Discussions about the James Randi Educational Foundation and its Million Dollar Challenge.
August 9, 2013
The following information is ALLEGED information about the Center For Inquiry & The James Randi Educational Foundation.
I will provide a link where members can look up the information below.
Go to google, in the search field punch in carrie poppy tells all then click enter and the story should come up. Apparently, either the author of the original piece changed the link heading, or Ms. Poppy changed it. I checked this before I typed this in and it did work.
I received this information in an email, and looked at the material and all that I can say is that IF the claims are true, then there are some serious problems with both CFI & JREF.
Last edited by Steve Zalewski on 10 Aug 2013, 23:54, edited 5 times in total.
The main story involves CFI.
More facts need to be released but it does look like there may be a problem in how this matter was handled.
Hmmm: other very serious allegations being levelled. This time against Michael Shermer. Though not much details: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... a-grenade/
August 10, 2013
To Ninja Puppy:
Thank you for bringing the 404 error message to my attention.
If you go to google and punch in the search field carrie poppy tells all and then click on google search or enter the story should come up.
It is the same story that came up on the original heading that I posted on Friday.
I will continue to monitor this posting and I tested the new link and it did work before I posted this update. Thank you for your understanding while I correct the problem with the original link which did work on Friday.
Here are some relevant links:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... tells-all/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... a-grenade/
None of this is very pleasant
Thank you Steve and Arouet. I have read all that was available in the links and I am curious as to what you both personally think about the contents.
I found that the first article: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/ by Karen Stollznow was an interesting view of the subject. I really connected with this statement:
Since I am of the female persuasion, I fully agree with this quote. I'm sure that I have been guilty of sexual harassment, as well as been on the opposite side of it. Anyone can claim sexual harassment in the workplace if they are uncomfortable with another person's (for the lack of a better word) personality or demeanor. It's separating the predators from the unknowing that's the impossible task.
Everyone has their own internal meter when it comes to setting their interpersonal threat level. We also have different levels of tolerance for human behavior. It's a tough call.
I gotta tell ya, the one thing that I really have a hard time with is stereotyping. What has being a skeptic or being in denial got to do with sexual harassment? As long as you have two people of the opposite sex, you can have a sexual harassment situation. Heck, they don't even have to be of opposite sexes.
The Radford case looks pretty bad - CFI did an investigation and found wrongdoing. There seems to be email evidence out there.
We don't have enough information about the Shermer one (unless new details came out today that I missed). We have an anonymous accuser using strange wording. It may be that alcohol was involved which makes it murky. More information is needed.
Dang! I actually liked Shermer. Of course I found him charming but so was Jeffrey Dahmer.
August 12, 2013
I feel the sort of behavior that Carrie Poppy and the other people who were claiming that they were subjected to sexual harrassment, and sexual abuse is disgusting and totally uncalled for. The two organizations mentioned CFI and JREF really need to get their act together and stop this sort of treatment from happening. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope some heads roll at CFI and JREF.
In addition, since CFI and JREF have attacked people who have had interests in the paranormal, then perhaps the time has come to give CFI, CSI, and JREF a taste of their own medicine. What goes around comes around and the time has come for the "skeptical" community to do some serious house cleaning, and CLEAN UP THEIR ACT. I hope that the victims get the help that they need and that the people responsible for their bad behavior are held accountable. I also hope that the victims are financially compensated for their terrible treatment and experiences.
Thank you Steve, I totally agree with your statement.
One thing that I've always believed is, "When there are problems at the bottom, it's because there are problems at the top". No corporation can screen potential employees for this sort of personality trait. Besides, if they could, the people who would fit into a sexual predator category would probably be sharp enough to beat the system.
I can't help but think that JustinTime's basic way of thinking has some merit here in a "birds of a feather flock together" sort of thing. Not that all skeptics are created equal but if you work at it for a living, it's got to be a whole different ball game.
I agree that sexual harassment must be treated seriously - but to make this kind of analysis you need to compare sexual harassment in the skeptical organisations to it in other organisations.
My view: there are creeps in every organisation and some deal with it well, others not so well. I'm not defending the people who do these things but I think its naive to believe that these types of activities are somehow unique to skeptics.
It's a people problem - not a skeptic problem.
I wasn't saying that skeptics are prone to be sexual harassers. I see that my original thought sort of got away from me here. Allow me to try as best as I can to clarify and go to the basics of what I was trying to get at.....
Oh hell, I can't for the life of me put it in words right now. Bottom line, Arouet is 100% correct in his statement.
Let me go and do some yard work and maybe I'll be able to form a coherent sentence after some heavy weed pulling in 105 degree heat.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests