RationalWiki ridicules SCEPCOP in its entry on us

[Purple Scissor]

James (The Amazing) Randi changed his name, and made his career claiming to defend science without having a science degree, so it is a bit funny to get after you for self-promotion. Also, it seems to me that any flaws in your material should not be so significant if the whole is generally good. After all, Randi's material is full of holes and bad thinking and rhetorical overkill, and it never did him any damage.

As to negative energy, all publicity is good publicity. The more evil eye the skeptics send our way, the faster we grow. Think of yourself as a vegetable, not an animal. Veggies need bullshit. Just laugh at it, and go about the business of debunking pseudoscientific thinking. Hopefully, without getting carpal tunnel.

[Mistislav D'ralle]

[Purple Scissor]

There is no need to worry, scepcop simply had the idea that irrational skeptics might disrupt the forum, and we might need a test to find out if the person was rational or not. So far, there is no test, and it has not been necessary.

[brett]

scepcop - a saying i hold dear is " validity of ones ideas is in part measured by the resistance they meet " ( it could be argued that this appies to both sides of course ) - and this idea of "big is beautiful " ( and therefore right ?? ) - is a fallacy as small is cost effective and inevitably efficient in purpose

an analogy is the long held idea of inadequacy compensation of people who drive large cars ( or the -I have a small dick - so i drive a big car to compensate syndrome ) - now the sceptical will argue that there are many reasons WHY people drive large cars - comfort ( fair comment ) - safety ( all cars have to meet certain standards these days - and believe me ,as i have seen MANY times whilst cutting people out of wrecks in the fire service , a large car is NO guarantee of safety - depends what you hit ,or what hits you , and in fact have seen crashes where the fact that the driver WAS in a small car saved their life ) - or they have a requirement to carry many people ( again fair comment ) -

but what of the individual who drives a BIG car for status or sheer "look at my big car , its better than YOUR car because i am more important than everyone else on the road ( and of course can drive like a freaking idiot with no consideration for others ) types - that even the most hardened skeptic must admit they will have come across sometime in their lives ?? ( or have been extremely lucky if not )

here in the UK we have what we call "white van syndrome " - inevitably the drivers of these usually 1 tonne delivery or trade vehicles - driving standards are fairly bad BECAUSE they are driving a larger vehicle and harass drivers of other smaller vehicles because they have a dead line or because they can owing to the size of the vehicle they drive ( we have a term for the drivers too "white van man " )

so does small size equate to inadequacy ? - no of course it does not - but along with many other fallacious ideas - the big/ beautiful/ more important one does persist - we see it every where - business - buildings - leisure things like boats etc - all it boils down to is an individuals misguided extension of THEIR image of how "important" THEY are in the grand scheme of things - and its the same with websites - "i have a big flashy web site - so i must (a ) be important -( b ) be right - because i have the big flashy web site and put lots of ( usually ) irrelevant and "puffed " content on it -( C) - i have more visitors /members of my web site - so this somehow gives MY ideas more credibility

size means nothing - as they say the BEST gifts ,come in small packages and its NOT the size of the box - but whats IN it

[Mistislav D'ralle]

[Ibison]

Well, of course "Rational"Wiki is going to be biased. I'm not surprised.

[Scepcop]

[tmtoulouse]

Seeing as how it is a direct quote I would love to know how it is a misrepresentation.

[formosan]

[formosan]

[mr. mike]

I always thought RationalWiki was more like the CSICOP version of Encyclopedia Dramatica, just with better writing and no morgue photos. Also, am I wrong, or did James Randi come up with "woo" as a term for paranormal things? It sounds as dumb as when the New Atheists started calling themselves "brights". . . .when I think of woo, the phrase "pitching woo" comes to mind. Using demeaning terms for their debating partners just makes the skeptics look bad.

[Arouet]

[Craig Browning]

[mr. mike]

I'd just like to know "weird" in what way?

[Arouet]

And I didn't suggest hat you were an "idiot not dealing with the facts". I asserted that you portray yourself as being a proponent, but you're really not.