How to debunk a skeptic. - Page 3

dlorde · 16th June 2009, 04:17 AM

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?

rjh01 · 16th June 2009, 05:11 AM

dlorde. You forgot the link

www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page2.htm
or for the full works (save $7)
www.psicounsel.com/wwudebunk.html

dlorde · 16th June 2009, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

dlorde. You forgot the link

Sorry, I was actually reading the SkepticReport rebuttal analysis of Wu's article.

The Man · 16th June 2009, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by dlorde

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?

mR/hr (mystical Rationalizations per hour)

George 152 · 16th June 2009, 05:19 PM

Radioactive ghosts?
Might account for the ghostly images on those 'haunted house' photos

Danton · 16th June 2009, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by dlorde

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?

The problem is even more basic than their units of measure: geiger counters can't measure electrical activity. If Wu is using "electrical activity" as "ionizing radiation" (which could possibly work, as Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, but it would be a stretch), he is mistaken or betting on his audience's lack of knowledge.

LinzeeBinzee · 6th August 2009, 10:55 AM

Phew I'm glad there's a thread about this here! I have a blog and I made a post about SCEPCOP awhile back...they recently found it and a bunch of them have started making massive comments on it, so many LINKS!!! They even made a thread about me on their forum, which I was stupid enough to join...it's exhausting reading the threads there so I have no desire to go back.

Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???

I think there are rules about posting links here, but the blog post in question is called something like "SCEPCOP...A Steaming Pile of Kookiness", so if you googled that it would probably come up...if you're curious...but the comments are a pain in the ass to read so you might want to just not lol

rjh01 · 6th August 2009, 03:41 PM

http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress...-of-kookiness/
I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there.

Edit. One link is about an alleged error made by Randi about 9 years ago. If they have to go back that far to find an error made by Randi he cannot make many mistakes! A load of these people think that to get legitimacy they must get past Randi. Yet there are many other alternatives, which they ignore. This shows how weak they are.

Safe-Keeper · 6th August 2009, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???

Debate by verbosity. Throw an overwhelming amount of reading material at your opponent and demand he goes through it, because otherwise he doesn't understand the topic. Creationists do it by writing long (and I mean long) papers, other dubious individuals across the Web do it by spamming links and book titles.

Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address.

Quote:

I magic missile the darkness!

It is pitch-black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

LinzeeBinzee · 6th August 2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress...-of-kookiness/
I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there.

lol that's more than I did...I had already lost enough IQ points by browsing his site

LinzeeBinzee · 6th August 2009, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address.

I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...

rjh01 · 6th August 2009, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by LinzeeBinzee

I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...

No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments.

How to counter such posts
1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong.
2, Show that it is wrong.
3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2.
4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one.

Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post.

For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it.

You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.

LinzeeBinzee · 6th August 2009, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments.

How to counter such posts
1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong.
2, Show that it is wrong.
3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2.
4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one.

Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post.

For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it.

You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.

Good advice...there's just one problem...I'll actually have to read his 10 page post!

^^^see how short I kept it?

rjh01 · 6th August 2009, 08:37 PM

Great. I forgot to say that if you have a short post, make sure it is right. You only need to skim the 10 page post, looking for something you know you can verify as false easily. Once found...

leafman91 · 7th August 2009, 01:40 AM

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

LinzeeBinzee · 7th August 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by leafman91

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

Yeah but if you actually read what they say on their website about what a pseudoskeptic is, they're criticizing the wrong people.

Ok there's a thing blinking here saying I have a PM or a notification but I can't click on it...anyone know the problem?

Rocko · 8th August 2009, 05:43 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I think if someone wants to make an absurd claim such as claiming they have been living off water and no food for several years, they should be able to provide some evidence before taking up the MDC. They could lock themselves up in a clear box with just water (like a David Blaine stunt) and provide something more than a ridiculous claim to enter the challenge. I mean, honestly.

It seems to me that one wouldn't need Randi or the MDC to prove they didn't need food. It is absurd and yes, some claims actually are absurd.

I think the reason given for not getting involved in the water experiment was safety; going without water is such an obviously dangerous thing to do that testing the claim is quite potentially lethal.

asmodean · 8th August 2009, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

If you report yourself maybe a nice Mod will change the spelling error in the thread title.

Ho hum. More Zammit. What a horrid cluttered website.

Ahm, Victor Dammit slår till igen...

kookbreaker · 8th August 2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by leafman91

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

No. They do not really have a point. The accusation of 'pseudo-skepticism' to actual cases of PS ranks at about 1000 to 1. Believers, woos, and credophiles have been crying "pseudo-skeptic!!!!!" at every scrap of criticism leveled at them for ages. The credibility bank has been run dry by the overuse of the term.

Is there pseudo-skepticism in the world? Certainly! But it is rarely found where the believers think they have found it. PS is rarely seen in organized skeptic groups, or online skeptical forums. Its domain is usually elsewhere.

For this batch, the cry of pseudo-skepticism is nothing but the cry of ones whose arguments are found to be bankrupt and rather than admit any defeat on any grounds they simply try to find a way to demonize those who point out their failings.

LightningStrike · 9th August 2009, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about?

It must be a paranormal page.

rjh01 · 9th August 2009, 04:44 AM

I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings.

The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here.

KingMerv00 · 9th August 2009, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings.

The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here.

He tried to spam Swift with that link today. He got blocked or banned or whatever.

NoZed Avenger · 10th August 2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by leafman91

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

Except they use a reasonable-sounding starting point to try and support points completely unrelated to it.

Wu started his screed on usenet; I saw his posts and links in sci.skeptic a bit. A number of people went over his list and the errors on them, but he would simply repeat the same talking points (cutting and pasting) without any real engagement. He got the term originally from Dan Kettler, IIRC, a psychic who wanted to criticize the Randi challenge (there were 2-3 psychics active and making similar argument, so I won't say it was DK for sure). Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.

EHocking · 10th August 2009, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

...Wu in sci.skeptic...Dan Kettler... Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.

That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody.

I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...

NoZed Avenger · 10th August 2009, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody.

I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...

Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?

EHocking · 10th August 2009, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger

Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?

ah, but are you an inglorious one with a poor spellchecker?

rjh01 · 10th August 2009, 03:23 PM

Did Vinstonas Wu ever come here? I know he went to several other forums. Why not this one? Or did he get banned? But I cannot see his name in pubic notices.

billydkid · 10th August 2009, 05:09 PM

Typical crock of crap. Even paranormal as a concept makes no sense. It is meaningless.

hokie · 10th August 2009, 07:21 PM

I checked out the SCEPCOP site. It's a great site to l earn how not to lay out an argument. It mixes issues instead of separating them. The best has to be where their so-called rebuttals do not address the issues they are rebutting.

16th June 2009, 04:17 AM	#81
dlorde Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,863	In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area." Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?
dlorde Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,863

16th June 2009, 05:11 AM	#82
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,861	dlorde. You forgot the link www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page2.htm or for the full works (save $7) www.psicounsel.com/wwudebunk.html
	Last edited by rjh01; 16th June 2009 at 05:19 AM. Reason: links

16th June 2009, 07:57 AM	#83
dlorde Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,863	Originally Posted by rjh01 dlorde. You forgot the link Sorry, I was actually reading the SkepticReport rebuttal analysis of Wu's article.
dlorde Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,863

16th June 2009, 04:56 PM	#84
The Man Unbanned zombie poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY Posts: 18,195	Originally Posted by dlorde In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area." Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in? mR/hr (mystical Rationalizations per hour)
	__________________ BRAINZZZZZZZZ

16th June 2009, 05:19 PM	#85
George 152 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012	Radioactive ghosts? Might account for the ghostly images on those 'haunted house' photos
George 152 Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 5,012

16th June 2009, 05:27 PM	#86
Danton Student Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 29	Originally Posted by dlorde In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area." Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in? The problem is even more basic than their units of measure: geiger counters can't measure electrical activity. If Wu is using "electrical activity" as "ionizing radiation" (which could possibly work, as Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, but it would be a stretch), he is mistaken or betting on his audience's lack of knowledge.
Danton Student Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 29

6th August 2009, 10:55 AM	#87
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17	Phew I'm glad there's a thread about this here! I have a blog and I made a post about SCEPCOP awhile back...they recently found it and a bunch of them have started making massive comments on it, so many LINKS!!! They even made a thread about me on their forum, which I was stupid enough to join...it's exhausting reading the threads there so I have no desire to go back. Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this??? I think there are rules about posting links here, but the blog post in question is called something like "SCEPCOP...A Steaming Pile of Kookiness", so if you googled that it would probably come up...if you're curious...but the comments are a pain in the ass to read so you might want to just not lol
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17

6th August 2009, 03:41 PM	#88
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,861	http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress...-of-kookiness/ I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there. Edit. One link is about an alleged error made by Randi about 9 years ago. If they have to go back that far to find an error made by Randi he cannot make many mistakes! A load of these people think that to get legitimacy they must get past Randi. Yet there are many other alternatives, which they ignore. This shows how weak they are.
	Last edited by rjh01; 6th August 2009 at 03:54 PM.

6th August 2009, 03:47 PM	#89
Safe-Keeper Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 10,415	Quote: Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this??? Debate by verbosity. Throw an overwhelming amount of reading material at your opponent and demand he goes through it, because otherwise he doesn't understand the topic. Creationists do it by writing long (and I mean long) papers, other dubious individuals across the Web do it by spamming links and book titles. Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address. Quote: I magic missile the darkness! It is pitch-black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
	__________________ "He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs "If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig

6th August 2009, 03:51 PM	#90
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17	Originally Posted by rjh01 http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress...-of-kookiness/ I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there. lol that's more than I did...I had already lost enough IQ points by browsing his site
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17

6th August 2009, 03:53 PM	#91
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address. I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17

6th August 2009, 06:09 PM	#92
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,861	Originally Posted by LinzeeBinzee I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter... No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments. How to counter such posts 1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong. 2, Show that it is wrong. 3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2. 4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one. Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post. For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it. You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.

6th August 2009, 08:10 PM	#93
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17	Originally Posted by rjh01 No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments. How to counter such posts 1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong. 2, Show that it is wrong. 3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2. 4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one. Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post. For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it. You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum. Good advice...there's just one problem...I'll actually have to read his 10 page post! ^^^see how short I kept it?
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17

6th August 2009, 08:37 PM	#94
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,861	Great. I forgot to say that if you have a short post, make sure it is right. You only need to skim the 10 page post, looking for something you know you can verify as false easily. Once found...

7th August 2009, 01:40 AM	#95
leafman91 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 379	To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.
	__________________ 'Fish pay attention to the moon?'- The Chemical Brothers

7th August 2009, 09:34 AM	#96
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17	Originally Posted by leafman91 To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics. Yeah but if you actually read what they say on their website about what a pseudoskeptic is, they're criticizing the wrong people. Ok there's a thing blinking here saying I have a PM or a notification but I can't click on it...anyone know the problem?
LinzeeBinzee New Blood Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 17

8th August 2009, 05:43 AM	#97
Rocko Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 227	Originally Posted by skeptigirl I think if someone wants to make an absurd claim such as claiming they have been living off water and no food for several years, they should be able to provide some evidence before taking up the MDC. They could lock themselves up in a clear box with just water (like a David Blaine stunt) and provide something more than a ridiculous claim to enter the challenge. I mean, honestly. It seems to me that one wouldn't need Randi or the MDC to prove they didn't need food. It is absurd and yes, some claims actually are absurd. I think the reason given for not getting involved in the water experiment was safety; going without water is such an obviously dangerous thing to do that testing the claim is quite potentially lethal.
Rocko Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 227

8th August 2009, 09:46 AM	#98
asmodean Turing Complete Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 797	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz If you report yourself maybe a nice Mod will change the spelling error in the thread title. Ho hum. More Zammit. What a horrid cluttered website. Ahm, Victor Dammit slår till igen...
asmodean Turing Complete Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 797	__________________ "C code. C code run. Run code, run ... Please?" Most Christians treat the Bible like a software license. They don’t actually read it, they just scroll to the bottom and click, ” I agree.”

8th August 2009, 07:22 PM	#99
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,648	Originally Posted by leafman91 To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics. No. They do not really have a point. The accusation of 'pseudo-skepticism' to actual cases of PS ranks at about 1000 to 1. Believers, woos, and credophiles have been crying "pseudo-skeptic!!!!!" at every scrap of criticism leveled at them for ages. The credibility bank has been run dry by the overuse of the term. Is there pseudo-skepticism in the world? Certainly! But it is rarely found where the believers think they have found it. PS is rarely seen in organized skeptic groups, or online skeptical forums. Its domain is usually elsewhere. For this batch, the cry of pseudo-skepticism is nothing but the cry of ones whose arguments are found to be bankrupt and rather than admit any defeat on any grounds they simply try to find a way to demonize those who point out their failings.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <-

9th August 2009, 03:51 AM	#100
LightningStrike Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 177	Originally Posted by Cavemonster I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about? It must be a paranormal page.
LightningStrike Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 177

9th August 2009, 04:44 AM	#101
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,861	I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings. The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here. Put your tin foil hat on. Warning. Stand by to lose 20 IQ points. This thread is bad. It makes "makes no coherent sense." (Eteponge) http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...&sd=a&start=10
	Last edited by rjh01; 9th August 2009 at 04:46 AM.

9th August 2009, 02:14 PM	#102
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 14,459	Originally Posted by rjh01 I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings. The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here. Put your tin foil hat on. Warning. Stand by to lose 20 IQ points. This thread is bad. It makes "makes no coherent sense." (Eteponge) http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...&sd=a&start=10 He tried to spam Swift with that link today. He got blocked or banned or whatever.

10th August 2009, 07:59 AM	#103
NoZed Avenger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,286	Originally Posted by leafman91 To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics. Except they use a reasonable-sounding starting point to try and support points completely unrelated to it. Wu started his screed on usenet; I saw his posts and links in sci.skeptic a bit. A number of people went over his list and the errors on them, but he would simply repeat the same talking points (cutting and pasting) without any real engagement. He got the term originally from Dan Kettler, IIRC, a psychic who wanted to criticize the Randi challenge (there were 2-3 psychics active and making similar argument, so I won't say it was DK for sure). Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.

10th August 2009, 02:45 PM	#104
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger ...Wu in sci.skeptic...Dan Kettler... Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements. That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody. I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite

10th August 2009, 03:18 PM	#105
NoZed Avenger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11,286	Originally Posted by EHocking That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody. I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity... Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?

10th August 2009, 03:22 PM	#106
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard? ah, but are you an inglorious one with a poor spellchecker?
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,592	__________________ Vote like you’re poor. A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite

10th August 2009, 03:23 PM	#107
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,861	Did Vinstonas Wu ever come here? I know he went to several other forums. Why not this one? Or did he get banned? But I cannot see his name in pubic notices.

10th August 2009, 05:09 PM	#108
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,917	Typical crock of crap. Even paranormal as a concept makes no sense. It is meaningless.
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,917	__________________ Wasting away in Blanchester.

10th August 2009, 07:21 PM	#109
hokie Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 119	I checked out the SCEPCOP site. It's a great site to l earn how not to lay out an argument. It mixes issues instead of separating them. The best has to be where their so-called rebuttals do not address the issues they are rebutting.
hokie Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 119