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

Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

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

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby caniswalensis » 06 Dec 2010, 21:48

Azrael wrote:Excus eme but there is a post on this forum where Craig calls James Randi a "Pervert" is that not as bad? After all an insult is an insult no matter what. In fact its slander.

I was testing out a theory that the board is biased when handing out its warnings.


It's not the same at all. Making a comment about a public figure who will never read it is one thing. Making personal comments about a posting forum member is completely different. I can't believe that someone would not grasp the difference immediately.

Anyway, your "test" methodology is severely flawed. If you really wanted to check for bias, you should have made a hateful comment about a well respected public figure from the paranormal side of the street. Also, it should have been a comment similar to the ones made about Randi. I will tell you straight out that I would have reported this comment had someone not beat me to it. If a skeptic immediately found your post to be objectionable, then it does not require a bias against skeptics to give you a warning over it. In fact, If I were an admin here, your sorry butt would have been banned with no warning.

All that aside, I find the idea that this was some sort of test to be difficult to believe at best. You are defending your hurtful personal attack on Craig. If it was just a test where you were deliberately trying to say something outrageous to provoke a response, why would you even try to do defend it?

Two avowed skeptics, and an equal number of forum staff have called you to the carpet for your offensive comment. Isn't that enough to tell you that you screwed up royally?

Why not own up to what you have done? Take responsibility for your actions with a sincere apology that demonstrates you have an understanding that what you said was wrong and that you will not repeat your mistake. Ask Craig to forgive you.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41






Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby Azrael » 07 Dec 2010, 01:42

How do youknow Randi wont read it? So it is okay to slander public figures? Look forward to that defence in a court of law sometime.

Craig will get over it,with his psychic powers he should have seen it coming anyway. If he doesnt ,well will teach him to watch what he says.I do not care if he forgives me or not.
I'm always very skeptical of any situation where someone's notability hinges on their connection to another notable person
Azrael
 
Posts: 232
Joined: 23 Jul 2009, 02:32

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby Arouet » 07 Dec 2010, 02:05

Craig's comment was uncalled for. How does that justify yours?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby caniswalensis » 07 Dec 2010, 02:11

Azrael wrote:How do youknow Randi wont read it? So it is okay to slander public figures? Look forward to that defence in a court of law sometime.

Craig will get over it,with his psychic powers he should have seen it coming anyway. If he doesnt ,well will teach him to watch what he says.I do not care if he forgives me or not.



Backing down on the "test" assertion are you? That says it all.

You are being ridiculous about comparing what you did to what Craig did..

I seriously doubt Randi would ever spend his time reading this forum. Are you saying that you think he will? What are you basing that on?

You mean libel, not slander, btw. Slander is spoken. Libel is printed.

People are free to say a lot of things about public figures. Opinion about public figures is protected free speech. I doubt any lawyer would take a case of libel based on a comment made in an internet forum, so you will be waiting a long time. I hope you do your waiting someplace else.

Lastly, I wish you would get off of my side of the debate. I can't stand the idea that people might think you are actually a skeptic and critical thinker. You are more like a soccer hooligan; supporting your team with frothy-mouth animosity while not actually participating in what they do..
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby caniswalensis » 07 Dec 2010, 02:12

Arouet wrote:Craig's comment was uncalled for. How does that justify yours?


Agreed. Craig should not have said that.

Even though I did not think Craig was right in any form, so it would have been hypocritical of me to then go and do something similar to what he did only much, much worse. That is a very basic mistake that people usually learn to avoid as children. The old excuse of "he did it first" does not hold water.

We are each responsible for our own actions.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Dec 2010, 06:25

Some people here come to discuss the topic contents, some to debunk the topic content and some come here just to make trouble. When trouble makers get banned by me, they cry to Scepcop, calling me unfair or against skeptics. Some actually tell him that they don't know what they did to get banned. Imagine that! They use the fact that their vitrol is deleted (before Scepcop sees it) to their advantage.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby caniswalensis » 07 Dec 2010, 10:28

NinjaPuppy wrote:Some people here come to discuss the topic contents, some to debunk the topic content and some come here just to make trouble. When trouble makers get banned by me, they cry to Scepcop, calling me unfair or against skeptics. Some actually tell him that they don't know what they did to get banned. Imagine that! They use the fact that their vitrol is deleted (before Scepcop sees it) to their advantage.

Sounds like this forum needs a "staff only" area. Only admin and mods have access to see whats in there. Instead of just deleting things, you place them in a thread in the staff only area with some explanation if necessary. Then you have a record of what happened and the staff has the ability to back each other up and converse privately about forum issues.

Oh, and Ninja puppy, I have always thought you were a great, hard working moderator and about as fair as it is humanly possible to be.

I hope Winston relizes what a treasure he has. :)
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby derrida » 07 Dec 2010, 15:31

NinjaPuppy wrote:Some people here come to discuss the topic contents, some to debunk the topic content and some come here just to make trouble. When trouble makers get banned by me, they cry to Scepcop, calling me unfair or against skeptics. Some actually tell him that they don't know what they did to get banned. Imagine that! They use the fact that their vitrol is deleted (before Scepcop sees it) to their advantage.


i got banned for an anti semite comment i never made
is ok, i dont hold it against you
im still here :D

the irony.. go back and read the threads
i was the one that nominated you for mod
and you accuse me of antisemitism which is hilarious since i am part jewish
:D i actually laughed a lot when i saw why i was banned but well..
lets move ahead and go back on topic...


BELIEVERS.. please.. stop bashing randi.. why dont you concentrate in finding that person (not in the past but in the present) that can do what he says he can do?.. JUST ONE PERSON that can perform under proper conditions is all it takes to humilliate randi. no more excuses. just one person!. and is game over for randi and you won.. (actually we all won since i believe skeptics want as much as anybody else to think in esp and whatever else, we just have better standards than believers ).
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby really? » 07 Dec 2010, 21:55

derrida wrote:

BELIEVERS.. please.. stop bashing randi.. why dont you concentrate in finding that person (not in the past but in the present) that can do what he says he can do?.. JUST ONE PERSON that can perform under proper conditions is all it takes to humilliate randi. no more excuses. just one person!. and is game over for randi and you won.. (actually we all won since i believe skeptics want as much as anybody else to think in esp and whatever else, we just have better standards than believers ).
[/quote]

May I borrow this ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby caniswalensis » 07 Dec 2010, 23:23

derrida wrote: i got banned for an anti semite comment i never made
is ok, i dont hold it against you
im still here :D


If I had been banned from a forum and then managed to sneak back in, I wouldn't be bragging about it. Some forum summarily ban people that have been discovered to be previously banned members. ;)

derrida wrote:
the irony.. go back and read the threads
i was the one that nominated you for mod
and you accuse me of antisemitism which is hilarious since i am part jewish
:D i actually laughed a lot when i saw why i was banned but well..
lets move ahead and go back on topic...

Do you think that nominating someone for a moderator position means they should never take action against you? That's a strange point of view.

Also, the source of an objectionable post is irrelevant. If something is against forum policy, it should be taken down, no matter who made it. Also if a ban-able offense is committed, it doesn't matter who did it, they should be banned, no matter what their ethnicity is. These are basic concepts, and I wonder why you don't understand them.

For the record, If you are who i think you are, you didn't get banned for any one thing, especially not "laughing a lot." You got banned because you were constantly insulting people & saying rude things that added nothing to the discussion, but only served to derail threads. I am a skeptic myself, but I was really glad when you got banned. It's not personal, I was just sick and tired of reading your worthless posts. You were sucking value out of the forum. You should be trying to add value to it.

You are now somewhat better in this respect, but you have room for much more improvement. I find myself starting to not read your posts again. It is mostly a waste of time.

Sorry to be harsh like this, but I feel like you could become a good poster and I am hoping some straightforward feedback might help. Please consider what i have said.

derrida wrote: BELIEVERS.. please.. stop bashing randi.. why dont you concentrate in finding that person (not in the past but in the present) that can do what he says he can do?.. JUST ONE PERSON that can perform under proper conditions is all it takes to humilliate randi. no more excuses. just one person!. and is game over for randi and you won.. (actually we all won since i believe skeptics want as much as anybody else to think in esp and whatever else, we just have better standards than believers ).


This last bit is an example of stuff that adds value to the forum. It is basically polite, and it has a good point to make. Please keep doing stuff like this. :)

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby derrida » 08 Dec 2010, 00:01

i just said it was ironic
that doesnt mean i am untouchable
im just saying it was ironic, cause it was

i told scescop what happened and he gave me a chance
:lol: i am not bragging about it, i am just saying what happened
moderators could get it wrong sometimes.

the ¨antisemite¨ comment i made was on the line of why are so many jews in showbusiness? and that the best comedians (for me) are jews. (howard stern, jerry seinfeld, ben stiller, will ferrel, bill maher)
is it antisemite to recognize someone for their talents?
is not like i am making fun of them, i admire them. i wish i was that talented.
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby Arouet » 08 Dec 2010, 00:43

derrida wrote:the ¨antisemite¨ comment i made was on the line of why are so many jews in showbusiness? and that the best comedians (for me) are jews. (howard stern, jerry seinfeld, ben stiller, will ferrel, bill maher)
is it antisemite to recognize someone for their talents?
is not like i am making fun of them, i admire them. i wish i was that talented.


It's pretty darn close to some pretty standard sterotypical slurs against jews: that they control hollywood, the media, business, etc.

It is true, though, that the jewish community has long favoured the professions. This stems from the time they were kept out of the guilds. Jews tend to put a high emphasis on education and a high proportion go to higher education and so jews are well represented in the professions.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby caniswalensis » 08 Dec 2010, 02:55

derrida wrote:i just said it was ironic
that doesnt mean i am untouchable
im just saying it was ironic, cause it was

i told scescop what happened and he gave me a chance
:lol: i am not bragging about it, i am just saying what happened
moderators could get it wrong sometimes.



I guess i took you too literally. :)

Irony: "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected."

Whatever you meant to say, when you said it is ironic that NP banned you after you nominated her for mod, you are explicitly saying that you did not expect her to ban you because you nominated her.

I see now that you are just using it to say "this is funny." Which I agree it is. :)

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby derrida » 08 Dec 2010, 03:29

Arouet wrote:
derrida wrote:the ¨antisemite¨ comment i made was on the line of why are so many jews in showbusiness? and that the best comedians (for me) are jews. (howard stern, jerry seinfeld, ben stiller, will ferrel, bill maher)
is it antisemite to recognize someone for their talents?
is not like i am making fun of them, i admire them. i wish i was that talented.


It's pretty darn close to some pretty standard sterotypical slurs against jews: that they control hollywood, the media, business, etc.

It is true, though, that the jewish community has long favoured the professions. This stems from the time they were kept out of the guilds. Jews tend to put a high emphasis on education and a high proportion go to higher education and so jews are well represented in the professions.


but is it really a slur if it is true?
jews are like 2% of american population and somehow they seem to be more present in the media than africanamericans who are 13%.. (unless we are talking sports)
i seem to recall john stewart at the emmy awards saying ¨the best way to get one of these is to have a room full of jewish writers¨.

was it bertrand russell the one that said: we have to find the hidden truth behind every joke
right?
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains

Postby Arouet » 08 Dec 2010, 04:21

I wasn't quite saying that you were making a slur, but that it bordered certain slur-like sterotyping. I don't think you meant ill. I was pointing out why it might seem to others that you did.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to JREF / Randi Challenge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron