Obiwan
Member
It was theft. Though I swear I heard that the person sold his identity. I must be remembering something else.
~~ Paul
Oh dear that's how it starts y'know. :)
It was theft. Though I swear I heard that the person sold his identity. I must be remembering something else.
~~ Paul
Already started, from birth. Almost everyone trusts their memories way too much.Oh dear that's how it starts y'know. :)
I'll try to remember that.Already started, from birth. Almost everyone trusts their memories way too much.
~~ Paul
Who took joy out of anything? People grin from irony all the time. It's ironic as shit, is it not? To devote your life to debunking frauds only to be one yourself? I can't help but grin from the pure irony. It would be like finding out the Pope is an atheist; it would be so damn ironic.You caught the wink right? I read the two comments one right after the other and couldn't help but notice that Iyace was accusing one poster of taking advantage of a terrible situation to take a dig at proponents while at the same time taking advantage of another terrible situation to take a dig at skeptics. But seriously, I'm not sure what joy there is to take from this situation: You've got:
- a company out millions (the restitution he paid was only a few hundred thousand),
- any number of legitimate affiliates out the money they rightly should have been paid had Dunning's cookie not trumped their own, and
- a devastated family (I haven't seen anything to suggest his wife and kids were complicit in what he was doing).
You forget that the only one taking advantage of someone's death is "Psychic Nikki to the Stars" . He is the one who made the list, and made it so extensive he can not lose.However, that is far different than using someone's tragic suicide to take a jab at a group of people totally unrelated to his death.
I agree more or less with Rebecca Watson's analysis, but for him and his family, even if it is his own fault, this is still a tragedy. And of course there are victims in this story too.A skeptic being a fraud is not a tragedy
Nor will it change the fact you are gloating about this, including the personal tragedy. I leave it to everybody reading to make up their mind up about what that means.; it's just ironic. No amount of hand-waving will change that.
No, cut the bullshit. Steve clearly brought up the Robin Williams topic to make a play at psychics. Only such critiques of charlatans was done WAY after the OP. The OP specifically used the death of Robin Williams to make a point about the inaccuracy of charlatans. That's highly insensitive to the entire tragedy any way you try to spin it or handwave.You forget that the only one taking advantage of someone's death is "Psychic Nikki to the Stars" . He is the one who made the list, and made it so extensive he can not lose.
It is pure premeditated cynicism. He engages himself to make hay of every potential death/health problem of someone on his list, no matter how tragic.
I do not understand how well-meaning proponents are not publicly decrying this kind of charlatans more.
The critique of "Psychic Nikki to the Stars", by Steve, Malf, or me is in no way meant as disrespectful of the tragedy surrounding Robin williams' death.
You probably are smart enough to know this, so you wanting to spin things this way says a lot about you.
As usual, you do not let an opportunity pass to make an honest concern into an ad hominem
I agree more or less with Rebecca Watson's analysis, but for him and his family, even if it is his own fault, this is still a tragedy. And of course there are victims in this story too.
Nor will it change the fact you are gloating about this, including the personal tragedy. I leave it to everybody reading to make up their mind up about what that means.
Doesn't matter, you're comparing apples to oranges. Media skeptics make a living preaching against frauds like media psychics.Interesting: do you have any reason to believe the proportion of criminals are high among skeptics?
I would be surprised if no skeptics were criminals. I would also be surprised if a higher than average number of skeptics were criminals.
How did you determine that there was a particular crime problem among skeptics?
Doesn't matter, you're comparing apples to oranges. Media skeptics make a living preaching against frauds like media psychics.
We fund it ironic and sickening when anti-gay pastors end up being involved in gay relationships. Why wouldn't we also find it ironic and sickening when a person who preaches against fraud commits it.
I understand you're a lawyer and your job is to defend the lowest scum on earth, but this isn't a court. The guy was a lying sack of immoral shit, and should be regarded as such. The fact that he did it while making money preaching against fraud makes him a hypocrite as well.
It's not even close to similar. I'm not taking advantage of a tragedy that has absolutely NO relation to the event. Brian being a skeptic absolutely does have a relation to this case, and why the comment was made in the first place. We're talking about a man who did some shady shit and stole some money, not someone who hung themselves with their wrists slit. If you can't spot the very clear differences, then I'm not sure what to say.I represented accident victims. I was the first in this thread to call him scum. And of course he's a hypocrite. And of course it was ironic. I poked some fun at you for making a similar comment to Steve that you did yourself.
OkIt's not even close to similar. I'm not taking advantage of a tragedy that has absolutely NO relation to the event. Brian being a skeptic absolutely does have a relation to this case, and why the comment was made in the first place. We're talking about a man who did some shady shit and stole some money, not someone who hung themselves with their wrists slit. If you can't spot the very clear differences, then I'm not sure what to say.
I haven't followed this guy Dunnning, but without knowing about his case what about this radical idea; we consider the points the guy is making, instead of the guy himself? Let's say he's guilty of fraud, I'd be against that, but would ask what it had to do with any other point he's making about any other subject. I guess a lot of the ancient greek philosophers would be what we'd now consider gay pedophiles, right?
And I'd also say I'm not into that, but would consider the points they're making about actual topics. In the above messages I don't see any point from him at all on any subject.
I haven't followed this guy Dunnning, but without knowing about his case what about this radical idea; we consider the points the guy is making, instead of the guy himself? Let's say he's guilty of fraud, I'd be against that, but would ask what it had to do with any other point he's making about any other subject. I guess a lot of the ancient greek philosophers would be what we'd now consider gay pedophiles, right?
And I'd also say I'm not into that, but would consider the points they're making about actual topics. In the above messages I don't see any point from him at all on any subject.
I don't consider that such abuse and vitriol should have any place on this forum.