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

Change of Mods required for free speech

Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Kevin Kane » 01 Apr 2010, 00:35

Craig Browning wrote:I think I need to point something out here... especially given that I am an out of the proverbial broom closet "fag" (as some would say)... I've not felt one single bit of homophobia on this forum except from Kevin (don't think I interacted too much with the other)... not directed at me specifically but as a generalization. I can also assure you that gay's aren't typically "self-hating" though some can have issues because of familial persecution & rejection (especially throughout that wonderful Bible Belt region of the U.S.)

I've seen this sort of bigotry up close, in my own family on many levels. I've seen even uglier demonstrations of it in the lives of the many kids I've helped get the counseling, support and resources they needed for getting off the streets and whatever else the case might be... UNDERSTAND, they are on the streets because bigots, like yourself Kevin, breed them and then disown them because of some kind of invented morality that's founded on horse pucky... I say that because you will want to counter with the fickle statement of homosexuality not being "Natural" and "Against Nature" when in fact there are over 1,500 known species outside the primate/humane category known for same sex paring... at least three such species are common barnyard animals including cow and horse... but then maybe it's a choice for them as well and they are choosing to live in sin :roll:

GROW UP and learn what the facts are and stop trying to justify your prejudices. To the rest of you, thanks! I'm enjoying this forum and don't feel the least bit threatened on any front. ;)


Craig, I've reviewed your writings at this board, and concluded long ago that you are a con-man and a fraud. A charleton. A practicer of fraudulent pseudo-paranormal magic tricks .. for profit. Exactly the type of person that skeptics warn against. Exactly the type of person that gives real paranormals a bad name.

And another thing, Craig. I've noticed in your bio that you've worked for:

"Ely (sic) Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Tekada (sic) Pharmaceuticals;"


Just wondering, but are these deliberate misspelling of these drug companies?
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18






Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Kevin Kane » 01 Apr 2010, 05:05

No reply from ND? Let me summarize.

Nostradamus doesn't like it when people use their free speech rights to criticise skeptics. ND feels he needs to defend his imaginary friends and skeptic heroes from this free speech. So what does ND do? He goes to a board where people want to express such feelings against skeptics .. and he waits .. under a bridge .. until someone uses their free speech to criticize skeptics. Then he hounds them. He stalks them. He confronts them, hoping to instigate trouble, to cause drama, or just plain lie, in order to try to get the critic banned, thread locked, to halt discussion and criticism of skeptics.

Umm .. what's the word I'm looking for ...


TROLL!


Yes, that's exactly the word that describes Nostradamus.


Exactly.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 07:58

Let me see if I can summarize Mr Nostradamus' thinking. According to his proposal, his reasoning; people who say certain words and phrases must be homophobes, because gays would NEVER, EVER use such words and phrases. Acting upon this logic, anyone who uses such words and phrases must be a homophobe and should be banned.


You ask if this is a fair summary. No. The only person pleading for banning here is Kevin Kane. Kevin your inability to put forth a sound logical argument is astounding at times. I have not made any proposals other than for you and HF2 to tone down the rhetoric and drop the venom and vitriol. I have also asked you to stop the bald-faced lies.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 08:07

Nostradamus doesn't like it when people use their free speech rights to criticise skeptics. ND feels he needs to defend his imaginary friends and skeptic heroes from this free speech. So what does ND do? He goes to a board where people want to express such feelings against skeptics .. and he waits .. under a bridge .. until someone uses their free speech to criticize skeptics. Then he hounds them. He stalks them. He confronts them, hoping to instigate trouble, to cause drama, or just plain lie, in order to try to get the critic banned, thread locked, to halt discussion and criticism of skeptics.


There are limits to free speech. When you were allowed to use this forum you signed an agreement, an agreement which a moderator has already shown you in this very thread. So drop the nonsense about free speech and democracy guaranteeing you to spew your caustic and malevolent speech.

When you lie, which you do often, people call you on it. I cannot ban you. I cannot lock threads. I can point out when you lie, which unfortunately you do often.

You could change. You could start telling the truth. You could stop provoking the moderators. You could try to be an asset to this forum. It's your choice.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Kevin Kane » 01 Apr 2010, 17:40

Let's review the facts.

Because it's just so blatant.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=940

Here's an opinion piece written by SCEPCOP. It's obviously written by SCEPCOP, because:
1. He posted it.
2. He doesn't attribute it to anyone else.
3. Anyone familiar with SCEPCOP's writing style immediately recognizes it as SCEPCOP.


Let's see what Nostradamus has to say about the piece (bolding mine):


Nostradamus wrote:
Only one thing: The SIDE they're on.

This is the same nonsense rant that has been delivered many times and done without any evidence. It's a nonsense claim given by whatever idiot realizes that their stupidity has been exposed. It is a rant, nothing more, nothing less.

Your claims are rather pointless. Less take this asinine claim:
Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?


Do you have any evidence that Randi, Shermer, and others claim that pharmaceutical drugs are safe? Of course drugs are dangerous. The list of known side effects is an important piece of knowledge that are compiled and disseminated.

The other idiotic claims are political in nature. These guys tend to avoid political discussions and focus on science.

So this loser that wrote this rant decides they want people to act in a particular manner. Well buck up loser. You are a loser and in no position to command what others do. Buck up!


You'll notice that Nostradamus is refering to the author as "you" "your". The main use for the word "You" is: the person to whom one is speaking or writing. So who is ND speaking or writing to?

Later, when confronted:

Nostradamus wrote:Did Scepcop write this? I took this to be a typical cut and paste from an unknown source which happens here often. That is the reason I referred to the author as I did.


And to top it off, here's NP:
NinjaPuppy wrote:First of all gentlemen, allow me to give you some background between SCEPCOP and Nostradamus. Those two have been at it long before I was appointed a Moderator.

NinjaPuppy wrote:ND - I had assumed the exact same thing... that this was a compilation of articles and information put together by SCEPCOP.


Now, how is possible that I immediately recognized SCEPCOP as the author of the piece, yet his long time associates were totally confused to the authorship? And logically, any post that any OP posts is always attributed to the OP unless reference is given else, or when the material is so apparently not the OP that no reference is needed, which is not the case. And must people on the internet knows this. You posted it = it's yours.

And even if the Orignal Poster was not the original author, it represents an expression of the OP, which Nostradamus is insulting the hell out of.

And then, Nostradamus has made the claim that I am somehow dishonest.

Please post one example of my being dishonest.

Do it now.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby NinjaPuppy » 01 Apr 2010, 18:37

Kevin Kane wrote:Now, how is possible that I immediately recognized SCEPCOP as the author of the piece, yet his long time associates were totally confused to the authorship? And logically, any post that any OP posts is always attributed to the OP unless reference is given else, or when the material is so apparently not the OP that no reference is needed, which is not the case. And must people on the internet knows this. You posted it = it's yours.

Well good for you Kevin. You immediately recognized SCEPCOP as the author of that particular post. Apparently, I did not and apparently, neither did Nostradamus.

Believe it or not Kevin, I do work while I read this forum so there are times when my concentration isn't 100%. That also applies to threads where the information goes above my level of interest or comprehension. Being a Moderator does not require me to be perfect. However, once someone gets on my radar, I will give the problem my full attention. But hey, that's just me.

I don't understand why it is that you have a problem with two very simple requests. 1. No foul language. 2. No name calling. I have asked you to please debate the issue or subject, rather than the person opposing the view. You don't seem to either understand that concept or you downright refuse to do so. Either way is fine. That's your perogative but good conversation and debating is based on the quality of the information given in rebuttal. Good rebuttal is not smearing the charatcter of the person that you are debating.

I personally am tired of your character assisnation of me and it's wearing very thin. You haver made it clear that you are very dissastified with the quality of the Moderation around here as well as many of the members. You don't care if they are skeptics or believers. If they oppose your views, you attack them.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 20:57

You'll notice that Nostradamus is refering to the author as "you" "your". The main use for the word "You" is: the person to whom one is speaking or writing. So who is ND speaking or writing to?


What a simple question. It is reference to the most prolific author: anonymous.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby NinjaPuppy » 01 Apr 2010, 21:08

Craig Browning wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:Thanks for that Craig. I have enjoyed all of your insight here. You are a very wise person.


...and you're a very cute puppy avatar...

Thank you. The doggie in my avatar is one of my special children. Her name is Annie and she is one of three rescue dogs we have adopted. Our fourth little pup is also a special child but she wasn't a rescue. He owner died of cancer and because of her physical medical problems, no one wanted her. With four dogs and a cat, there is never a dull moment around here.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 21:49

Kevin do you have anything to complain about that concerns you specifically. What have I said to you that concerns you?

In this opening statement Kevin I've made it clear who is meant by you.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Craig Browning » 01 Apr 2010, 21:52

Craig, I've reviewed your writings at this board, and concluded long ago that you are a con-man and a fraud. A charleton. A practicer of fraudulent pseudo-paranormal magic tricks .. for profit. Exactly the type of person that skeptics warn against. Exactly the type of person that gives real paranormals a bad name.


And how many real crooks have you actually been involve in busting up? How many predators from the psychic element have you assisted law enforcement in investigating and building charges against for prosecution? How many times have you and the lives of your family been put into jeopardy as the result of this kind of work?

ANSWER: (most likely) is NEVER!

I have and am currently doing exactly that. In fact, I've assisted in 3 such cases and am currently involved with a 4th... but let's add another layer to my personal reality

If I'm a conman and hustler why am I so poor? I exist on the $780ish a month I get from SSI rather than the several grand a month I could be pinching off the rich and gullible? (the mother of a lady friend of mine here in town saves up $2,600.00 for her annual Reading with some New York based crook I've never heard of but have alerted authorities on).

I'm about as far from being a Con-man as you can get. I am a showman and I do use the psychic idea as the theme to what I do but I do not claim to have any sort of "power" whatsoever. When I do Readings my goals are always to help the client find their balls and stand on their own two feet NOT to become dependent on me or any other guru... I don't want them coming back every month... I wont contest an annual visit, but my goal is very much contrary to how a charlatan would do things... I don't manipulate clients into coming back... not exactly how one would build on the extortion & larceny side of things, now is it?

Fact is, you are just like every other ego-driven cynic out there; tough talk but no actual action... lots of barking but no bite. Professional Readers have in fact, done more in getting rid of the charlatans and hustlers than any skeptic's group out there and their reason for doing so is quite logical; the crooks (predators) hurt their reputation and what they are here to achieve -- helping clients heal their lives.

And another thing, Craig. I've noticed in your bio that you've worked for:

"Ely (sic) Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Tekada (sic) Pharmaceuticals;"


Misspelling only because I didn't take time to look them up and secondly, my spell checker probably changed things (as it does) and I didn't notice... I can assure you, I've done work for this company (they are one single entity actually... kind of like Ford and Lincoln-Mercury) along with several others... I've performed for dozens of Hollywood personalities in their homes as well as special events and of course, via the Magic Castle and several Vegas casino dates (the Palace Station and Flamingo properties in particular). To top it off I was the house magician for the Cinci., OH Playboy Club and worked several of those facilities over the years through which I've done private shows for Dr. Henry Kissenger and a handful of other Political VIPs.

Want More?

I would say that you need to learn what a PSYCHIC ENTERTAINER is and how it is a part of Mentalism. I'd also suggest you consider that what I do is EXACTLY what you will find other notables in that world do and have done for generations; Robert Nelson, Burling Hull, Wm. Larsen (Sr), Al Koran, Millard Longman, John Riggs, Ron Martin, Bob Cassidy, Richard Webster... I could continue this list but on just these few names I would bet you haven't the balls to tell any of these established personalities that they are con-artist, charlatans, et al.

You are attacking me without knowing the facts and worse, ignoring most of the facts about my life and my work that I've openly shared here and elsewhere for years. You simply have a phobia over the word "Psychic" and anything that might be tied to it... in other words, you're a bigot... one that hosts contempt for things without the integrity of honest investigation/evaluation, refusing to take things independently but rather tossing it all under one heading... you haven't the ability to do otherwise.

:? Unfortunately your tendency to habitually toss everything under a single heading if it looks or smells a certain way, shows! Sustaining the fact that you are very much a BIGOT a.k.a. a misinformed (ignorant) bully.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 22:07

Craig, welcome to the ranks of the "Attacked by Kevin" group. It's a growing and fashionable part of this forum. It won't be long before people will be incensed that they are unable to be a part of it. Can't you hear it, "It's not fair. Kevin doesn't attack me."
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Craig Browning » 01 Apr 2010, 22:31

Nostradamus wrote:Craig, welcome to the ranks of the "Attacked by Kevin" group. It's a growing and fashionable part of this forum. It won't be long before people will be incensed that they are unable to be a part of it. Can't you hear it, "It's not fair. Kevin doesn't attack me."


:lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Kevin Kane » 02 Apr 2010, 13:22

Craig Browning wrote:
Craig, I've reviewed your writings at this board, and concluded long ago that you are a con-man and a fraud. A charleton. A practicer of fraudulent pseudo-paranormal magic tricks .. for profit. Exactly the type of person that skeptics warn against. Exactly the type of person that gives real paranormals a bad name.


And how many real crooks have you actually been involve in busting up? How many predators from the psychic element have you assisted law enforcement in investigating and building charges against for prosecution? How many times have you and the lives of your family been put into jeopardy as the result of this kind of work?

ANSWER: (most likely) is NEVER!

I have and am currently doing exactly that. In fact, I've assisted in 3 such cases and am currently involved with a 4th... but let's add another layer to my personal reality

If I'm a conman and hustler why am I so poor? I exist on the $780ish a month I get from SSI rather than the several grand a month I could be pinching off the rich and gullible? (the mother of a lady friend of mine here in town saves up $2,600.00 for her annual Reading with some New York based crook I've never heard of but have alerted authorities on).

I'm about as far from being a Con-man as you can get. I am a showman and I do use the psychic idea as the theme to what I do but I do not claim to have any sort of "power" whatsoever. When I do Readings my goals are always to help the client find their balls and stand on their own two feet NOT to become dependent on me or any other guru... I don't want them coming back every month... I wont contest an annual visit, but my goal is very much contrary to how a charlatan would do things... I don't manipulate clients into coming back... not exactly how one would build on the extortion & larceny side of things, now is it?

Fact is, you are just like every other ego-driven cynic out there; tough talk but no actual action... lots of barking but no bite. Professional Readers have in fact, done more in getting rid of the charlatans and hustlers than any skeptic's group out there and their reason for doing so is quite logical; the crooks (predators) hurt their reputation and what they are here to achieve -- helping clients heal their lives.

And another thing, Craig. I've noticed in your bio that you've worked for:

"Ely (sic) Lilly Pharmaceuticals; Tekada (sic) Pharmaceuticals;"


Misspelling only because I didn't take time to look them up and secondly, my spell checker probably changed things (as it does) and I didn't notice... I can assure you, I've done work for this company (they are one single entity actually... kind of like Ford and Lincoln-Mercury) along with several others... I've performed for dozens of Hollywood personalities in their homes as well as special events and of course, via the Magic Castle and several Vegas casino dates (the Palace Station and Flamingo properties in particular). To top it off I was the house magician for the Cinci., OH Playboy Club and worked several of those facilities over the years through which I've done private shows for Dr. Henry Kissenger and a handful of other Political VIPs.

Want More?

I would say that you need to learn what a PSYCHIC ENTERTAINER is and how it is a part of Mentalism. I'd also suggest you consider that what I do is EXACTLY what you will find other notables in that world do and have done for generations; Robert Nelson, Burling Hull, Wm. Larsen (Sr), Al Koran, Millard Longman, John Riggs, Ron Martin, Bob Cassidy, Richard Webster... I could continue this list but on just these few names I would bet you haven't the balls to tell any of these established personalities that they are con-artist, charlatans, et al.

You are attacking me without knowing the facts and worse, ignoring most of the facts about my life and my work that I've openly shared here and elsewhere for years. You simply have a phobia over the word "Psychic" and anything that might be tied to it... in other words, you're a bigot... one that hosts contempt for things without the integrity of honest investigation/evaluation, refusing to take things independently but rather tossing it all under one heading... you haven't the ability to do otherwise.

:? Unfortunately your tendency to habitually toss everything under a single heading if it looks or smells a certain way, shows! Sustaining the fact that you are very much a BIGOT a.k.a. a misinformed (ignorant) bully.


:roll:

Hey, I didn't have a problem with you until you decided in joining in an attack against me. I'm just one person. Rightfully defending myself. I didn't stalk you. You came to this thread, Craig. You sought to lie about me and falsely accuse me.

Here's a little psychology. Bullies and bigots are cowards, Craig. They get their power from the mob, the group. Now if you called me a psychopath, it would be more convincing an argument, because psychopaths act alone. So you argument that I am a bully or a bigot isn't convincing. Not at all.

Remember, Craig. I'm just one person. And someone you don't know the first thing about.

As for your cry babying .... listen to this music, Craig:

Image
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 19:17

Craig, it seems that Kevin wants you to be a member in good standing with the "Attacked by Kevin" group.

Notice how you've been nominated by a poorly constructed argument in which irrelevant claims are tossed in without rhyme or reason.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Change of Mods required for free speech

Postby Craig Browning » 02 Apr 2010, 20:47

Nostradamus wrote:Craig, it seems that Kevin wants you to be a member in good standing with the "Attacked by Kevin" group.

Notice how you've been nominated by a poorly constructed argument in which irrelevant claims are tossed in without rhyme or reason.


I'm soooo used to that.

Kevin, you may not have "attacked me" directly (by name) but you attacked the issue of sexuality, you and the other now banished homophobe brought me into this "discussion" because of expressed attitudes and opinions that are typical to persons not properly educated about what Gay people really are and aren't vs. what some bigot with a bible has promoted from the pulpit or Tv as well as the good ole boys that feel threatened by the idea associated with the act of male on male sex (curiously, these same assholes tend to have nothing but heated fantasies when it's girl on girl sex... go figure)

Do understand, I tend to lean closer to a rather dated view offered by play write Tennessee Williams some years ago when asked if he was gay; "There is a difference between being homosexual and being gay; the latter of the two makes it an issue..." Something I've not only found to be exceptionally true but exceptionally annoying at times as well, simply because I prefer to not be associated with some of the drama, lude exhibitionism, and deliberate act of provocation found in that world along side the lie of the perpetual party. I'm likewise appalled by many of the things the GLBT political arm has in way of agenda vs. what is supposed to be it's primary focus. Thankfully several of our leaders woke up when it came to certain factions trying to ooze the pedophile element into "the cause"... something that disgusts the majority of members in our culture just as it does the rest of society.

...and before you spin off on that particular tangent, remember that statistically most homosexual rape/child molestation is perpetuated by married (in the closet) middle-aged males who are typically in good-standing within the community, often involved with noted civic organizations as well as church-based leadership roles (deacon, etc.) Too, many of these gents tend to have a high-end side of Middle-Class income if not greater. The John Gacy typecast is actually the exception to the rule most focused on by the media, religious fanatics, political groups/politicians and of course red neck America because they are either ignorant to the facts or are deliberately keeping the greater truth concealed. A look at the records will tell the truth however and as the Catholic church has best demonstrated (yet again) the cover-up to who and what are doing such ugly things runs deep.

One other thing that must be weighed here... the majority of young people that are molested in this manner turn out to be very emotionally insecure as adults and frequently anti-gay because of what happened. The LIE promoted by various zealots, that molestation is how the GLBT community grows, does not stand up to the proverbial litmus test in this case, which is one of the reasons "we" are trying to educate the public as to what the facts actually are when it comes to this issue. Unfortunately, the public doesn't like to confuse their embraced (frequently cultural) bigotry with the facts; toss in the religious bias (even for those who don't step foot into any church except on high holy days, weddings & funerals) and voila, the Bull Shit floweth!

If I recall correctly, less than 18% of those children who are molested prior to puberty, identify as being gay or bi-sexual in latter life. There are some important variants that explain some of these points, including how close in age the perpetrator is to the "innocent"; it's been found that transgressors 16-20 years in age fondling lads 8-12 are not viewed in the same negative light as when the same child is fondled by persons well over that adult threshold... those with grey in the hairline and beards are the most feared and loathed... which rings in the faux-authority figures.

The promoted idea that the molested become molesters is likewise a misconception. Though it does happen and there are reasons for the theory to be applied to profiles, it is not a constant. Fewer than 15% of those that were molested as children grow up to become predators, quite the contrary regardless that person's sexual orientation.

One other interesting statistic when it comes to this particular issue... roughly 6-10% of those who were molested as youngsters (prior to puberty) end up living a celibate lifestyle, frequently as clergy.

When puberty comes into the picture the demographics change significantly though some of the influencing factors remain a constant. The reason is rather logical; very few teen-age lads dislike the experience of a good ole fashioned orgasm; the 14-19 age group being less likely to claim any sort of transgression and in a high statistical level, are found to be the manipulators of such scenarios... mostly out of curiosity but simple teen boy horniness also plays a role in such things, the charge of molestation coming in only after mum & dad discover such liaisons have occurred or else personal guilt consumes the youngster... I should add, the guilt often stems from the inner fear that they may very well be gay which is a very big issue for anyone to have to juggle... that, as they say, is another issue altogether and I've gone far enough astray on this topic for the moment. I do hope what I've shared has been helpful however. ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest