View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

another question

Introduce yourself here!

another question

Postby challenger88 » 07 Sep 2009, 09:54

Has Victor Zammit responded to this http://www.randi.org/jr/112301.html talking about his challenge ?
Has John Benneth responded to this http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/benneth.htm ?

Have you guys on this site responded and refuted everyone who tried to refute this site and all your claims?

Do you refute the claims found on this site
http://www.thetrickbusters.com/ and http://www.thetrickbusters.com/node/32 ?

One more things this page claimed to have rebutted one of this sites essays found here
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008 ... uttal.html ? Do you refute these people?
Last edited by challenger88 on 11 Sep 2009, 08:51, edited 4 times in total.
challenger88
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 07 Sep 2009, 09:34






Re: website question

Postby ciscop » 07 Sep 2009, 10:55

google winston wu
get ready for what you will find
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: website question

Postby Scepcop » 10 Sep 2009, 02:32

ciscop wrote:google winston wu
get ready for what you will find


Dude, don't recommend him to view a hate site about me run by a total loser who is a proven criminal hacker, to get some info about me. My God. What kind of a recommendation is that? It's best to refer him to the biography about me that I wrote, not to some slander site.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: website question

Postby Scepcop » 10 Sep 2009, 02:41

challenger88 wrote:This my first time on the site. I see it was created by Vinstonas Wu. I have a couple questions for the people who are running the site. What are all your backgrounds? For example what are things you have studied about the paranormal? Are you guys even qualified into answering skeptics? Do you really refute all the skeptics claims and prove the paranormal exists?
I have a question just for Winston Wu. What have you studied? What do you do for a living?


Hi there, why do you ask these questions? What is your aim? Do I need professional qualifications to create a site or coalition like this? A man should be judged by his actions and output and a website should be judged by its content, not in how many Ph D's I have to my name. Sheesh. Lots of great things start out from people with nothing but vision and determination. So what's your point? Is this a cheap attempt to discredit?

I have many years of experience debating skeptics, lots of knowledge on the paranormal, great debating skills, and vision and determination. Plus I've gotten the endorsement of reputable scientists and authors, like Charles Tart and Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson. What more do you need?

Besides, who is considered an authority or expert in the paranormal? And are those figures respected by Randi and the pseudo-skeptics? No of course not.

On the home page, at the bottom, you can see a list of qualifications of the SCEPCOP Committee. That will answer your questions about the backgrounds and credentials. One of course, as you can see, is a Nobel Prize Winner.

What makes the skeptics qualified in debunking the paranormal? Perhaps that is a better question. Michael Shermer for instance, uses tired arguments that are easy to debunk. So what makes him a media expert skeptic that the History Channel often consults? He's not smarter than anyone else here. You should be asking that.

If you want evidence, a lot of it is mentioned here:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/evidence.php

Also read the book "Entangled Minds" and "End of Materialism" recommended on the home page. All this info is out there in the public, if you're interested in it. I can refer you, but I can't read them for you.

In college, I studied Business Administration. But my talents are in philosophy and writing. For a living, I do a variety of things.

I don't think there is any valid purpose in these questions.

Remember that change happens from people with determination and vision who are able to inspire others, not from people with Ph D's.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: website question

Postby sunset » 10 Sep 2009, 06:51

What makes the skeptics qualified in debunking the paranormal? Perhaps that is a better question. Michael Shermer for instance, uses tired arguments that are easy to debunk. So what makes him a media expert skeptic that the History Channel often consults? He's not smarter than anyone else here. You should be asking that.



"I couldnt have put it better myself "
sunset
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 15 Aug 2009, 22:38

Re: another question

Postby soldiergirl » 10 Sep 2009, 21:04

Scecop,

Seriously you need to read up on SAEDA, TS/SCI, OPSEC, and NDA before posting junk from supposed classified materials. I think the irresponsibility you show in posting some of the stuff you post as fact is what leads people to ask about your credentials. It is fine to not have any credentials but at least be responsible and research articles before posting them as fact. You can still post them but don't post them with a heading stating 100% proof cause it just brings down your own credebility when you do that, and in my eyes and probably many others, places you barely a rung above Professor and highflyertoo. To give just 1 example of many is the one about Bob Lazer.
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40

Re: another question

Postby Scepcop » 10 Sep 2009, 22:51

challenger88 wrote:Has Victor Zammit responded to this http://www.randi.org/jr/112301.html talking about his challenge?

Have you guys on this site responded and refuted everyone who tried to refute this site and all your claims?

Do you refute the claims found on this site
http://www.thetrickbusters.com/ and http://www.thetrickbusters.com/node/32 ?

One more things this page claimed to have rebutted one of this sites essays found here
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008 ... uttal.html ? Do you refute these people?


Dude, um, if you have a new set of questions, why do you put them in your original post and erase your original questions, instead of adding them in a new reply post? That is not proper forum etiquette.

Again, asking us to respond to a whole website or webpage is too broad a question. If you have a specific point you want me to address, bring that up. It's unrealistic to post a whole site and ask me to respond to it, which would take hours. Why would I do that for some anonymous dude like you with less than truth seeking intentions?

Do you think Hollywood celebrities respond to all the millions of attacks and criticisms about them on the internet? Hell no! No one has that kind of time.

FYI, I've responded to many pseudoskeptic arguments already. All I've gotten back was ridicule and denial.

Question for you: Have you or any other pseudoskeptics responded to the fallacies I outlined in the left sidebar links on the home page?

Nope!

PS - The skeptico blog about me is locked, so I can't respond to it anyway or post on it. Besides, how do you expect me to respond to hundreds of ridiculing comments with no substance or valid points in them? To do so would get into a pissing contest. Why would you want me to sink that low? Illogical.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: another question

Postby Scepcop » 10 Sep 2009, 22:56

soldiergirl wrote:Scecop,

Seriously you need to read up on SAEDA, TS/SCI, OPSEC, and NDA before posting junk from supposed classified materials. I think the irresponsibility you show in posting some of the stuff you post as fact is what leads people to ask about your credentials. It is fine to not have any credentials but at least be responsible and research articles before posting them as fact. You can still post them but don't post them with a heading stating 100% proof cause it just brings down your own credebility when you do that, and in my eyes and probably many others, places you barely a rung above Professor and highflyertoo. To give just 1 example of many is the one about Bob Lazer.


What are you referring to exactly? Most of the things I post are for you to consider only. If I say that something is proof, then try to disprove it. Usually you pseudoskeptics can't, so you just ignore it. The ball has been in your court for years. There are too many things you can't explain. Next time be more specific in what you're referring to please, otherwise this discussion is moot.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: another question

Postby Eteponge » 11 Sep 2009, 02:19

challenger88 wrote:Do you refute the claims found on this site
http://www.thetrickbusters.com/ and http://www.thetrickbusters.com/node/32 ?

When the website says, "But there is ALWAYS a simple and rational explanation for apparent extraordinary events", that's the problem. Because there are actually many exceptional cases where ALL of the simple and rational explanations have been thoroughly considered and simply don't match the facts at all.

While there ARE many such cases where people are naive and gullible and jump to supernatural conclusions without checking the simple and rational explanations, there are likewise a number of excellent cases where these have been checked and considered and discounted due to the facts and circumstances of the cases examined.

They are making sweeping generalizations about all cases as a whole, just because cases exist where people have been gullible and naive and didn't check for simple and rational explanations. Basically it boils down to, "If some cases got it wrong, ALL cases got it wrong!" "If some things are bullshit, EVERYTHING is bullshit!" Which is a bit silly. You have to go on a case by case basis.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: another question

Postby soldiergirl » 11 Sep 2009, 05:54

Scecop,

Okay again I point out your Bob Lazer topic or the Topic about Bin Laden being a CIA agent. One last time are you familiar with SAEDA, OPSEC, TS/SCI, NDA's, and being read on? If not then should you really comment on what is clasified material?
soldiergirl
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 08 Sep 2009, 13:40


Return to Introduce Yourself

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron