TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 1 
 on: April 21, 2014, 07:05:50 AM 
Started by FRAUENPOWER - Last post by FRAUENPOWER
Hausverbot für

IP: 103.250.68.214
Email: tobias.essner@vilobri.de
Username: tobias

In anderen Foren ist er eingefallen und hat seine Kotmarke gesetzt.

Beispiel:

http://www.domainforum.info/showthread.php?t=373339

[*quote*]
23.02.2014, 08:39       Verkaufen ein kaufen ein Beitrag #1
benzin
Neuer Benutzer
 
Registriert seit: 16.02.2014
Beiträge: 5     Verkaufen ein kaufen ein
Google-Anzeigen
 
Unsere Domäne ist www.kern-brennstoffe.de. Wir suchen. Com das ist, warum wir den Verkauf der Domäne. Kontaktieren Sie mit mir, wenn Ihr Interesse. Auch kern-brennstoffe.com erforderlich. Preis wird nagotiable sein.

Kontakt: tobias.essner@vilobri.de
[*/quote*]


Andere "Beiträge" sind nicht minder hirnlos:

http://www.domainforum.info/search.php?searchid=265894

[*quote*]
Zeige Ergebnis 1 bis 5 von 5
 Die Suche dauerte 0,02 Sekunden. Suchen:  Beiträge von: benzin
 Forum: Kaufangebote von Webseiten und Projekten  12.03.2014, 05:55
 Antworten: 1
 Verkaufe div. Projekte - Versicherung / Heirat / Baby
 Hits: 228
 Erstellt von benzin
 Schönes Design. Bitte fügen Sie dieses...

 Schönes Design. Bitte fügen Sie dieses http://www.kfzversicherung.com
 in Ihrer Liste. Machen Sie den Preis 109,00. Meine Website ist auch über kfz versicherung vergleich...
 Forum: Domains for Sale  23.02.2014, 08:39
 Antworten: 0
 Verkaufen ein kaufen ein
 Hits: 92
 Erstellt von benzin
 Verkaufen ein kaufen ein

 Unsere Domäne ist www.kern-brennstoffe.de. Wir suchen. Com das ist, warum wir den Verkauf der Domäne. Kontaktieren Sie mit mir, wenn Ihr Interesse. Auch kern-brennstoffe.com erforderlich. Preis wird...
 Forum: Fragen zum Thema SEO, Websites  16.02.2014, 19:35
 Antworten: 12
 Hat jemand Erfahrungen mit eintrag-social-bookmark.de ?
 Hits: 1.672
 Erstellt von benzin
 Völlig wertlos. Verwenden Sie es nicht mehr. Es...

 Völlig wertlos. Verwenden Sie es nicht mehr. Es kann zu schaden Ihrer Website.
 Forum: Ich bin neu hier: Uservorstellung.  16.02.2014, 19:30
 Antworten: 4
 Hallo Miteinander
 Hits: 187
 Erstellt von benzin
 Hallo willkommen! Ich bin auch ein neues Mitglied...

 Hallo willkommen! Ich bin auch ein neues Mitglied dieser Gemeinschaft.
 Forum: Ich bin neu hier: Uservorstellung.  16.02.2014, 19:25
 Antworten: 0
 Hallo Kumpel
 Hits: 70
 Erstellt von benzin
 Hallo Kumpel

 Hallo Kumpel,

 Ich bin ein neuer Benutzer Ihrer Gemeinschaft. Bitte machen Sie mir ein Teil von dir.
[*/quote*]





Das ist die Registrierung der Domain vilobri.de:

[*quote*]
Domaindaten
Domain   vilobri.de
Letzte Aktualisierung   06.09.2013

Domaininhaber

Der Domaininhaber ist der Vertragspartner der DENIC und damit der an der Domain materiell Berechtigte.Domaininhaber:   LIOBIS GmbH
Adresse:   Rittistr. 23
PLZ:   77749
Ort:   Hohberg
Land:   DE

Administrativer Ansprechpartner

Der administrative Ansprechpartner (admin-c) ist die vom Domaininhaber benannte natürliche Person, die als sein Bevollmächtigter berechtigt und gegenüber DENIC auch verpflichtet ist, sämtliche die Domain vilobri.de betreffenden Angelegenheiten verbindlich zu entscheiden.Name:   Thomas Tebbel
Organisation:   LIOBIS GmbH
Adresse:   Rittistr. 23
PLZ:   77749
Ort:   Hohberg
Land:   DE

Technischer Ansprechpartner

Der technische Ansprechpartner (tech-c) betreut die Domain vilobri.de in technischer Hinsicht.Name:   Hostmaster EINSUNDEINS
Organisation:   1&1 Internet AG
Adresse:   Brauerstr. 48
PLZ:   76135
Ort:   Karlsruhe
Land:   DE
Telefon:   +49.7219600
Telefax:   +49.72191374248
E-Mail:   hostmaster@1und1.de

Zonenverwalter

Der Zonenverwalter (zone-c) betreut die Nameserver der Domain vilobri.de.Name:   Hostmaster EINSUNDEINS
Organisation:   1&1 Internet AG
Adresse:   Brauerstr. 48
PLZ:   76135
Ort:   Karlsruhe
Land:   DE
Telefon:   +49.7219600
Telefax:   +49.72191374248
E-Mail:   hostmaster@1und1.de

Technische DatenNameserver:   ns-de.1and1-dns.biz
Nameserver:   ns-de.1and1-dns.com
Nameserver:   ns-de.1and1-dns.de
Nameserver:   ns-de.1and1-dns.org
[*/quote*]


Der Hilfsknecht des Spammers sitzt in Bangladesh:

[*quote*]
IP Information for 103.250.68.214
IP Location:     Bangladesh Dhaka Next Online Limited
ASN:     AS9441 NEXT-BD Next Online Limited,BD (registered Jul 08, 2011)
IP Address:     103.250.68.214     
Whois Server   whois.apnic.net

inetnum:        103.250.68.0 - 103.250.68.255
netname:        NEXTONLINE-68-DHK-BD
descr:          Next Online Limited
country:        BD
admin-c:        WBA1-AP
tech-c:         WBA1-AP
status:         ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE
mnt-by:         MAINT-BD-NEXTONLINE
mnt-irt:        IRT-WORLDNETBANGLADESH-BD
changed:         20130716
source:         APNIC
[*/quote*]



 2 
 on: April 21, 2014, 06:34:38 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by ama
Frass ist zwar nicht der Erstautor, hat aber wohl doch die Finger drin:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24731904

[*QUOTE*]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ther Med. 2014 Apr;22(2):320-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2013.12.014. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
Additive homeopathy in cancer patients: Retrospective survival data from a homeopathic outpatient unit at the Medical University of Vienna.
Gaertner K1, Müllner M2, Friehs H2, Schuster E3, Marosi C2, Muchitsch I4, Frass M5, Kaye AD6.
Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Current literature suggests a positive influence of additive classical homeopathy on global health and well-being in cancer patients. Besides encouraging case reports, there is little if any research on long-term survival of patients who obtain homeopathic care during cancer treatment.

DESIGN:

Data from cancer patients who had undergone homeopathic treatment complementary to conventional anti-cancer treatment at the Outpatient Unit for Homeopathy in Malignant Diseases, Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria, were collected, described and a retrospective subgroup-analysis with regard to survival time was performed. Patient inclusion criteria were at least three homeopathic consultations, fatal prognosis of disease, quantitative and qualitative description of patient characteristics, and survival time.

RESULTS:

In four years, a total of 538 patients were recorded to have visited the Outpatient Unit Homeopathy in Malignant Diseases, Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I, Vienna, Austria. 62.8% of them were women, and nearly 20% had breast cancer. From the 53.7% (n=287) who had undergone at least three homeopathic consultations within four years, 18.7% (n=54) fulfilled inclusion criteria for survival analysis. The surveyed neoplasms were glioblastoma, lung, cholangiocellular and pancreatic carcinomas, metastasized sarcoma, and renal cell carcinoma. Median overall survival was compared to expert expectations of survival outcomes by specific cancer type and was prolonged across observed cancer entities (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION:

Extended survival time in this sample of cancer patients with fatal prognosis but additive homeopathic treatment is interesting. However, findings are based on a small sample, and with only limited data available about patient and treatment characteristics. The relationship between homeopathic treatment and survival time requires prospective investigation in larger samples possibly using matched-pair control analysis or randomized trials.

Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDS:

Cancer, Cholangiocellular cancer, Glioblastoma, Homeopathy, Lung, Metastasized sarcoma, Pancreatic carcinomas, Renal cell carcinoma
PMID: 24731904  [PubMed - in process]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]


Der einzige interessante Satz an dem blöden Geschwätz ist dieser:

[*QUOTE*]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
requires prospective investigation in larger samples possibly using matched-pair control analysis or randomized trials.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

Sie wollen noch mehr Forschungsgeld! Um noch mehr Kranke mit Homöopathie zu betrügen.

Siehe die Überschrift: "Additive homeopathy in cancer patients". Das alles entscheidende Wort ist "additive". Das heißt: zu einer wirksamen Behandlung wird einfach Homöopathie oben draufgestülpt. Homöopathie ist wertloser, wirkungsloser Scheißdreck hoch unendlich. Aber Krebskranken kann man ja jeden Dreck verkaufen, die greifen nach jedem Strohhalm.

Dieser Betrug muß ein Ende haben!

 3 
 on: April 21, 2014, 04:57:46 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
Die Zitate habe ich natürlich alle aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen.  ;D

Was so stinkt bei diesem international (!) hin und her schwappenden Geschrei (auch mitten rein in die deutsche Provinz!)  ist die dahinter stehende Blödheit. Alle reden sie von Vollphostenjournalismus. Dabei sind sie  selber welche!

Eine Stelle will ich hervorheben: jene, wo Rebecca Watson das Maul aufmacht.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/

[*quote*]
Rebecca Watson says:
February 19, 2013 at 10:46 am

Hi Harriet,

I won’t bother commenting on the sex/gender argument, as Will is more than capable of handling that. I will echo a few other commenters and point out that your “queer” statement doesn’t do you any favors in convincing anyone that your knowledge of these topics is anything close to approaching Will’s.

You didn’t mention me as a person included amongst your feminist critics, but I suspect many people reading this will assume I’m in there somewhere, possible because your t-shirt at TAM did directly call out my website and you’ve mentioned that incident specifically in your post. So, I figured I’d respond briefly because I’ve never really discussed it publicly and never talked with you about it at all.

When you made your “I am not a Skepchick” shirt, I did consider writing a blog post about it. Then I changed my mind and I composed an email to you in which I explained my feelings on the subject, since you seemed confused by the reaction you received. I pointed out that no one to my knowledge had ever called you a Skepchick, and I had never asked you to become a contributor to the network. I then used an analogy in which I pointed out that if a physician like Steve Novella went to the effort to create a CafePress shirt that read something like “I am not a SkepDoc. I am a skeptic,” you would be confused, a little hurt, and, when he wore it three days in a row, concerned for his personal hygiene. Your hurt feelings would be completely understandable, especially if he did this following a year in which you received a nonstop avalanche of insults, slurs, rape threats, and death threats from skeptics.

So I wrote the email, tinkered with it for a few days, and eventually I deleted it without sending. The reason was that after reflecting on it for so long, I came to the realization that while a week prior I held an immense amount of respect for you, I suddenly had lost that respect so completely that I had no interest in getting it back. I realized I was stressing out over someone who was so proud of an immature t-shirt she made that she wore it for an entire weekend. I realized that anyone who needs an explanation of why that was silly and hurtful doesn’t actually deserve an explanation, and they certainly don’t deserve real estate in my head. So I let others argue over it while I moved on to more interesting things.

I’m writing all this to you now because I want to be sure that you know that I do not think of you as my enemy. In fact, I don’t really think of you at all. The most one could say is that when you are occasionally brought to my attention, as happened with Will’s recent posts, I simply think of you as ill-informed on social issues.

So, having now spent ten precious minutes on the subject, it’s once again time for me to move on to more interesting things.



M. A. G. says:
February 19, 2013 at 10:51 am

Thank You. Awesome post Dr. Hall.

Also, those are precisely the reasons I have mostly stopped reading other “skeptical blogs”. They become too entangled in criticizing other skeptics simply to either generate more “views” or just for spite. They do not read what others write carefully and are quick to give their opinion.


One thing I’ve wondered, and I’ve discussed this with other psychiatrists, dentists and doctors at the clinic I work at; It’s amazing how we think we can multitask, when in truth, it decreases our productivity. We think we can read 3-4 articles at the same time, but while doing so, we miss the true point or the article. ADD is grossly misdiagnosed, and partly a cause of not having someone making sure your child sits at home doing his/her homework (if it weren’t for both my parents, someone would have definitely diagnosed me as having ADHD).

1000 years ago humans recited stories as long as the Iliad from memory. 10 years ago I knew all the phone numbers of ALL my friends and acquaintances (at least over 75) by memory. Now… I depend on my phone and speed dial. I only remember 5 or 6 crucial numbers.

Maybe we should stop, take a deep breath and reassess where we are. Because we sure as hell are moving fast, without a clear picture of where we are headed, and we are taking down everyone on our way. Even if they fight for the same cause.

I don’t know if what I said has anything to do with any of this…. but there you go. My mind wanders.



tigzy says:
 February 19, 2013 at 11:52 am

Hi Rebecca

So that’s the best you can do, is it? Presume that Dr Hall would be hurt if someone wore a ‘Not a SkepDoc’ t-shirt in her presence, and in doing so make crude and unnecessary references to her personal hygiene.

Pathetic.

You post is a perfect illustration of why Dr Hall is justified in making sure people know that she is not a skepchick.
[*/quote*]


Rebecca Watson war auch in Deutschland. Bei YouTube gibt es davon mindestens ein Video. Da kann man sehen und hören, wie sie sich darin feiert, oft das Wort Scheisse zu benutzen.

Man bedenke : Rebecca Watson ist seit Jahren ein herausragender Kopf der Szene.

Ordinär zu sein und hohl zu sein mag in einem Rockerhaufen als Qualifikation genügen. Aber nicht in der Wissenschaft!



[Fettschrift reduziert, ama]

 4 
 on: April 21, 2014, 04:36:56 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
In den USA (und drumherum) gab es jahrelanges Kampfgeschrei AuserlesenerInnen, die den Geschlechterkampf betreiben wollten...



http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120718085151/phawrongula/images/a/aa/Hall_back.jpg

Die überaus emanzipierte Harriet Hall hatte ein T-Shirt an, dessen Aussage den KampfgeschwaderInnen nicht paßte...



http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/i-am-not-a-skepchick/

[*quote*]
I want to see harassment taken seriously and dealt with, but I don’t agree that calling the president of the JREF a “douchebag” who doesn’t care about “vagina owners” is a helpful approach to the problem.
[*/quote*]


http://phawrongula.wikia.com/wiki/TAM_2012_T-Shirt_Manufacturversy

[*quote*]
TAM 2012 T-Shirt Manufacturversy  Edit 
   
 Comments16
70
pages on
 this wiki

This page documents the manufactured Amy Davis Roth ('Surly Amy') T-Shirt controversy. Have at it. Contents[show]

OverviewEdit

The front of Harriet Hall's super-offensive T-shirt.
Added by PeeZus

Harriet Hall T-shirt (back)
Added by PeeZus

Nutshell synopsis: Amy Davis Roth felt "harassed" by Dr. Harriet A. Hall's t-shirt at TAM2012, causing distress to the point of tears and Roth's early departure from TAM.

The t-shirt in question has written on the front "I feel safe and welcome at TAM" and on the back "I'm a skeptic, not a 'skepchick', not a 'woman skeptic', just a skeptic".

Amy Roth is also known as 'Surly Amy' of Skepchick fame. FfTBers chose to defend Amy and cast aspersions on TAM's policy and volunteers instead of seeing the silliness of getting upset over this t-shirt.

For now, here are some links as the discussion continues:

Pro-Roth:
Ophelia Benson: In your face
Jason Thibeault: TAM's harassment policy was secret. Why?
PZ Myers: I don't want to deal with this anymore

Anti-Roth:
Thunderf00t: Feminist reduced to tears by t-shirt
[*/quote*]


http://uberfeminist.blogspot.de/2013/02/harriet-hall-wins-day.html

[*quote*]
Saturday, February 23, 2013
 Harriet Hall wins the day
 Harriet Hall wrote a piece called Gender Differences and Why They Don’t Matter So Much
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gender-differences-and-why-they-dont-matter-so-much/

 As expected, it received a lot of criticism from the Atheism+ / Skepchick crowd.

 Hall responds: I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/
[*/quote*]


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gender-differences-and-why-they-dont-matter-so-much/

[*quote*]
Gender Differences and Why They Don’t Matter So Much
 Posted by Harriet Hall on February 5, 2013 (209 Comments)

Several incidents have recently created divisions within the skeptical community.  The latest one was over a casual comment Michael Shermer made in an online talk show. He was asked why the gender split in atheism was not 50/50, “as it should be.” He said he thought it probably was 50/50, and suggested that the perception of unequal numbers might be because attending and speaking at atheist conferences was more of “a guy thing.” They might have asked him to explain what he meant. They didn’t. He didn’t mean to say it was encoded in the male DNA. He was simply recognizing a reality of our society: male/female interests and behavior tend to differ due to all sorts of cultural influences. Among other things, women might find it more difficult to attend meetings because of lower incomes and the need to arrange for babysitters. Watching sports on TV with other guys and beer is a guy thing too, but not because it’s hardwired into the male brain. It’s a guy thing because of customs and attitudes in our society.  And it certainly doesn’t mean women are less capable or that societal influences can’t be overcome.

Nevertheless, Ophelia Benson assumed Shermer meant:

that women are too stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”

That’s not what he meant. It’s not fair to judge him by one off-the-cuff remark. His record stands for itself: there is not a hint of sexism in his writings and he has always fully acknowledged women’s intelligence and their ability to think critically.

In a rebuttal article, Shermer quoted me:

I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.

PZ Myers called this “a sexist remark.” He went on to say:

So sex differences are real, and we should just pretend that we don’t see sex and gender everywhere we look?…..

By the way, I hate the phrase “Science has shown” followed by some irrelevant fact…

There is no reason anywhere to think that women have less capacity for critical thinking, or that they are intrinsically more gullible and therefore more likely to be religious, or that they are less rational and so less suited to careers in science.

I was taken aback. I never suggested any such thing. I don’t think women have less capacity for critical thinking or are more gullible. And I certainly didn’t think I had made a sexist remark.
[*/quote*]


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/i-am-not-your-enemy-an-open-letter-to-my-feminist-critics/

[*quote*]
I Am Not Your Enemy: An Open Letter to My Feminist Critics
 Posted by Harriet Hall on February 19, 2013 (286 Comments)

Note: The previous post is my usual weekly contribution to SBM. I am taking the liberty of posting this additional entry today on an issue that is peripheral to Science Based Medicine. If you are not interested in the recent squabbles within the skeptical movement, you will probably want to skip it. But it does respond to a detailed critique of an article I posted here two weeks ago, and some might find that of interest. We have seen the same kind of behavior on this blog, where commenters have responded not to what we said, but to what they wanted to believe we said.

I have been falsely identified as an enemy of feminism (not in so many words, but the intent is clear). My words have been misrepresented as sexist and misinterpreted beyond recognition. I find this particularly disturbing and hard to understand, because I’m convinced that my harshest critics and I are basically arguing for exactly the same things. I wish my critics could set aside their resentments and realize that I am not the enemy.

Two weeks ago I published an article on gender differences and the recent divisions in the skeptical community.  Ophelia Benson showed up in the comments. Not unsurprisingly, she disagreed with me about the Shermer incident, but then she said “I like the rest of this article a lot. I particularly like the point about averages and individuals, which is one I make all the time.”

I took that as a hopeful sign that friendly communication might be achieved, but my bubble was quickly burst by a hostile takedown of my article on Skepchick by “Will.”  His critique is demonstrably unfair. He attacks me for things I never said and tries to make it look like I believe the exact opposite of what I believe.
[*/quote*]



 5 
 on: April 21, 2014, 01:55:04 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
Edgar Wunder, den zum  Beispiel die PR-Schleuder Claus Fritzsche wohlfeil zitiert, war auch in der GWUP.

Das ist Edgar Wunders Homepage: http://www.skeptizismus.de

Wäre es Tabak, könnte man es krauses Zeug nennen. Aber das Kraut ist nicht mal Tabak.

 6 
 on: April 21, 2014, 01:05:28 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27093121

[*quote*]
'Firework battle' as Greek churches mark Easter

Rival parishes on the Greek island of Chios have marked the evening before
Orthodox Easter - by firing hundreds of rockets at each other's churches.
[*/quote*]

Das Video muß man gesehen haben. Die Bezeichnung Vollidioten für dieses Pack ist noch dicke untertrieben,

 7 
 on: April 21, 2014, 12:45:05 AM 
Started by RubyCat - Last post by el_Typo
.
"Das Veterinäramt Leverkusen bittet um Mithilfe:
Wer im 3 km Radius um diese Bienenstöcke wohnt und sachdienliche Hinweise hat, sollte sich umgehend mit Dr. Kurt Molitor vom Fachbereich 39 Veterinärmedizin der Stadt Leverkusen unter (0214) 406-3901 in Verbindung setzen!


 8 
 on: April 21, 2014, 12:24:33 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
http://www.hoaxilla.com/hoaxilla-157-masern-vor-gericht/

[*quote*]
HOAXILLA – Der skeptische Podcast aus Hamburg
Hoaxilla #157 – ‘Masern vor Gericht’

20. April 2014

Der junge Arzt David Bardens möchte sich der Herausforderung von Dr. Stefan Lanka stellen und für den Nachweis des Masernvirus € 100.000,- verdienen.

Diese Summe hatte Dr. Stefan Lanka vor zwei Jahren für den Nachweis ausgelobt.
[*/quote*]

Und dann? Dann wartet man über 3 1/2 Minuten, bis der Lärm endlich vorbei ist und das Interview tatsächlich beginnt. Danke, auf so etwas verzichten wir doch gerne.

 9 
 on: April 21, 2014, 12:02:07 AM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
Florian Freistetter hat "take the garbage out" nicht selbst gesagt, sondern von Hayley Stevens zitiert.

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/taking-out-garbage/

[*quote*]
Taking out the garbage: on approaching Skeptical Activism

Posted on 14 April, 2014 by Hayley Stevens in Musings, Skepticism // 12 Comments

For me, skeptical activism is all about information and how it is communicated with the world. I’m a grassroots skeptic activist, so good activism is all about how rational information is shared – but how successful your skeptical activism is depends upon how you measure success.

Just getting someone to consider my point of view for a moment is a success in my mind (even if they’re not totally convinced by what I’ve said.) Some would say this is setting the bar low and that success for skeptical activism comes in the form of people turning their back on nonsense beliefs, but as a former believer in a few types of nonsense, I consider that to be a very big ask. The transition from believer to non-believer is a personal decision that takes a lot of consideration, especially if it is a long standing belief that has a lot invested in it.

Sometimes peoples whole lives are built upon the foundation of belief
[*/quote*]


Hayley Stevens hat "take the garbage out" nicht selbst gesagt, sondern Mark Edward zitiert.

http://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/taking-out-garbage/

[*quote*]
“Get up on your feet and take out the garbage” Edward told the audience during his talk on Sunday. We are, Mark, we just tend not to call people garbage no matter how badly they may have behaved.

When I see skeptics behaving like this it disappoints me, and it makes me think of Simon Singh who, while sitting in an audience full of Sally Morgan fans, calmly explained to Sally face to face why she should undertake tests of her alleged abilities. In the end some people in that audience agreed with him. That is the kind of skepticism I can get behind any day of the week.
[*/quote*]

Mark Edward ist Mark Edward Wilson. Seine "Bio": http://www.themarkedward.com/bio.html

http://www.themarkedward.com/resume.html

[*quote*]
Note the tongue in cheek cover, easily overlooked, where the usual palm map includes the first two fingers crossed!  I predict that if you have read this far you will be compelled to dial up:  www.themarkedward.com and the Skeptologists web and blog site; www.skeptologists.com.  Write to Mark at markmindreader@gmail.com if you are interested in
[*/quote*]


Man kann und sollte Mark Edward durchaus eine Email schreiben. Wo er recht hat, hat er recht!

 10 
 on: April 20, 2014, 11:06:06 PM 
Started by Eule - Last post by Eule
Wenn man mit Aribert Deckers telefoniert, was tatsächlich möglich ist (es sei denn, er schmeißt Einen nach 2 Sekunden aus der Leitung, was "Professoren", "Heilern" und anderen Pfeifen passiert ist), redet man mit einem Mann, der seiner Zeit weit voraus ist. So beklagt er sich über die "Sonntagsfahrer" (seine Wortwahl) unter den "Skeptikern". Deckers dürfte es sehr amüsieren, daß Jahre nach seiner Kritik in der Öffentlichkeit Andere die "Skeptiker" gegen den Strich bürsten, und diese Anderen bislang als Köpfe der "Skeptiker" galten.

Eine neue Akte solltet ihr dafür schon spendieren.

http://scienceblogs.de/astrodicticum-simplex/2014/04/16/ist-skeptischer-aktivismus-kontraproduktiv/

[*quote*]
Ist skeptischer Aktivismus kontraproduktiv?
Veröffentlicht von Florian Freistetter am April 16, 2014

Ich gelte ja als Teil der “skeptischen Bewegung”, obwohl ich kein Mitglied in irgendeiner “Skeptikerorganisation” bin. Das ist durchaus Absicht (dazu später mehr). Und in letzter Zeit habe ich mir immer öfter Gedanken über bestimmte Aktionen der organisierten Skeptiker gemacht. Ein Artikel von Hayley Stevens hat mich nun dazu motiviert, diese Gedanken auch einmal aufzuschreiben. Zuerst empfehle ich euch aber, den Artikel von Hayley zu lesen – macht es wirklich, es lohnt sich: “Taking out the garbage: on approaching Skeptical Activism”.
[*/quote*]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10