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

RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Discuss General Topics.

RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Scepcop » 16 Aug 2009, 01:25

Gee, don't these sound like open minded unbiased objective rational people you would love to get into a debate or discussion with? (sarcastic tone) Glad they noticed us though and deemed us interesting enough to do an entry on us.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/SCEPCOP

SCEPCOP

The Scientific Committee Exposing Pseudo-Skeptical Cynicism of the Paranormal, or "SCEPCOP",[1] is a website created by "Vinstonas Wu" to help champion every crazy idea which lacks any corroborative evidence whatsoever. It is the woo and crank answer to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), formerly known as the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).[2] The heart of the site seems to be based around a screed written by Wu in 2001 that purports to show why standard skeptical arguments against the paranormal are wrong [3]. Apparently not one to shy away from self-promotion, most of the site is a shrine to how wonderful the document is and how it is the single greatest thing to happen to the anti-reality movement since hallucinogenic drugs.

The mythic antagonist the site fights against is the pseudoskeptic, which it seems to define as anyone who doesn't believe personal testimony, anecdotal evidence, and white noise equate to proof of everything paranormal. The site also features a forum that seems to be the home for everyone kicked off James Randi's forum. The main topic appears to be how much James Randi sucks and how soon can they kick out any "skeptics" that show up.

It appears that there are only sixteen regular users of the SCEPCOP forum [4].

[edit]External links

The anti-skeptic website in question

[edit]Footnotes

↑ Wow, at least they rule in writing backronyms!
↑ These morons are, at least, very good at coming up with backronyms, we note once again.
↑ Debunking the Arguments of Pseudo-Skeptics and Debunkers
↑ [1]

Categories: Woo-meisters | Bullshit | Batshit crazy
“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: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Aug 2009, 02:05

That is <ahem> quite a review there Winston.

Did Bigfoot piss in their proverbial Cheerios? LOL.

It appears that there are only sixteen regular users of the SCEPCOP forum.


Now there's a loaded sentence if I've ever seen one. (bold is mine)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby The Warrigal » 16 Aug 2009, 02:18

There are but a mere 81 registered members of this site of which only 16 are reputed to be regular contributors.

And such an insignificant spot in the vast world of cyberspace draws THIS ammount of vitriol?

Sweetly ignored by the author/s of this rant is the fact that some of the most prolific posters here are die hard sceptics!

Well.....I have to hand it to you Scepcop......you sure know how to piss people off! ;)
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby brett » 16 Aug 2009, 02:43

proud to be a member of the site :D - that pisses sooooooooooo many off - oh well it give the PsKeptics something to debate for months on Their sites - and from past experience on the battleground of skeptics UK - they will do this ad nauseum :lol: :lol:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Purple Scissor » 16 Aug 2009, 04:48

LOL. From the looks of it, Rationalwiki has only a few regular users itself. However, RatW is set up to ridicule, and it is very open about this. We cannot condemn them for being what they are. They are more a comedy site than serious work, although once in a while you see a serious article. They make no effort to hide their twisting of facts or downright incorrect statements.

Here is WikiSynergy's page on RationalWiki: http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Rationalwiki

Rationalwiki's page on WikiSynergy: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/WikiSynergy

Oh, I do not think they are pissed off at us. They love us, really, because they know they cannot exist without anything to work on. That is what they say at WikiSynergy. Those editors have also helped a lot at WikiSynergy technically, and they have also contributed some good material.

SCEPCOP: We Piss Skeptics Off.

Make a nice banner.
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby tmtoulouse » 16 Aug 2009, 05:53

I am amused that you assume anyone that offers criticism must be "pissed off at you." It is very telling about your own psychology.

There seems to be a bit too much focus on the criticism leveled at you about your lack of size. You are a tiny site, there is no denying that, but notability is not really a criteria for articles at our site. You make up for your lack of impact and size by your potential for interesting material, though I think we might disagree on why it is interesting :).
tmtoulouse
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 13:54

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Purple Scissor » 16 Aug 2009, 12:34

Maybe we are just happy to make a splash. But Rationalwiki is unusually good-natured about its ()skepticism. Normally such a mention would have meant we pissed someone off.
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Scepcop » 16 Aug 2009, 14:19

tmtoulouse wrote:I am amused that you assume anyone that offers criticism must be "pissed off at you." It is very telling about your own psychology.

There seems to be a bit too much focus on the criticism leveled at you about your lack of size. You are a tiny site, there is no denying that, but notability is not really a criteria for articles at our site. You make up for your lack of impact and size by your potential for interesting material, though I think we might disagree on why it is interesting :).


What's the point of making fun of this site's size? You have to take into account that this site started a little over two months ago, so it's a NEW site. RationalWiki has been around much longer. It takes time for a site to grow, and we've grown much faster than the average site does. If you were positive and saw the glass as half full, you'd appreciate that.
“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: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Eteponge » 16 Aug 2009, 14:39

The main topic appears to be how much James Randi sucks and how soon can they kick out any "skeptics" that show up.

Gee, that's funny. I haven't banned or silenced a single Skeptic yet! And I am fairly friendly with those who do show up and post. I've sent warning to both sides, but haven't banned any Skeptics yet.

The only person I've banned was a "believer" who spammed very disturbing and very incoherent stuff and refused to stop.
"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: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby tmtoulouse » 16 Aug 2009, 15:31

As far as the size of the site, I don't think it is particularly noteworthy, though that one line in the article seemed to be zeroed in by those commenting here. Which I found interesting, and a bit defensive.

And looking at the active topics, while you may not be banning skeptics you sure do talk a lot about various convoluted "tests" you want to use to vet them, and polls about whether to even allow any here at all. It is a hot topic as hot topics around here go.
tmtoulouse
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 13:54

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Scepcop » 16 Aug 2009, 20:29

tmtoulouse wrote:As far as the size of the site, I don't think it is particularly noteworthy, though that one line in the article seemed to be zeroed in by those commenting here. Which I found interesting, and a bit defensive.

And looking at the active topics, while you may not be banning skeptics you sure do talk a lot about various convoluted "tests" you want to use to vet them, and polls about whether to even allow any here at all. It is a hot topic as hot topics around here go.


You sound kind of shallow here. Since when is quantity better than quality? This site may be small, but at least the arguments in the treatise are sound, logical and make SENSE. That's what's important. Plus the content is unique and refreshing. RationalWiki doesn't bring anything that we haven't heard before.

So you are impressed by how many pages or articles a site has? LOL What's the big deal about a big site? Would you like to sift through thousands of pages?

I'm just one person. How much content do you expect me to create? Sheesh.

That's why I have this forum, it self-generates content from involvement from others, and encourages participation.

The paranormal crowd seem to love this site at least, and they say that it was "much needed".
“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: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby tmtoulouse » 17 Aug 2009, 02:43

Actually, I was underwhelmed by your treatise and do not believe it sound in principle or logic. Eventually a more thorough analysis of it will be published. My whole point, which you continue to demonstrate, is that people seemed to really zero in on the one line that mentioned the small size of the site. I find that particularly vehement defensiveness intriguing. The one overwhelming observation I have had, Scepcop, is your dedication to self-promotion and assurance that what you produce is of such amazing value to the world.

Anyway, there is not much point to over analyzing what amounts to a stub article on RW. When I have time I will work on expanding it and perhaps there will be more to discuss at that point.
tmtoulouse
 
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 13:54

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Aug 2009, 03:54

tmtoulouse wrote:My whole point, which you continue to demonstrate, is that people seemed to really zero in on the one line that mentioned the small size of the site. I find that particularly vehement defensiveness intriguing.


May I ask what you find so defensive in Winston's opening comment?
"Glad they noticed us though and deemed us interesting enough to do an entry on us."

He then quotes the information without further commentary at this point but of course his opening sentence: Gee, don't these sound like open minded unbiased objective rational people you would love to get into a debate or discussion with? (sarcastic tone) seems rather logical after reading the quoted information.

Then I personally made mention of one particular quote, It appears that there are only sixteen regular users of the SCEPCOP forum. but only after I ask if Bigfoot pissed in someone's proverbial Cheerios?

Then we have very little conversation among active members, but NOT from Winston at all, and you seem to prove the very point that you are defending:
I am amused that you assume anyone that offers criticism must be "pissed off at you." It is very telling about your own psychology.


What does it say about your psychology? Since I don't have a degree in psychology, I must depend on yours. You do have one? Perhaps you can shed some light on what particular psychological reason you might tell us about, regarding some chit chat on an Internet forum in response to an amusing little ditty found on another forum?

Then of course Winston asks you what the size of this site has to do with anything since he took your original mention in RW as a compliment to begin with. Eteponge states some relevant facts about another of your comments, which you completely ignore and answer Winston's question about what's size got to do with anything...

As far as the size of the site, I don't think it is particularly noteworthy, though that one line in the article seemed to be zeroed in by those commenting here. Which I found interesting, and a bit defensive.


Can you please single out and quote this line in question? If it is in fact the one about the 16 regular members, please let me know because I am the one who found that particularly interesting. If you would like to know MY reasons for finding it interesting I would be glad to address it.

Then Winston makes a rather nice rebuttal where he asks you assorted questions. Once again you seem to repeat:

My whole point, which you continue to demonstrate, is that people seemed to really zero in on the one line that mentioned the small size of the site. I find that particularly vehement defensiveness intriguing.


Yes, Winston does mention the size of this site again in that rebuttal but again you also repeat the above mentioned line.

I can only assume that it may be my quote that seems to be at the heart of this discussion. If it's not, then I am misinformed or have read something out of context which is not unusual on any internet forum. If it is, then I would like to have the opportunity to perhaps debate you using MY thought process at the time of the comment. I look forward to your reply.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby brett » 17 Aug 2009, 13:20

tmtoulouse wrote:Actually, I was underwhelmed by your treatise and do not believe it sound in principle or logic. Eventually a more thorough analysis of it will be published. My whole point, which you continue to demonstrate, is that people seemed to really zero in on the one line that mentioned the small size of the site. I find that particularly vehement defensiveness intriguing. The one overwhelming observation I have had, Scepcop, is your dedication to self-promotion and assurance that what you produce is of such amazing value to the world.

Anyway, there is not much point to over analyzing what amounts to a stub article on RW. When I have time I will work on expanding it and perhaps there will be more to discuss at that point.



ya know the arrogance of some of these people never ceases to amaze me :roll: - may be the poster can then explain the shameless self promotion of a lot of the leading skeptics in the field AND exactly what they produce that is of such amazing value to the world ??

and note the dismissive last sentence inferring a minor entry of little importance that HE is going to be so gracious to expand upon ( and i can guess the content :roll: ) when HE has the time ( busy people these skeptics , anyone ever noticed that "i don't have the time " is a stock excuse ) - and then HE may just consent to discuss it further

methinks this persons ego doth protest too much :roll:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

Postby Scepcop » 17 Aug 2009, 14:05

tmtoulouse wrote:Actually, I was underwhelmed by your treatise and do not believe it sound in principle or logic. Eventually a more thorough analysis of it will be published. My whole point, which you continue to demonstrate, is that people seemed to really zero in on the one line that mentioned the small size of the site. I find that particularly vehement defensiveness intriguing. The one overwhelming observation I have had, Scepcop, is your dedication to self-promotion and assurance that what you produce is of such amazing value to the world.

Anyway, there is not much point to over analyzing what amounts to a stub article on RW. When I have time I will work on expanding it and perhaps there will be more to discuss at that point.


Of course you were underwhelmed cause it doesn't represent what you believe. No one is impressed by the work of an opposing viewpoint that they reject and scoff at. But lots of people are impressed by it. See here for many examples:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Reader_Responses.htm

Excerpts:
It is refreshing to see that you manage to articulate So many counter arguments so constructively. You have demonstrated that you are extremely capable of challenging the status Quo and idea's that many would not analysis with such Sharp insight. Well done you.


Thank you for allowing me to quote you in my book. I have to say that you've got the BEST arguments I've ever seen. I've always said pretty much the same things in my arguments with those Pseudo-Skeptics out there, but you do it SO eloquently and intelligently! I've shared your article with many people - they're all impressed as well.


Anyhow, you seem to be nitpicking at irrelevant things here. That's a sign that you have no good solid arguments, and that truth is not on your side. Otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to nitpicking on how small this site is.

If you don't think the treatise is sound, then point out some factual errors in it. None of you have been able to, you just throw wild conjecture around as if it were fact.

I am not zeroing in on your comment about the small size of this site. I am merely laughing that you have no good criticism of this site except for that, so you are nitpicking on irrelevant things. You failed to take into account that this site is new so of course it's going to small, which a reasonable person would have done. So what's the basis of bringing that up then? What were you insinuating by saying that this site is small, except out of your ego and scoffing tactics?

Reasonable people do not look at a brand new site and scoff at how small it is. That's something that UNreasonable bigoted people do.

See, that MAKES SENSE. And one thing this site is good at is MAKING SENSE, regardless of its size or notoriety.

Self-promotion? Well yeah, I used to be a showman too, like the Professor is. So I have that knack in my personality. But so does Randi and Shermer. So what? Promotion is part of life and part of marketing websites and movements. The point is, a lot of people like this site and praise the treatise, so the promotion is somewhat justified and vindicated by outside sources. This site has grown faster than most new sites do.

Why are you sending such negative energy our way? What benefit is it?
“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

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests