This site needs to be renamed

[JonDonnis]

I think that calling this site "Debunking Skeptics" is wrong, you should call it "Debunking Pseudo-Skeptics"
I also have a problem with pseudoskeptics, but pigeon holing us all will only create anomosity.

The skeptical commnity will get behind a good honest mission to debunk the pseudoskeptics, but going after people like James Randi is pointless.

Remember the skeptical cumminty will always be first to out a pseudoskeptic.

When i have made a mistake on my site it is never the believers who point it out, it is always the skeptics.

Whatever your personal belief, you should always try to live your life with critical thinking, logic and common sense.

[Eteponge]

I agree with this.

[brett]

pity then that a lot of both skeptics AND pseudo skeptics are quite happy to pigeonhole any of us who happen to have contrary opinions to them as either believers or woos

[brett]

and maybe we should rename the site " the jref/randi warzone - the next episode " as the discussion here seems to center round this frankly boorish subject to the exclusion of a lot else

[ProfWag]

You're absolutely right Jon and Brett, I concur.

[The Warrigal]

Ditto to all of the points raised above.

I for one would not mind seeing the JREF/Challenge Sub-Forum sink without trace.

SCEPCOP has many promising assets, but the above mentioned Sub-Forum is a liability to this sites continued growth and even more so, to it's credibility as a place where serious discussion and debate happen.

[NinjaPuppy]

[ciscop]

yep i also support that
i see no reason in the attacks to jref

is like instead of building cases on their own
people chose to attack that institution
is totally pointless

[JonDonnis]

[JonDonnis]

[brett]

[NinjaPuppy]

Very well put Brett. Thank you.

[leo100]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Purple Scissor]

I agree that targeting skeptics instead of pseudoskeptics (pseudoskeptics are those who use pseudoscientific arguments in the service of skepticism), should be changed. As to criticizing JREF and CSICOP, I agree that the way it has been done here sometimes, as with the "Professor," sucks. However, there are verifiable pseudoskeptics among them, so we cannot promise not to criticize them. I believe Randi has done some pseudoskeptical things (a statement which I personally believe, but do not have the time right now to research and support; I hope by this statement to exempt myself from the charge of pseudoskepticism). We should develop articles documenting this.

"For example is it logical to believe that full spirit manefestations can only happen in the dark, and when there are no cameras about? Or is it logical to believe that some kind of trickery is going on?"

It is not illogical. But it is suspicious. But again, it is a huge topic, and for all my research, I do not know enough to comment. I am guessing that you know even less.

Brett.... We should make a rule on this forum: no allcaps. It looks like woo