donald Trump got elected because enough people understood that political correctness really did exist, and they didn't like it, and Trump was willing to stand up to it.

It was stupid to make that such a big part of their voting decision, to the point that they would elect a moron like Donald Trump, but they did it.

By contrast, Bill Clinton won the White House because he was willing to stand up to it, and not go along with the expected liberal attitude. It was a "Sister Soulja" moment, named because when asked about some violent rap lyrics about killing cops from the artist, Clinton condemned the lyrics instead of brushing them aside and championing downtrodden black people.

You can argue all day long about the significance of "cancel culture", and you can say that people who get caught saying anything at all racist ought to be fired, but I sure hope Joe Biden doesn't do that, because it's a sure fire way to get four more years of Donald Trump.
The problem is not it isn't so-called *cancelled culture* is not defined. It'st's right-wing gibberish.
Mumbles 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, 07:31 AM   #1340
Distracted1
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 4,389
Originally Posted by Thabiguy View Post
I read an interesting article - not directly related to this thread's topic as such - about a recent pattern of populist politicians across the world getting elected and re-elected even in spite of their opponents leading in pre-election polls. It made me wonder:

If the stated intent of those advocating social retribution against public expression of ideas often held by (for example) Trump supporters is to make it unacceptable to voice such opinions in any kind of public venue, and if they are indeed successful in making a statistically significant portion of holders of those opinions feel unsafe about sharing them with others, wouldn't the logically expected consequence be a statistically significant skewing of the results of public opinion polls, making them less reliable as indicators and predictors?

And another thought: since people casting votes in voting booths are ultimately the ones deciding policies in democratic nations, would it be fair to make voting non-secret, so that these voters can face the consequences they deserve for upholding policies that directly affect the lives of others? And - much more importantly than just yes or no - why?
I would be interested in looking at that.
Any idea where it was?, Keywords in the title I might search for?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 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, 07:34 AM   #1341
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,053
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
The problem is not it isn't so-called *cancelled culture* is not defined. It'st's right-wing gibberish.
It's true that there isn't a firm, verifiable definition of "cancel culture".

It's also true that high school seniors are being denied college admissions based on the content of their tweets.

We can argue all day long about the semantics of what to call that phenomenon, but saying that it's not defined won't make the phenomenon go away. Most people don't like it, and they vote. And, the fact that an awful lot of people disagree with the fact that most people don't like it gets to the second part of the thread title, which is "echo chambers". If you think that most people are on board with punishing people in that way, get out of your bubble.

Last edited by Meadmaker; Today at 07:35 AM.
Meadmaker 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, 07:56 AM   #1342
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,437
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
I don't think the issue is with people articulating how they feel. Me saying "I disagree with you", or "I disagree with your ideas", is very different from me trying to identify your employer, family members, bank, advertisers etc and accusing them of supporting the most extreme version of whatever heresy I feel you've committed to try to pressurise you into not speaking.

Succinct and to the heart of the matter. Well said.
Joe Random 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, 09:29 AM   #1343
Garb
Muse
 
Garb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 976
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
People are saying "cancel culture" doesn't really exist.

In 2016, they said "political correctness" doesn't really exist.
This is a weird comparison since the term "political correctness" has existed for decades, now.
__________________
When I changed to my new computer, I was worried about info on the old computer being used for identity theft and such. Folks said: "Just yank the hard drive" and somesuch.

But I blew up the apartment. Only way to be safe.
-kookbreaker
Garb 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, 09:32 AM   #1344
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by Garb View Post
This is a weird comparison since the term "political correctness" has existed for decades, now.
Because "Political Correctness" is still the best way for Right Wingers to try and sell the idea that "Oh my God you're expecting me to be nice and respectful of people!" is some wild crazy idea that makes them the victim in the interaction.

And this is coming from someone who thinks a good solid 3/4ths of Political Correctness does land on the spectrum between rather silly and totally silly, but what it isn't is sinister.
__________________
- I don't know how to tell you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people
JoeMorgue 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, 10:14 AM   #1345
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 49,147
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It's true that there isn't a firm, verifiable definition of "cancel culture".
Just look at how it is used, it is cancel culture when the left decides to boycott some manufacturer for being racist/homophobic, but not when they are upset about them being pro queer or black.

See Ted Cruiz's reaction to the Goya boycott, and his support of the Nike one.

Quote:
It's also true that high school seniors are being denied college admissions based on the content of their tweets.
Yea that is only supposed to happen for being aggressively queer. Getting kicked out of school for that kind of unchristian behavior at a christian school is of course not cancel culture because as it is built on double standards the hypocrisy is expected.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; Today at 10:15 AM.
ponderingturtle 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, 10:22 AM   #1346
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 22,053
Originally Posted by Garb View Post
This is a weird comparison since the term "political correctness" has existed for decades, now.
Of course it has.

And Darat says it's still a strawman.

And maybe it is, and yet some people still get fired when they say that men fall in love with women at work, and some people pull down statues of George Washington, and some people get fired for things they wrote in 30 year old articles.....and the list goes on and on. It's a straw man. It doesn't exist. It's an invention of the right wing.

And Donald Trump is president.
Meadmaker 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
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 10:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.