Following are selected messages from the international "sci.skeptic" newsgroup on USEnet, a world-wide UNIX-based e-mail network. ============================================================ #4 06 Oct 89 14:23:58 [3] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Hundredth Monkey Rod Schmidt (lll-winken!riacs!rutgers!mentor.com!rods) recently wrote to me: > I read somewhere that the Bermuda Triangle was invented > by a reporter who had a deadline to meet, but no story. > 1. Have you heard of this and can you point me to a source? > 2. Do you know of any other examples of popular notions > whose history is easily traced back to something with > obviously low credibility? The story about the reporter > is the most powerful debunking I can imagine for the > Bermuda Triangle. I would like to apply the same technique > to other things. "Pyramid power" was discovered by someone > who visited Egypt and found a dead, dessicated cat in a > trash can in the Cheops Pyramid. (Yes, in the desert.) > I think the current SiO2-crystal business is due to a > crystal miner who wanted to boost the price of otherwise > worthless quartz. To the best of my knowledge, the "Bermuda Triangle" story emerged full-grown from the imagination of Charles Berlitz (of multi-lingual fame). I'm unaware of any prior source. Crystals have been in vogue before - it comes and goes. I don't know of any one particular avaricious rock-hound behind the current fashion. Hmm. Example of popular notion traceable to an untrustworthy source.... Have you heard of the "Hundredth-Monkey Phenomenon"? It approaches the status of holy writ among some New Agers. According to Lyall Watson's widely-quoted (1) book "Lifetide" (2), in 1952-2, young monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima figured out how to make sweet potatoes (provided by primatologists) more edible by washing them. They then taught their peers and parents, until by 1958, this behaviour was found among widely-spread members of the troop. So far, so good. Then in that year, a sort of group consciousness developed among the monkeys, when, say, the *hundredth* monkey began washing potatoes. Suddenly, almost *all* the monkeys began so doing. Further, "the habit seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously ... in colonies on other islands and one the mainland in a troop at Takasakiyama." This anecdote has been used to provide ideological support to such diverse notions as telepathy and nuclear disarmament -- you, the reader, could be the "hundredth monkey" necessary for global transformation. What gets lost in the shuffle is the evidence for Watson's factual claim. Like many New Agers, Watson voices the sentiment that "when a myth is shared by large numbers of people, it becomes a reality". Ron Amundson of the Hawaii Skeptics, who investigated Watson's claim (3), suggested that this latter statement could be rephrased as "Convince enough people of a lie, and it becomes the truth". (Amundson found that ALL of Watson's claimed documentation was grossly misrepresented, and in fact contradicted the - now famous - claim.) Whether one buys this philosophical stance or not, the notion that this alleged mass consciousness is somehow politically progressive is a curious one. Per Watson's vision, "Peace, love, and a taste for brown rice and tofu", as commentator Tim Farrington (4) put it, "will at a given point instantly envelope the planet, and humanity will live happily ever after.... Neuroses, bad habits, ignorance will all be dissolved in a flash, without effort on the part of the rest of us." Let's savour, for a moment, this balmy image, before allowing ourselves to think about it. Back in 1933 there must have been some hundredth German monkey who joined the Nazi party, mustn't there? The mass consciousness of the society was transformed. As the "Herrenrace" myth became shared by large numbers of people, it transformed the reality of Europe. Farrington continues: "There is no guarantee that the hundredth monkey will be any wiser than the first, and no assurance that the first will be wise at all. The myth of critical mass, and its magic, is double-edged." Farrington suggests that, rather than admire the hundredth monkey, brainlessly falling in tune with the mass consciousness of the other 99, we instead take our hats off to the one-hundred- first monkey's "individual acts of conscience and reason, acts not effortless, nor particularly inspired, acts not necessarily validated by the herd nor telepathically obvious; but acts simply that are steps, one by one, on the difficult, intricate, sometimes ambiguous, rewarding path of a single human life." ---- References: (1) - "The Hundredth Monkey" by Ken Keyes, Jr., 1982. Vision Books, Coos Bay, Oregon. - Article: "The Hundredth Monkey" in "Updated Special Issue: 'A New Science of Life'" of "Brain/Mind Bulletin", 1982. - Film and videotape: "The Hundredth Monkey", Elda Hartley, producer, 1982. Hartley Film Foundation, Inc., Cos Cob, Conn. (2) "Lifetide" by Lyall Watson, 1979. Simon and Schuster, NY. (3) Article: "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" by Ron Amundson, in "Skeptical Inquirer", Summer 1985, pp.348-56. Follow-up in Spring 1987 issue, pp. 303-4. Watson had alleged, in "Whole Earth Review", Fall 1986 (the "Fringes of Reason" issue) that his citations weren't really citations, and that the whole story, although contradicted by his supposed evidence, is nonetheless true. See also article "Spud- Dunking Monkey Theory Debunked" by Boyce Rensberger, "Washington Post", July 6, 1989). (4) Article "The 101st Monkey" by Tim Farrington, in "The Node" magazine, Winter 1987, San Francisco. Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics Sysop, The Skeptic's Board (415-648-8944) FidoNet 1:125/27 and 8:914/207 Internet Rick_Moen@f27.n127.z1.fidonet.org "A skeptic, not a cynic." "All spelling errors subject to change without notice!" #5 06 Oct 89 14:29:17 [2] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Review in "The Nation" Keith Rowell (keithr@tolkien.WV.TEK.COM) has made reference in this discussion group to "the perceptive book review of Not Necessarily the New Age (Prometheus Press) by Tom Anthanasiou posted here recently" (review from "The Nation", July 10, 1989, pp 61-3). As chance would have it, Mr. Athanasiou recently sent me a copy of that review and asked for my comments. Following is the text of my recent reply: Dear Tom: First of all, thank you for the copy of your review from "The Nation". It's always a pleasure to read a well-written review of any type, and I collect those on topics like yours, as part of my little hobby of being a card-carrying skeptic. May I indulge myself with a few comments? It might help to tell you a bit about my own perspective, first. I'm an old-time leftie, a sort of anarcho-socialist: volunteer worker on a far-left kibbutz in Israel, volunteer campaign worker for Art Agnos, Leo Ryan, Ron Dellums, & Jesse Jackson, ACLU member, NOW member, donator to Greenpeace, that sort of thing. Your article was all the more interesting, given that background. So, your skirting around the brink of saying that New Age-ism is (or might be) some sort of progressive force was one of the things that perplexed me. You do this in several places: "[The New Age] shares its dark visions, if not always its metaphysical conclusions, with ecological movements and often with the left." "The left, for its part, can't afford such an easy dismissal, for in the New Age we can measure a profound alienation, one that we've largely failed to link to an attractive and compelling vision of socialism." You do draw back from the brink to say "New Age theorists are largely hostile not only to the left tradition, which they see as bound to reductionism and domination, but to critical thought and historical analysis as well [etc.]", yet I sense that you are looking back wistfully. Tom, New Age thought has, to date, been antithetical to ANY organized political efforts. A movement that teaches people not to analyse is NOT going to be an effective force for meaningful social change. On the other hand, you ascribe to the skeptics a hidebound ideological stance "that scientific knowledge can be easily and unproblematically abstracted from the society that holds it", and "rejects superstitions about the supernatural world only to embrace equally superstitious beliefs in science". This IS NOT THE SKEPTICISM I'M FAMILIAR WITH. Skeptics use scientific inquiry as, as a friend of mine puts it, "a neat tool". Belief in science is NOT a part of it. I do know some folks who do take part in a quaint worship of science -- I keep them at a distance. The day that belief becomes prevalent in skepticism is the day I and many others drop out. You would not criticise your neighbourhood carpenter for a "superstitious belief in hammers", so why criticise skeptics for their attraction to the tool called science? Yet, as BAS Secretary and as system operator of our computer conference system, I hear this sort of (unsupported) criticism all the time. We are (take your pick) fundamentalist materialists, victims of scientism, scientific realists, logical positivists, atheistic humanists, simple-minded rationalists, and/or bourgeois ideologues, according to our critics. And I didn't even get a bumper sticker! Also, skeptics already have their work cut out for them. Our chosen area of concentration is the EXAMINATION OF TESTABLE CLAIMS, in the fringe-science/medicine and paranormal fields. That's quite a task. We should be critics of science and epistemology, too? If we don't take on that additional chore, does that mean we "embrace superstitious beliefs in science" and are "bourgeois ideologues"? You also say that "science is a form of power as well as a method, and there are good reasons to distrust, not to say hate, its existing institutions". But we don't anywhere endorse those institutions. We teach and advocate a particular application of critical thought. I submit that critical thought is a (welcome) threat generally to entrenched institutions. Who is more likely to empower people to attack those institutions, the New Agers, who shun critical thought, or we, who teach it? You say "Martin Gardner, James Randi, and other luminaries of the skeptical movement are mercilessly logical in their pursuit of superstitious bunko, but they're uncritical to the point of servility when it comes to science and instrumental technology. And when high technology is at issue, artificial intelligence and nuclear power plants, skeptics are prone to an optimism both naive and credulous...." Well, I have ALL the back issues of "Skeptical Inquirer" and "BASIS" (our newsletter), and I can't find that ANYWHERE. Where, sir, might I find it? You certainly won't find it in our organization, and certainly not in ME. I'm no Feyerabend or Roszak, but I am a critic of science institutions and of technology, particularly of the type you mention. In addition, like most skeptics, I respect other approaches to knowledge (such as anthropology, non-scientific psychology, and mystical experience), where they are appropriate. The skeptics' movement has had two good tactical reasons to remain silent on political issues of all kinds: 1. The movement caters to very diverse sorts. There's a significant (but definitely minority) libertarian contingent, an almost equal number of genuine lefties (the chair and vice-chair of BAS are, respectively, a "Black Scholar Magazine" worker/Black Panther hanger-on and a dedicated union activist), some Norman Rockwell Reaganites, and the rest are all over the map. ANY political alignment would drastically restrict our appeal, and so be unwise. 2. In the opinion of many, it would diminish our credibility, reduce our impact, and diffuse our efforts. For similar reasons, we stay clear of purely philosophical/ethical disputes. So, those of us who DO advocate political change do so outside of the skeptics' movement, and hope that in the long term, less public credulity toward channeling, UFOs, psychic surgery, and other opiates will stimulate more interest in real societal change. Notwithstanding the fact that it is not our chosen field to examine epistemological problems, the psychology of belief, and so on, you WILL find such examination in the pages of "Skeptical Inquirer" and "BASIS". Thus I find your allegation of its absence to be mystifying. I refer you in particular to "SI" XIV.1 pp. 25-34, XIII.4 pp. 365-90, XIII.1 pp. 70-75, XII.4 376-85, XI.4 pp 44-50, IX.1 pp 36-55, and "BASIS" of June 1987 (on metaphysics) for starters. Even if all we did was "debunk", a world with less bunk would be a better place, no? However, that is NOT all we do! Your further comments would be most welcome, if you have time. If you would like to write an article for "BASIS" on problems of skepticism or most any topic, I'm sure it would be warmly received. -- Rick Moen, Secretary, Bay Area Skeptics (Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org) Sysop, The Skeptic's Board, 415-648-8944, 1:125/27, 8:914/207 #16 20 Oct 89 11:39:55 [2] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Re: Scientology In article <489@ra.cs.Virginia.EDU>, clc5q@shamash.cs. Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes as follows: > The fact that you think the Scientology nonsense says a lot about > religion in general reveals how irrational many "skeptics" really > are. You are assuming what needs to be proven : that all > religions are invented by men, thus none are revealed. Finding > one religion obviously concocted by a con artist, you then > conclude that this says a lot about religion in general. Assuming > the conclusion, guilt by association ---- really great logic > here. > > ...Nothing like Occam's Razor, in the hands of you rational > skeptics ! Thanks for the myth about Hubbard. Now I know I should > drop out of the Christian world altogether. The only logical > conclusion to draw, right ? Unfortunately, there is a small but noisy minority attempting to use the skeptics' movement as cover for anti-religious sentiment, science-worship, and pro-technology ideology, seldom if ever bothering with the "scientific investigation of claims of the paranormal". These few cranks and fanatics bear much the same parasitic relationship to the skeptics' movement that Lyndon LaRouche bears to the (U.S.A.) Democratic Party, and are in general best ignored. Most skeptics I know of are more cautious in their assertions, and do not have that sort of ideological axe to grind. It is an unfortunate fact that every movement attracts extremist hanger- ons who attempt to latch onto its established credibility. I hope the difference is sufficiently clear. Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics, a local skeptics' group (formed originally as part of CSICOP) that -- is neutral on questions of religion per se -- is not an apologist for high technology -- uses science as a tool, not a belief system -- does NOT advertise local events in international e-mail conferences -- is NOT a social club for the like-minded -- investigates testable fringe-science claims and invites a variety of perspectives on them. Internet: Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org MCI Mail: RMOEN (acct. 389-5960) Dial-up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board BBS; SF, CA -- badly damaged, but survived the 'quake) FidoNet: 1:125/27 RBBS-Net: 8:914/207 ParaNet: Address pending #8 23 Oct 89 15:07:59 [0] From: Vaso Bovan To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <1495.253FB20A@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Rick.Moen@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen) writes: > >Unfortunately, there is a small but noisy minority attempting to >use the skeptics' movement as cover for anti-religious sentiment, >science-worship, and pro-technology ideology, seldom if ever >bothering with the "scientific investigation of claims of the >paranormal". These few cranks and fanatics bear much the same >parasitic relationship to the skeptics' movement that Lyndon >LaRouche bears to the (U.S.A.) Democratic Party, and are in >general best ignored. > >Most skeptics I know of are more cautious in their assertions, >and do not have that sort of ideological axe to grind. It is an >unfortunate fact that every movement attracts extremist hanger- >ons who attempt to latch onto its established credibility. I >hope the difference is sufficiently clear. > >Rick Moen, Secretary >Bay Area Skeptics, > >a local skeptics' group (formed originally as part of CSICOP) that >-- is neutral on questions of religion per se >-- is not an apologist for high technology >-- uses science as a tool, not a belief system >-- does NOT advertise local events in international e-mail >conferences >-- is NOT a social club for the like-minded >-- investigates testable fringe-science claims and invites a >variety of perspectives on them. > >Dial-up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board BBS; SF, CA -- >badly damaged, but survived the 'quake) The above posting may raise some eyebrows among the uninitiated. There is unfortunately a "turf war" among skeptics' groups in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'm not directly involved, and heard about it originally through "between the lines reading" of postings on sci.skeptic. I offer my comments for what they're worth. There is, on one hand, the Bay Area Skeptics (BAS), an enormously influential organization (among skeptics), which was formed some 7+ years ago by Bob Steiner, (magician, humanist, advocate of skepticism) and others. On the other hand, there is a breakaway organization, the East Bay Skeptics Society, (EBSS) formed about 18 months ago, largely by Daniel Sabsay (inventor, software engineer). I've corresponded with, and had long telephone conversations with several of the principals. I base my conclusions on that. There has been almost zero discussion in BASIS, (the BAS newsletter), or on the "Skeptic's Board BBS." I've been a subscriber to BASIS for over six years, but never was aware of the organizational infighting because it was never mentioned within those pages. More about that later. BAS and EBSS have radically different organizational structures. BAS is not an open membership organization. BAS *is*, I understand, just the score or so directors, and technical advisors. The rest of us are not members, but merely subscribers/supporters. This structure has several implications about how BAS operates. On the plus side, BAS has attracted many very capable and justly famous "directors." The newsletter of BAS is very intellectually up-scale, and aware. The "semi-closed" nature of the directorship (it is not "elected" in any meaningful sense) is highly resistant to infiltration by fringe crusaders/agitators. On the minus side, I think the BAS can rightly be accused of cronyism, resistance to organizational evolution, and a certain smugness. The BASIS newsletter is also somewhat aloof from the great unwashed mass of skeptics who subscribe to the publication. EBSS makes a great show of its "democratic" nature. Membership is "open to all." There are currently some 150 members. Directors are elected, but it must be said that at this point in EBSS development, Daniel Sabsay is the main driving force of the organization. EBSS specializes in a sort of "social/ political" skeptical agenda. There is much talk of board "gender balance," pot-luck suppers, voluntarism, touchy-feely stuff. The ESBB newsletter, "The Beacon" is a house organ, full of organizational news (in stark contrast to BASIS). However, the Beacon is intellectually lightweight, and occasionally too sneering/strident, for my taste, in its assessment of the non-skeptic world. Why the split ? I've heard different versions of the story. There is an unfortunate tendency to paint the other side as composed of unreasoning ogres. Sabsay and supporters felt BAS was dominated by a very small clique of founders who had refused to entertain new ideas. Especially, Sabsay and supporters felt BAS was too centralized and jealous of its power and influence. Sabsey et al wanted BAS to be an "umbrella organization" within the Bay Area, but that power should devolve to smaller, local organizations, such as "East Bay Skeptics," "South Bay Skeptics," etc. BAS, or at least, the active portion of its board, saw the dabate in terms of Sabsay's personality. These directors rejected his organizational ideas, and resented his continual "badgering." They saw no need for multiple autonomous Bay Area organizations, and absolutely rejected "democratization" of the BAS. In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and badly handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since then, Sabsay, and primarily, several directors of BAS, have been taking pot shots at each other, as appears occasionally on this forum. It seems to me some of these shots border on slander and libel. Sabsay has done a remarkable job with EBSS. From almost nothing, he has built up the organization in 18 months to about 150 members. He has done so, in my view, in the teeth of fierce hostility by some elements within BAS. Today, EBSS is recognized by CSICOP and is listed as an "affliated skeptics' group" in Skeptical Inquirer. On the other hand, it is clear that Sabsay's somewhat abrasive personality contributed to his difficulties while within BAS, and he himself admits he can be rude and obnoxious at times, especially to "psychic charletans" and their supporters. There are a couple of disturbing aspects to the way BAS has handled this affair. First, I think Sabsay is correct in his assessment that BAS was, and still is to some extent, a self perpetuating oligarchy. (In its defence, BAS never pretended to be a "democratic organization," nor to have a political agenda). I think BAS has been needlessly vicious in its attempts to isolate, defame, and squash EBSS, (in both local and national arenas). I think BASIS and the "Skeptic's Board" BSS have reflected too much the personal biases and preoccupations of some BAS members. (Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention the EBSS in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay Skeptics" or EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.) Lastly, I think this skirmish has gone on too long. The principals need to disengage. EBSS is established and will survive. It is time for BAS to come to a friendly accomodation. Apparently, the BAS Board came within one vote of recognizing EBSS at the last BAS board meeting (I'm told this second- hand), but backed off when some board members threatened to quit BAS if EBSS was recognized. If I have got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal. I post this little essay in sci.skeptic because I believe it is of general interest to skeptics, and because I believe discussion in other forums has been throttled. -Vaso (All the usual disclaimers apply) #19 23 Oct 89 23:33:15 [2] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <29881@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) has made some severely mistaken statements about the Bay Area Skeptics. I would like to set the record straight. > There is unfortunately a "turf war" among skeptics' groups in the > San Francisco Bay Area. Bay Area Skeptics has at no time been involved in any turf war with any party or parties. It does not claim any "turf", and has never done so. > BAS *is*, I understand, just the score or so directors, and > technical advisors. The rest of us are not members, but merely > subscribers/supporters. This structure has several implications > about how BAS operates.... The "semi-closed" nature of the > directorship (it is not "elected" in any meaningful sense) is > highly resistant to infiltration by fringe crusaders/agitators. This is highly inaccurate. In seven years of BAS history, only one person has ever been rejected for any post with BAS, and that only because he was (and is) fanatical and nearly impossible to work with. More importantly, he had, while acting in an official BAS capacity, behaved so as to bring public disrepute on BAS and the skeptics' movement. Good riddance. There has been a constant shortage of activists, and all who step forward (with that one exception) have been immediately snatched up and placed, often partially unwillingly, on the Board of Directors. I was a prime example. I was not, I freely admit, a "crusader/agitator", and I'm thankful that few such have arisen to trouble those of us who have REAL work to do. The Board serves an almost strictly theoretical function of settling policy issues, and membership is irrelevant to BAS activism. It appears that Vaso has been misled on this point. > On the minus side, I think the BAS can rightly be accused of > cronyism, resistance to organizational evolution, and a certain > smugness. The "BASIS" newsletter is also somewhat aloof from the > great unwashed mass of skeptics who subscribe to the publication. "Cronyism": Given the dearth of new activists, this is at best highly unfair. What are we supposed to do, put out want ads? "Resistance to organizational evolution": What evolution?? BAS's organization is deliberately kept minimal to keep it out of the way of those volunteers who get the work done, and reflects their needs. Given this flexibility and minimal nature, I cannot guess what Vaso has in mind. "Smugness": Does Vaso mean "the quality of being highly self-satisfied"? What on earth??? > BAS, or at least, the active portion of its board, saw the dabate > in terms of Sabsay's personality. These directors rejected his > organizational ideas, and resented his continual "badgering." > They saw no need for multiple autonomous Bay Area organizations, > and absolutely rejected "democratization" of the BAS. I will make no comment on Mr. Sabsay's personality. I certainly have better ways to spend my time, and those curious about Mr. S.'s psyche can judge it for themselves. I will also make no comment about Mr. Sabsay's ACTIONS, whose merits can and have been debated entirely apart from his personality. As to our rejecting his "organizational ideas", Mr. Sabsay served on our By-Laws committee and wrote the bulk of our by-laws' text. BAS has NOT opposed formation of other groups. Not counting Mr. S's club, we have been, or are presently being, instrumental in setting up no fewer than four other groups, and I will gladly document for Vaso BAS directors' encouragement of Mr. S. in his very different approach. Also, we sent the text of our completed by-laws to Mr. S. by modem so he would not have to write his own from scratch. Mr. S. has been extremely difficult to establish a reasonable basis for cooperation with, but it has not been for lack of effort on BAS's part. > In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and badly > handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since then, Sabsay, > and primarily, several directors of BAS, have been taking pot > shots at each other, as appears occasionally on this forum. It > seems to me some of these shots border on slander and libel. Neither I nor any other BAS director have made ANY public comment on Mr. S., and such private comments as I have made have been carefully, copiously, and solidly documented. On the other hand, my sole response to two separate libels against me personally has been not to react at all. Since Vaso admittedly did not observe this "parting of the ways", he would seem ill-qualified to pass judgement on our part in it, especially since he has NOT gotten the facts right. > [Sabsay] has done so, in my view, in the teeth of fierce > hostility by some elements within BAS. Vaso's view is mistaken. BAS has taken no action against Mr. S. whatsoever, nor has any board member. I HAVE told Mr. S. he may not use my BBS, The Skeptic's Board, until further notice. For those sufficiently curious to want to hear how he richly earned this unique honour, I will refer you to the man himself, though his account may be highly selective. [continued] Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics Sysop, The Skeptic's Board BBS (down for repairs, but back soon) Internet: Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org FidoNet: 1:125/27 RBBS-Net: 8:914/207 MCI Mail: RMOEN (acct. #387-5960) ParaNet: Alpha Centauri Dial-Up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board, SF, CA) "It takes two to tell the truth: one to speak, and another to hear." -- Henry David Thoreau Disclaimer: Everything in this message is a lie. #20 23 Oct 89 23:34:49 [1] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <29881@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) has made some severely mistaken statements about the Bay Area Skeptics. This reply is continued from a prior message. > There are a couple of disturbing aspects to the way BAS has > handled this affair. First, I think Sabsay is correct in his > assessment that BAS was, and still is to some extent, a self- > perpetuating oligarchy. An oligarchy gives power to the wealthy. I can testify (by quick reference to my bank balance) that BAS is NOT an oligarchy. The organization itself owns a few hundred back issues of "BASIS", a copy of Ventura Publisher, and a small amount of cash. Far from being an exclusive club, BAS has put in positions of responsi- bility ALL who came forward, all but one sole, solitary... ah... shall we say... "crusader/agitator". > I think BAS has been needlessly vicious in its attempts to > isolate, defame, and squash EBSS, (in both local and national > arenas). Vaso is engaging in innuendo, and should either support this point (which he cannot, since it is false), or should withdraw it and apologise. > (Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention the EBSS > in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay > Skeptics" or EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's > Board BBS.) As system operator (and owner) of The Skeptic's Board, I hereby formally request a retraction and apology from Vaso for this allegation. This is particularly outrageous. I also predict that when Vaso tells us his sources for this information, it will turn out to come, directly and indirectly, from exactly one person. (Guess who.) > If I have got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal. > I post this little essay in sci.skeptic because I believe it is > of general interest to skeptics, and because I believe discussion > in other forums has been throttled. I invite Vaso and any others to make a far, far greater effort to arrive at the facts IN ADVANCE of posting such wildly and egregiously mistaken statements. I hope to see his apologies posted in this forum, where the original was placed, with a copy sent directly to me. I certainly profoundly disagree with Vaso's assessment of the general interest of this matter. On the basis of long and bitter experience, I know for a fact that, on the contrary, it bores and drives away the public, activists, and potential activists. I also resent being forced into yet another debate over Mr. S. and his club, when my concern was with the far more significant, disturbing fringe elements, taking cover within the skeptics' movement, and using it to advance their science-worship, anti- religious, pro-technology, sociological, and ideological views. That was in fact the subject of my message. I'm sick to death of ideologues, be they in Oakland or wherever, giving the skeptics' movement a bad name, and I intend to speak out against it wherever I find an appropriate occasion. Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics Sysop, The Skeptic's Board BBS (down for repairs, but back soon) Internet: Rick_Moen@f27.n125.z1.fidonet.org FidoNet: 1:125/27 RBBS-Net: 8:914/207 MCI Mail: RMOEN (acct. #387-5960) ParaNet: Alpha Centauri Dial-Up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board, SF, CA) "It takes two to tell the truth: one to speak, and another to hear." -- Henry David Thoreau Disclaimer: Everything in this message is a lie. #2 24 Oct 89 03:24:03 [3] From: Elaine Milas To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In <29881@buckaroo.mips.com>, vaso@mips.com (Vaso Bovan) writes "EBSS makes a great show of its "democratic" nature. Membership is "open to all." There are currently some 150 members. Directors are elected, but it must be said that at this point in EBSS development, Daniel Sabsay is the main driving force of the organization. EBSS specializes in a sort of..." You've got it wrong, friend. I've watched both groups at work, and EBSS is in practice about as democratic as the Bolshevik Party. It's all Daniel Sabsay, when you get right down to it. And it's all a device to express his resentment at Bay Area Skeptics giving him the heave-ho because of his extreme rudeness to Loyd Auerbach the parapsychologist, when Auerbach came to talk and Sabsay was the Skeptics' meeting moderator. He'd never, ever apologise, so he had to invent a means to "get back" at the Skeptics. That's why he sucks off Bay Area Skeptics' reputation, and refuses to change the name of his group, and why he'll never make peace. It's all just his stupid grudge. And I wouldn't join a group run by that egomaniacal bozo if you paid me. Oh, yeah. The Skeptics asked Sabsay to change the name of his group, about a year ago, because a lot of people have been confusing the groups. They even supposedly got threatened with a lawsuit by some group that was mad at one of SABSAY's people. Sabsay didn't even reply to the request. That's because A-1 assholes **never** back down. And you want the SKEPTICS(!) to "come to a friendly accomodation"? Earth to Vaso!!! You, Vaso Bovan, also say: "In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and badly handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since then, Sabsay, and primarily, several directors of BAS, have been taking pot shots at each other, as appears occasionally on this forum. It seems to me some of these shots border on slander and libel." Like hell! I've never seen the BAS people indulge in any sort of backlash at Daniel Sabsay or EBSS (by name at least) at all. They must be awfully tempted, though, with all the crap the guy throws at them. I don't know where you're getting fed all this tripe, but you're sure being led down the primrose path. You (Vaso) go on: "(Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention the EBSS in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three words `East Bay Skeptics' or `EBSS' is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.)" Did it ever occur to you that a lot of Sabsay-type bickering in the pages of "BASIS" would be a colossal turn-off for readers? And that maybe that's exactly what Daniel Sabsay wants to happen? Why don't you suggest that Sabsay run his sad little oppressed victim's story in his "Beacon", if he's so put-upon by having "discussions in other forums throttled"? Maybe he doesn't do it for the same reason "BASIS" doesn't? Or could it be that this embarrassment to the skeptics movement is embarrassed, himself? (Not really likely.) Get the facts, guy! Kindly remove foot from mouth before talking! A little more skepticism, ye skeptics! --- Elaine Milas --- #2 26 Oct 89 15:01:25 [3] From: George Warren To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area "I can be rude and obnoxious at times, especially to `psychic charletans' and their supporters." -- Daniel Sabsay, as paraphrased in article <29881@buckaroo.mips.COM> by Vaso Bovan (vaso@mips.COM) Ho, ho, ho! "I regret that my sexual anomalies, stemming from repression in childhood, led me to indiscreet violation of the persons of some ladies." -- Jack the Ripper "Within the time-frame of my youth, it was my proclivity toward derring-do that led me to further acts of doubtful legitimacy." -- John Dillinger "In extenuation, may I remind you that the man was a troublemaker, an outside agitator from Nazareth, and obviously trying to subvert law and order." -- Judas Iscariot #6 27 Oct 89 17:57:17 [0] From: Robert Firth To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <1526.25440910@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Rick.Moen@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen) writes: >An oligarchy gives power to the wealthy I think you mean a 'plutocracy'. But then, who knows Greek any more. Judging by this group, the meaning of 'skepsis' eludes the majority of contributors. #30 27 Oct 89 18:04:43 [0] From: Vaso Bovan To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <1527.2544F830@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Elaine.Milas@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (Elaine Milas) writes: >In <29881@buckaroo.mips.com>, vaso@mips.com (Vaso Bovan) writes > > "EBSS makes a great show of its "democratic" nature. > Membership is "open to all." There are currently some 150 > members. Directors are elected, but it must be said that at > this point in EBSS development, Daniel Sabsay is the main > driving force of the organization. EBSS specializes in a > sort of..." > >You've got it wrong, friend. I've watched both groups at >work, and EBSS is in practice about as democratic as the Bolshevik >Party. It's all Daniel Sabsay, when you get right down to it. >And it's all a device to express his resentment at Bay Area >Skeptics giving him the heave-ho because of his extreme rudeness >to Loyd Auerbach the parapsychologist, when Auerbach came to talk >and Sabsay was the Skeptics' meeting moderator. I put my comments parentithically because there is disagreement about the degree of "democracy" in EBSS. You've cut out the context in which I made my comment. Whatever can be said now about "dominant" personalities could equally have been said about BAS in its early years, as I'm sure you're aware. >He'd never, ever apologise, Sabsay has the tape of this incident. He agrees the incident gives him no credit, but has said the true problem was that Auerbach was one of a BAS Director's friends, and that this friend blew the incident out of proportion to win points with Auerbach. I wasn't at this meeting, but at other meetings I've been so disgusted at this director's badgering of people who disagreed with him, I almost walked out. The kettle shouldn't be calling the pot black. >so he had to invent a means to "get back" at the Skeptics. This is an example of the unfortunate characterizations of this "affair" >That's why he sucks off Bay Area Skeptics' reputation, >and refuses to change the name of his group, and why he'll never >make peace. It's all just his stupid grudge. And I wouldn't >join a group run by that egomaniacal bozo if you paid me. > I take it you prefer other egomaniacs. I've been told that EBSS makes peace overtures every couple of months, and is willing to grant BAS "primus inter pares" status. I've been told BAS deliberately ignores these overtures. I've been told the BAS policy is basically to ignore EBSS altogether. Finally, I've been told the BAS Board came within a vote of deciding to cooperate with EBSS, but did not because certain members threatened to quit if such a thing happened. Was I given these stories correctly ? >Oh, yeah. The Skeptics asked Sabsay to change the name of his >group, about a year ago, because a lot of people have been >confusing the groups. They even supposedly got threatened with a >lawsuit by some group that was mad at one of SABSAY's people. >Sabsay didn't even reply to the request. That's because A-1 >assholes **never** back down. And you want the SKEPTICS(!) to >"come to a friendly accomodation"? Earth to Vaso!!! > Asked ? I've heard it characterized as a threat. >You, Vaso Bovan, also say: > > "In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and > badly handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since > then, Sabsay, and primarily, several directors of BAS, have > been taking pot shots at each other, as appears > occasionally on this forum. It seems to me some of these > shots border on slander and libel." > >Like hell! I've never seen the BAS people indulge in any sort >of backlash at Daniel Sabsay or EBSS (by name at least) at all. Was there an incident where a BAS director got up in front of a national CSICOP conference, and thoroughly embarrassed himself by delivering a harangue against EBSS ? Did CSICOP nevertheless decide to list EBSS (perhaps in reaction to the harangue) in Skeptical Inquirer as a "cooperating organization" ? Have I been given the story straight ? >They must be awfully tempted, though, with all the crap the guy >throws at them. I don't know where you're getting fed all this >tripe, but you're sure being led down the primrose path. > As a matter of fact, I'm getting much of this tripe from long phone conversations with "several" past and present BAS Board members, who are mortified by the entire handling of this situation, and are actively searching for a face-saving accomodation. >You (Vaso) go on: > > "(Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention > the EBSS in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three > words `East Bay Skeptics' or `EBSS' is enough to get you > thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.)" > >Did it ever occur to you that a lot of Sabsay-type bickering in >the pages of "BASIS" would be a colossal turn-off for readers? As I stated earlier, I've been a supporter/subscriber of BASIS for a half-dozen years. (Apparently the only official "members" are the directors of BAS. The rest of us don't count). There has never been any discussion of the issues (and I believe there are substantive issues that Sabsay wanted to put forward). The broad supporting subscribership has never been consulted about any BAS policies. At the very least, it is presumptuous to assume the readership would be turned off, though you may be right. >And that maybe that's exactly what Daniel Sabsay wants to happen? >Why don't you suggest that Sabsay run his sad little oppressed >victim's story in his "Beacon", if he's so put-upon by having >"discussions in other forums throttled"? Maybe he doesn't do it >for the same reason "BASIS" doesn't? Or could it be that this >embarrassment to the skeptics movement is embarrassed, himself? >(Not really likely.) The most embarrassed skeptics are those members of BAS (and EBSS) who are looking for a way to cut down the noise volume. One contact offered me the opinion that this imbroglio is 99.99% personality conflict between headstrong principals. > >Get the facts, guy! Kindly remove foot from mouth before talking! >A little more skepticism, ye skeptics! > I was careful to gather "the facts" as best I could before I posted my little essay. I talked to "several" past and present BAS Board members. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to reveal their names (I plead journalistic source- protection here), except for the obvious contacts with Rick Moen with whom I exchanged written correspondence, and Daniel Sabsay, with whom I had a detailed 90 minute phone conversation. I've stated my conclusion earlier. There are very few facts in this fiasco. there are very many unfortunate personality conflicts. One contact told me outright to discount everything I heard, from all parties, by 80%. I also, by the way, could not find any villains. #40 27 Oct 89 23:42:21 [1] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area Vaso (with aid from Ms. Milas) seems determined to air this whole affair in public, which, as I have already stated, strikes me as a poor idea. However, since no one is listening to me, we'll just have to test my opinion that the public will be bored, offended, and driven away. Wonderful. In article <30079@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) writes: >> He'd never, ever apologise, > Sabsay has the tape of this incident. He agrees the incident > gives him no credit, but has said the true problem was that > Auerbach was one of a BAS Director's friends, and that this > friend blew the incident out of proportion to win points with > Auerbach.... This is before I became active with BAS, and long before I was put on the board. However, I have heard descriptions (separately) from several who were there, and all characterised Mr. S.'s actions as a disgrace. Further, I attended a SECOND meeting where Auerbach (the parapsychologist) spoke to us, and AGAIN Mr. S. interrupted him with rude and hostile remarks. Up until that point, I had, like Vaso, half bought Mr. S.'s post-hoc rationalising. After a while, it becomes no longer sensible to extend the benefit of the doubt. >> Oh, yeah. The Skeptics asked Sabsay to change the name of his >> group, about a year ago, because a lot of people have been >> confusing the groups. They even supposedly got threatened with >> a lawsuit by some group that was mad at one of SABSAY's people. >> Sabsay didn't even reply to the request. That's because A-1 >> assholes **never** back down. And you want the SKEPTICS(!) to >> "come to a friendly accomodation"? Earth to Vaso!!! > Asked ? I've heard it characterized as a threat. I regret that I must confirm that Ms. Milas's statements are correct. BAS was indeed threatened with a lawsuit because of confusion between the groups. This raises the matter of BAS's grievance against Mr. S: BAS has worked long and hard to establish and protect its reputation, and Mr. S., by using a name for his club so very close to ours, is creating widespread confusion between the groups. Each group's reputation should rest on the group's own merits, and neither should have to worry about being co-defendents in lawsuits against the other. BAS directors' worries about suits against Mr. S. were part of the reason why when he nominated himself for the BAS Board (boasting that he would eject Chairman Loebig), he was rejected by a unanimous vote. Accordingly, BAS Chairman Larry Loebig, speaking with the support of at least seven of the eleven directors, wrote Mr. S. in June 1988 asking that he change his club's name to one not likely to be confused with ours. Vaso was misled once again by whoever "characterized [it] as a threat". I quote Larry: > If you change the name of your organization accordingly, we can > then discuss areas of cooperation. > > Furthermore, if you do indeed choose to continue to ride on our > coat-tails by continuing to use a name that is easily confused > with and identified with Bay Area Skeptics, we will necessarily > conclude that it was and is your definite intention to perpetuate > the confusion and infringement upon our rights, and we will > accordingly pursue appropriate lawful action. Such action may > include, but is not limited to, contacting CSICOP, the press, > and such other parties as we deem appropriate for the protection > of our goodwill and reputation. Readers may choose to see this as a threat if they wish, but at least they no longer need rely on "characterizations". > I've been told that EBSS makes peace overtures every couple of > months, and is willing to grant BAS "primus inter pares" status. > I've been told BAS deliberately ignores these overtures.... I've seen lots of lobbying, and some libel, but not one peace overture. I HAVE asked Daniel repeatedly why he has never replied to Larry's request. No reply to my requests, either. That's it in a nutshell: We ask him to address our one grievance, and he ignores us, demands concessions, and talks about how oppressed he is. > Was there an incident where a BAS director got up in front of a > national CSICOP conference, and thoroughly embarrassed himself > by delivering a harangue against EBSS ? Did CSICOP nevertheless > decide to list EBSS (perhaps in reaction to the harangue) in > Skeptical Inquirer as a "cooperating organization" ? Have I been > given the story straight ? Vaso has, once again, NOT been given the story straight. It was not at the CSICOP conference itself, but rather during discussion at the local groups' session. Bob Steiner spoke out against CSICOP cooperation with EBSS =>under its present name<=. It was NOT a harangue against EBBS. Afterwards, Steiner had the overwhelming support of the local-group representatives present. CSICOP decided to list EBSS in "Skeptical Inquirer" without name change (against the advice of all but one of the CSICOP Fellows in our area) not because of any "harangue", but because of a pressure tactic I cannot discuss because of embarrassment I might cause CSICOP and others. [continued] Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics #41 27 Oct 89 23:43:48 [1] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area [continued] In article <30079@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) writes: > Finally, I've been told the BAS Board came within a vote of > deciding to cooperate with EBSS, but did not because certain > members threatened to quit if such a thing happened. Was I given > these stories correctly ? No (surprise), Vaso was NOT given this story correctly. No vote, no threat. If a vote were held on giving in to ANY of Mr. S.'s demands, the vote would be eight to three against. > There has never been any discussion of the issues (and I believe > there are substantive issues that Sabsay wanted to put forward). > The broad supporting subscribership has never been consulted > about any BAS policies. At the very least, it is presumptuous to > assume the readership would be turned off, though you may be > right. Sabsay has aired his views in several places: On the Skeptics' SIG that BAS operated in 1987 on a San Francisco BBS, at a BAS volunteers' meeting (where he shouted for three hours, driving away many volunteers permanently), and in a leaflet passed around inside one of our meetings. He has never submitted them in an article to "BASIS". Ms. Milas makes an excellent point: If what Mr. S. so badly needs is a forum for his dispute, why has he never aired it in his "Beacon"? The fact that he limits himself to disrupting OUR events suggests he may fear his own readers being "bored, offended, and driven away". > The most embarrassed skeptics are those members of BAS (and EBSS) > who are looking for a way to cut down the noise volume. One > contact offered me the opinion that this imbroglio is 99.99% > personality conflict between headstrong principals. > ... > I've stated my conclusion earlier. There are very few facts in > this fiasco. there are very many unfortunate personality > conflicts. One contact told me outright to discount everything > I heard, from all parties, by 80%. I also, by the way, could not > find any villains. It is very convenient for Mr. S. to paint this as a "personality conflict" (which he just happens to have with about a dozen or so BAS activists). It makes it easier to gloss over his pattern of behaviour. The only genuine personality conflict is between Mr. S. and Bob Steiner, who has not been really active with BAS for many years (he's been too busy). I was very sympathetic to Mr. S. for several years, probably the Board member best disposed to him, and he saw me as a friend and ally. Even now, I get along fine with him personally: What I object to are his ACTIONS. When I began to disagree with him, he began to tell me I was being manipulated. When I continued to disagree, I became a "tool of Larry Loebig's", then a "tool of Bob Steiner's". Now, I gather that I've been promoted to full oppressor rank. Once we get past the "personality conflict" straw man, perhaps Mr. S. will finally be willing try a REAL "peace overture", and face the request in Larry's letter, now unanswered for eighteen months. Then Mr. S. and his club will get full cooperation. The only disadvantage is that he will be fresh out of oppressors. What a shame. Sincerely, Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics #16 28 Oct 89 11:26:35 [1] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area Is it possible that the 80% that Vaso discounts consists of all the occasions on which I've told him he's way off-base? Consider the following statement in article <29881@buckaroo.mips.COM>, by vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan): > ... apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay Skeptics" or > EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.) As system operator and owner of The Skeptic's Board, I have already expressed strong exception to this false aspersion on my reputation, and asked Vaso to retract it. (Silence so far.) Only one person has ever had access to my BBS denied or curtailed for any reason -- and not one for "mentioning EBSS". This particular libel (whose motivation should be clear) has been making the rounds for some time, most recently in a letter to the entire BAS Board, from (nominally, at least) Jim Miller, Mr. Sabsay's friend whom he made secretary of his club. This was one of the "peace overtures" Vaso speaks of. I should not have to rebut this libel, or even deny it: Vaso should have verified it before repeating it. Nonetheless, I will do so. Ironically, about the same time Mr. Miller was writing (or at least signing) his letter, he (or at least a caller to my board using his name) left an ad for one of Sabsay's club's meetings in the international FidoNet Science echo-conference. Local- interest messages are against the echo rules, and the wrath of the echo moderator (and various enforcement measures) gets expressed against the local system operator (me) in such cases. Nonetheless, far from being "thrown off", Mr. Miller has suffered zero consequences. There are other examples, but I have already given one more than is needed. The pattern should be clear: X makes a big commotion on Mr. S.'s behalf, BAS ignores X, then both X and Mr. S. complain loudly and bitterly of being oppressed by BAS and start spreading untruths about BAS. In the absence of rebuttals from us (until Vaso forced the issue in public), the untruths get believed, and our silence is interpreted as "aloofness", "cronyism", and "a certain smugness". I ask again, is something wrong with this picture? Rick Moen, Oligarch #8 29 Oct 89 14:27:13 [0] From: Vaso Bovan To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <1530.25455A98@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Rick.Moen@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen) writes: >In article <29881@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) >writes as follows: > >> Apparently, the BAS Board came within one vote of recognizing >> EBSS at the last BAS board meeting (I'm told this second-hand), >> but backed off when some board members threatened to quit BAS if >> EBSS was recognized. > >In my rush to correct other statements in Vaso's posting, I >overlooked this one. I was present for the entire meeting, and >took down the minutes. There was NO such vote, and NO ONE >threatened to resign. > >After all this, there aren't very many statements about BAS left >in Vaso's posting that were not clearly either flat-out wrong or >distortive. So, I would venture that Vaso's "second-hand" >sources have served him very poorly. > I have not noted any refutations of my statements in Rick's or other postings. I have noted many mere "alternate interpretations." >This does raise another point, which I meant to address >earlier, but was occupied with the immediate task of correcting >the many mistaken statements about BAS. That is, I see, >continually, this pattern of people accepting and repeating >derogatory statements about BAS's alleged actions at face value >without contacting BAS about them, or otherwise making any >serious attempt to verify them. At a minimum, this is reckless >and unconstructive -- and this from supposed rationalists! > As I've stated earlier, I've spent over four hours now on the phone with "several" past and present BAS board members discussing this affair. I've been careful to state things parentithically when there is disagreement among my sources, and I've been careful to be fair and evenhanded. I think a dispassionate reading of my original posting will bear this out. I've been warned to "discount all statements, but all parties [to this snit], by 80%." Rick doth protest too much. I've received seven pages of commentary from him recently, (two letters and a postcard), much of it describing Daniel Sabsay as something just short of an ax murderer. Rick describes these private comments (publically) as "well substantiated." They are not. In each case where I've tried to establish what really happened, I've concluded that that the problem is personality conflict, and that in each case, the facts, such as there are in this hazy environment, support the interpretation that EVERYONE has behaved badly. One small example: Rick, and another net poster, have described how BAS "asked" EBSS (Sabsay, in particular), to change its name. The impression given is that BAS made a polite request, and that EBSS/Sabsay was rude in response. I've had the BAS letter read to me (in full, I was told) over the phone. The BAS letter is downright ugly, essentially giving EBSS/Sabsay ten days to knuckle under, with the threat that otherwise Sabsay would face legal action and public humiliation. If I were the recepient of that letter, I would have referred it to my attorney. I've also had Sabsay's responding letter read to me (again in full, I'm told). It sounds eminently reasonable and conciliatory, more so that I would have written, given the tone of the threat. Regarding the facts of whether a vote was taken, this is what was reported to me: Apparently, one board member suffered an accident on the way to the meeting. He was apparently the swing vote that would have led to BAS recognition of EBSS. As Rick can probably produce the meeting minutes, I believe his statement that a formal vote was not taken. It has been reported to me that Rick Moen would quit the Board if BAS were to recognise EBSS/Sabsay. Perhaps Rick can clarify this point. >So these sorts of derogatory allegations about BAS can be fairly >described as unchecked hearsay from unstated (but doubtful) >sources. Afterwards, we get statements such as Vaso's "If I have >got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal." Am I >missing something, or is something wrong with this picture? > I stand by my statements. I have checked all allegations, to the best of my ability, against second sources who are past and present members of the BAS Board. The dominant impression I have received about this fiasco is that it is a case of egos and personalities run amuck, on both sides. One other point of clarification: I referred to another "Board member" of BAS who has been equally abrasive, in my view, as (everyone agrees) Sabsay can be. I wish to state I was NOT referring to Rick Moen, but rather to another prominent BAS member, who is no longer on the board. -Vaso Bovan (All the usual disclaimers apply. I do not speak for MIPS Computer Systems). #2 30 Oct 89 01:31:10 [5] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <30259@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) writes as follows: > I have not noted any refutations of my statements in Rick's or > other postings. I have noted many mere "alternate > interpretations." One clear refutation was just posted (10/28/89) of a defamatory statement Vaso made about me, and accordingly, I trust that Vaso's belated apology is now on its way. > ...I've concluded that that the problem is personality > conflict, and that in each case, the facts, such as there are in > this hazy environment, support the interpretation that EVERYONE > has behaved badly. I've had to put up with public vilification and personal defamation from the Sabsay camp for a couple of years, without public comment until Vaso forced the issue with his recent postings here. I still think this public debate is a very poor idea, but I will no longer bear this in silence. In light of my (and other BAS activists') long silence, this accusation is highly ironic. I have stood by in silence even as I found rumours being bruited about characterising the BAS board (and me personally) as anti- semitic (in spite of my having been a volunteer kibbutznik and my fiancee being an Israeli Jew) and male-chauvanistic (in spite of my being a feminist from age 10 and a N.O.W. member since age 18). I cannot prove who is responsible, but I can make a very good guess. As previously noted, I still, after all this, get along fine with Mr. Sabsay personally. I find his ACTIONS objectionable. > Rick doth protest too much. I've received seven pages of > commentary from him recently, (two letters and a postcard), much > of it describing Daniel Sabsay as something just short of an ax > murderer. Rick describes these private comments (publically) as > "well substantiated." They are not. If Vaso would care to write me asking for documentation for specific factual allegations in my private communications with him, I will be glad to send it to him (privately). I am very careful not to make such allegations without solid evidence. He has NO business concluding that my remarks are not "well- substantiated" having made NO effort to determine what evidence I in fact have. This is especially ironic in view of his own wild remarks about BAS in this public forum. His "ax murderer" char- acterization, however, will have to remain his own. > One small example: Rick, and another net poster, have described > how BAS "asked" EBSS (Sabsay, in particular), to change its name. > The impression given is that BAS made a polite request, and that > EBSS/Sabsay was rude in response. I've had the BAS letter read to > me (in full, I was told) over the phone. The BAS letter is > downright ugly, essentially giving EBSS/Sabsay ten days to > knuckle under, with the threat that otherwise Sabsay would face > legal action and public humiliation. I have recently posted the salient paragraphs in this forum. Nowhere there or anywhere else is anything whatsoever about "legal action and public humiliation". I refer readers to my earlier posting. Larry's letter ends as follows (the part that Vaso chooses to paint as "ten days to knuckle under"): "Since my attempts at telephone communication resulted in your verbal hostility and verbal abuse, I suggest you respond via post. Copies will be sent to no one outside the Board and Advisors of Bay Area Skeptics for ten days. If the problem is resolved by then, then no one else need or will receive a copy of this letter. If it is not resolved, then we will make decisions as to who should receive a copy without consultation with you. In the fond hope that this can be resolved amicably, Larry Loebig" In characterizing this letter, asserting our legal right not to have his group bear a name likely to be confused with ours (which it in fact has widely been), as "ugly", giving Sabsay "ten days to knuckle under", and threatening "legal action and public humiliation", I think Vaso is showing an active imagination. Contrary to Vaso's remarks about a "responding letter", Mr. Sabsay has NEVER responded to, or even mentioned, our request (or "threat", as Vaso would have it), despite numerous reminders. [continued] Sincerely, Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics #3 30 Oct 89 01:48:21 [2] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area [continued] In article <30259@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) writes as follows: > Regarding the facts of whether a vote was taken, this is what was > reported to me: Apparently, one board member suffered an > accident on the way to the meeting. He was apparently the swing > vote that would have led to BAS recognition of EBSS. There is a split on these issues on the BAS Board, and it stands at eight to three. By the way, Kent Harker, editor of "BASIS", who suffered the crash in Palo Alto, is still tremendously irritated at Mr. Sabsay's dig at him in Sabsay's "Beacon". > As Rick can probably produce the meeting minutes, I believe his > statement that a formal vote was not taken. It has been reported > It has been reported to me that Rick Moen would quit the Board if > BAS were to recognise EBSS/Sabsay. During discussion of a proposed board resolution from John Lattanzio, which aimed to compel the "BASIS" editor and the sysop of The Skeptic's Board (me) to advertise Mr. S.'s club's meetings, I pointed out that 1) Kent's complete editorial freedom (guaranteed by the By-Laws) should not be infringed, and 2) although at work I am paid to deal with objectionable people, I am not paid to do so in my volunteer work, and might just decide to leave, like the many others who have been driven away from BAS by encounters with Sabsay. Shawn Carlson asked me if I meant that I would quit if the resolution passed. I said that that was not what I meant, but that I would consider it. The minority of three had counted on light attendence at the Board meeting, and on being joined in their vote by new member Genie Scott. When, instead, she suggested that the motion be withdrawn, John did so, and the matter was hastily dropped. A "formal vote" was never taken, nor was an informal one. I wonder if Vaso counts this as a "refutation" or as an "alternative interpretation", but it really matters little. Vaso apparently feels it is perfectly legitimate to tell wild and derogatory anecdotes about BAS, without meaningful verification, as long as he prefaces them with "I've been told that...." I do not agree. >> So these sorts of derogatory allegations about BAS can be fairly >> described as unchecked hearsay from unstated (but doubtful) >> sources. Afterwards, we get statements such as Vaso's "If I >> have got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal." Am I >> missing something, or is something wrong with this picture? > I stand by my statements. I have checked all allegations, to the > best of my ability, against second sources who are past and > present members of the BAS Board. The dominant impression I have > received about this fiasco is that it is a case of egos and > personalities run amuck, on both sides. Perhaps Vaso's abilities are not up to the job. As previously noted, at least one of Vaso's statements about me (for which I have twice requested an apology) was libellous, whether he is foolish enough to "stand by" it or not, and whoever his nameless second sources may be. There have been other stalking horses, prior to Vaso, who were also fed dubious information by Mr. S. and his apologists and also saw fit to vilify in public forums the majority of the BAS Board. The former remain in the background ("journalistic source- protection"). Vaso's forebears then claimed unfair treatment when BAS responded by ignoring them. At least, after all this, I hope Vaso will not claim to have been silenced. If Vaso wishes to do a more thorough job, I would suggest he contact the following people, all of whom, with good reason, regard Mr. S.'s pattern of behaviour with even greater disdain than I do: Robert Sheaffer (says "A clear case of resentment against achievement"), former "BASIS" editors Diane Moser and Ray Spangenburg (quit primarily because of harrassment by Mr. S.), former "BASIS" editor Michael McCarthy, BAS Advisor Earl Hautala (who at one point asked to have his name removed as Advisor out of fear that Mr. S. would get us into lawsuits), former CSICOP executive director Mark Plummer, BAS Vice-Chairman Yves Barbero (says "a True Believer" and "an ideologist"), BAS Director and Astronomical Society of the Pacific president Andrew Fraknoi (adamant about shunning Sabsay), BAS Director Lawrence Jerome, and BAS Chairman Larry Loebig. That will suffice to start. Sincerely, Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics #5 30 Oct 89 10:17:55 [0] From: Vaso Bovan To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <1566.254A3E31@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> Rick.Moen@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Moen) writes: >Is it possible that the 80% that Vaso discounts consists of all >the occasions on which I've told him he's way off-base? Consider >the following statement in article <29881@buckaroo.mips.COM>, by >vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan): > No. I've specifically been told to discount Rick Moen's statements, by one of his own colleagues. >> ... apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay Skeptics" or >> EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.) > >As system operator and owner of The Skeptic's Board, I have >already expressed strong exception to this false aspersion on my >reputation, and asked Vaso to retract it. (Silence so far.) >Only one person has ever had access to my BBS denied or curtailed >for any reason -- and not one for "mentioning EBSS". > >This particular libel (whose motivation should be clear) has been >making the rounds for some time, most recently in a letter to the >entire BAS Board, from (nominally, at least) Jim Miller, Mr. >Sabsay's friend whom he made secretary of his club. This was one >of the "peace overtures" Vaso speaks of. > >I should not have to rebut this libel, or even deny it: Vaso >should have verified it before repeating it. Nonetheless, I will >do so. > Excellent ! I'm glad to hear I'm mistaken on this point. I will post a schedule of EBSS events, on the Skeptic's Board BBS. I'll also send a copy of the EBSS event schedule to the Editor of the BAS newsletter, BASIS. I look forward to seeing this listing in next month's BASIS. Actually, it is very difficult to prove (or disprove) the existence of an unwritten rule (one of the reasons it is unwritten, I suppose). One has to look at the evidence; for instance the total lack of mention in BASIS of EBSS events, or even mention of the existence of EBSS. This, in a newsletter that normally does cover events of interest to skeptics in the Bay Area. I'm happy Rick has clarified this point. > [more about BAS good will] >I ask again, is something wrong with this picture? > Well, yes. I note Rick has ignored the substantive issues I've raised, and has latched onto minor clubhouse legalisms. #12 30 Oct 89 18:42:47 [0] From: Rich Drewes To: All Subj: About EBSS This message is placed on the net on behalf of James Miller, PhD (Princeton 1972), a founder of EBSS and currently secretary of its board of directors: ---- Several recent messages about the East Bay Skeptics Society, a California non-profit corporation, have mentioned its members, board of directors and its president, Daniel Sabsay. Membership in our society is open to all for modest annual dues. More than 100 people have joined in the last 18 months. In accordance with our bylaws, our society is run by nine elected directors, our members are notified in advance of every board meeting, and all members are invited to attend. EBSS is not affiliated with the Bay Area Skeptics. EBSS produces a monthly series of public lectures on the U.C Berkeley campus and publishes a bimonthly newsletter, The Beacon. Attendance at our lecture/discussions is usually in the 75 to 125 range. Members also get together socially for general discussions at frequent potluck dinners. We have limited access to this net and our board of directors has decided not to engage in debate with Mr. Rick Moen. Rich Drewes, drewes@cory.Berkeley.EDU I have respect for ideas, contempt for politics. Leave me out of the latter. #13 30 Oct 89 18:42:50 [0] From: mike.siemon To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area Would the participants in this California pissing match *please* see that the stream is directed downwind, so that the rest of the nation need not suffer from your bladder distress? thanks. -- Michael L. Siemon I cannot grow; ...!cucard!dasys1!mls I have no shadow ...!att!sfbat!mls To run away from, standard disclaimer I only play. #1 Tue 31 Oct 89 15:33 [4] From: Rick Moen To: All Is Reply To #11 Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <30330@buckaroo.mips.COM>, vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) writes as follows: > Excellent ! I'm glad to hear I'm mistaken on this point. I > will post a schedule of EBSS events, on the Skeptic's Board BBS. All such material should go in the message area on my board entitled "EBSS", if you please. I'm glad Vaso is glad. Most people in my experience do not have to rely upon defamation to give them pleasure, but to each his own. The use of libel as an instrument of diplomacy may seem at first glance incongruous, but there are precedents in this matter. Dr. James Miller, Ph.D. Princeton 1972 (oh, my poor alma mater!) used it in his "peace overture" to the BAS Board. Dan Dugan was more ambitious, and libelled me in the main message area of my BBS, then repeated his performance in his EBSS-ad flyer passed out at the January BAS meeting, just for optimal peace-making effect. Vaso, though, has surpassed them both, by casting his aspersions internationally. I'm impressed! > Actually, it is very difficult to prove (or disprove) the > existence of an unwritten rule (one of the reasons it is > unwritten, I suppose). One has to look at the evidence; for > instance the total lack of mention in BASIS of EBSS events, or > even mention of the existence of EBSS. This, in a newsletter that > normally does cover events of interest to skeptics in the Bay > Area. As previously stated, it has been very difficult to establish a reasonable basis for cooperation with Mr. Sabsay. He has refused to address BAS's grievance for eighteen months straight. Cooperation can start right there. > I've specifically been told to discount Rick Moen's statements, > by one of his own colleagues. Vaso has succeeded in documenting the eight-to-three split on the BAS Board of Directors, in his allusions to these anonymous sources. If he or others are interested in verifying my statements, they need only contact any of the long list of persons listed in my prior posting (article <1576.254C2A49 @fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>). In addition, they might be interested in an article in the Feb. 1986 Berkeley, CA "Monthly", which describes Mr. Sabsay's destruction of a BAS volunteer's meeting by yelling for three hours. > I'll also send a copy of the EBSS event schedule to the Editor of > the BAS newsletter, "BASIS". I look forward to seeing this > listing in next month's "BASIS". See fourth paragraph preceding. Mr. Sabsay and his associates, if they want anything from BAS, should start by finally facing Larry's letter. That would be a "peace overture" worthy of the name. Sincerely, Rick Moen #5 03 Nov 89 07:01:44 [0] From: Dale C. Cook To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area [vaso@mips.COM (Vaso Bovan) recently posted that: | |This topic has generated sufficient personal E-mail, from around the world, |that it appears to be of general interest, especially to CSICOP supporters. |(One person described it as a morbid fascination). If people don't want to |hear it, they can hit the "k" key. I find this assertion a bit hard to fathom. How can the feud between two San Francisco groups be of much interest to people in the far corners of USEnet? If you really need an audience for your prattling, at least limit the distribution to CA please. Thanks. - Dale (N1US) Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass. INTERNET: cook@encore.com "The most evident characteristic of God UUCP: buita \ is an inordinent fondness for beetles." talcott } !encore!cook - J.B.S. Haldane bellcore / #9 03 Nov 89 10:57:54 [5] From: Rick Moen To: All Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <10290@encore.Encore.COM>, cook@pinocchio. Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) quotes Vaso as saying > This topic has generated sufficient personal E-mail, from around > the world, that it appears to be of general interest, especially > to CSICOP supporters. (One person described it as a morbid > fascination). If people don't want to hear it, they can hit the > "k" key. In an article posted 27 Oct 1989, I said > Vaso (with aid from Ms. Milas) seems determined to air this whole > affair in public, which, as I have already stated, strikes me as > a poor idea. However, since no one is listening to me, we'll > just have to test my opinion that the public will be bored, > offended, and driven away. Wonderful. In an earlier article, posted 23 Oct 1989, I also said > I certainly profoundly disagree with Vaso's assessment of the > general interest of this matter. On the basis of long and bitter > experience, I know for a fact that, on the contrary, it bores and > drives away the public, activists, and potential activists. My opinion has been, if anything, strengthened by this sorry spectacle. (And Vaso professes to indignation and perplexity over why it hasn't been aired in "BASIS"!) I apologise to other posters for having risen to Vaso's bait. I and other BAS activists have been putting up with this sort of public calumny without making any kind of public response for years, and I finally succumbed to temptation upon seeing it in *international e-mail* (!) Even if I did not wish my responses to go farther than the S.F. Bay Area, however, I did not have that routing option at my limited access point into USEnet. Far from "feuding" with Mr. Sabsay and his club, much less "competing" (God forbid!), we have been silently awaiting his response to our expressed grievance (arrival expected around the first snowfall in Hades), or failing that, upon being ignored, his eventual tiring and ceasing to trouble BAS. Neither has so far come to pass. I have not been seeing Vaso's recent postings (articles at my node are often erased before I can get to them), and will gladly seize the opportunity to cut off this apparently pointless and lamentable discussion. Participants having sufficient "morbid fascination" with this matter are welcome to write to me for copies of all the (damning) correspondence with Mr. Sabsay. Please write Rick Moen, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122, U.S.A., and please enclose US $1.35 for postage within the USA, or enough for 6 oz., in the case of international mail. Thanks to all for your considerable forbearance. Yours Truly, Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics #12 03 Nov 89 19:28:24 [0] From: Jim Bradford To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area > Vaso writes: > > This topic has generated sufficient personal E-mail, from around the world, > that it appears to be of general interest, especially to CSICOP supporters. > (One person described it as a morbid fascination). If people don't want to > hear it, they can hit the "k" key. Oh Good God! So your getting personal messages expressing interest in this vulgar display of nitwitism? Bully for you! Then get back in email and tell everyone that the whole sordid mess has been moved to alt.flame and STOP WASTING OUR TIME! Telling the rest of us to use the 'k' key doesn't stop the two of you from making fools of yourself and it only adds to the (somewhat justified) criticism of the lack of serious content in this group. -jimb@solbourne.COM #7 04 Nov 89 15:34:00 [0] From: Mary Shafer To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area In article <10290@encore.Encore.COM> cook@pinocchio.Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) writes: [Regarding the appropriateness of the Bay Area rivalry:] I find this assertion a bit hard to fathom. How can the feud between two San Francisco groups be of much interest to people in the far corners of USEnet? If you really need an audience for your prattling, at least limit the distribution to CA please. Thanks. There's no need to inflict this on the entire state--please limit the distribution to ba (bay area). This whole issue does prove that schism is not a purely religious (in the organized sense) issue. And that it's dealt with in the same ways. Thank you for your consideration. -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA #8 04 Nov 89 17:58:10 [0] From: George William Herbert To: All Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area I for one am tired of hearing about these two groups acting impolitic towards each other. I _was_ interested in looking into attending meetings of one or the other of your groups. Both groups have turned me off now. Takt it to and keep in in net-mail. PLEASE! -george william herbert gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu [Following is the text of my third and final letter on the topic to Vaso, at the end of this misbegotten exchange:] Rick Moen, Secretary Bay Area Skeptics 4030 Moraga San Francisco, CA 94122-3928 November 7, 1989 Vaso Bovan [address omitted] Dear Vaso: I have just received your recent e-mail message, in which you state "You've shown an extraordinary enthusiasm to continue and escalate the ugliness, for someone who professes distaste." I would like to note the following points: 1. At this time, I do not have ready access to outgoing personal e-mail. 2. You ignored my repeated strong warnings against airing this matter in public, and the good reasons I cited for not doing so. 3. You made defamatory statements about me in an international public forum, starting with your very first message on the subject. 4. You repeatedly and directly attacked my credibility, citing anonymous sources. 5. You invoke "journalistic source-protection" for those anonymous sources. (Protection against WHAT? Letter bombs? Mafia contracts? ACCOUNTABILITY?) 6. You state that "discussion in other forums has been throttled", yet you complain when I respond in order to refute your wild, careless, and public allegations. 7. You made false representations about proceedings of the BAS Board. 8. Until your recent postings, there has been zero public BAS response to the many outrageous actions by Sabsay and the various people acting on his behalf. In particular, I have not previously responded to libellous public attacks. 9. Your postings show an almost complete absence of any effort to get to the facts before making your pronouncements. You have allowed yourself to serve as a conduit for propaganda, your professed "fairness and even-handedness" notwithstanding. 10. You stated, with zero basis in fact, that "BAS has been needlessly vicious in its attempts to isolate, defame, and squash EBSS, (in both local and national arenas)." Right up through the beginning of your ill-considered campaign, BAS people have done NOTHING except try to maintain our distance and get Daniel to change the name of his group. 11. You attempted to gloss over BAS's substantive objections to Mr. Sabsay's actions by painting this as a personality conflict. See point #4. You state that "there are very many unfortunate personality conflicts." I named ONE, and pointed out that it was irrelevant. You named NO others; they don't exist. 12. You repeated publicly a tremendous variety of nonsense with the disclaimer "I've been told...", including "I've been told that EBSS makes peace overtures every couple of months...." You produce no evidence; there is none to produce. 13. In a similar vein, you groundlessly accused "a BAS director" of "delivering a harangue against EBSS" in front of a CSICOP conference, glossing over the fact that the issue was EBSS's NAME. 14. You glossed over the fact that Sabsay attacked Loyd Auerbach at BAS meetings not once but TWICE. 15. You stated in a public forum that my private comments to you are NOT well-substantiated, without making ANY effort to find out what support I have for them. 16. You dismissed my objections to your messages as "minor clubhouse legalisms". Well, Vaso, it's a good thing we're on the same side, or you could have been facing a big lawsuit right now. After all this, after unapologetically defaming me and recklessly spreading hearsay about BAS, both in an international public forum and possibly via private e-mail (where I cannot refute you), you have the gall to make the statement I quoted above? What nerve! First I am criticised for being silent, then for being vocal! How about us trading places? I'll try spreading derogatory untruths about you, and you get to be the villain for trying to set the record straight. Deal? You also write as follows, regarding my offer to provide the correspondence record to interested parties: "This is truly tacky, and illustrates my point beautifully, that members of BAS (and it seems, you in particular) have lost all perspective." Whatever happened to "discussion in other forums has been throttled"? Now that I offer to supply the facts that you allege do not exist, and furnish solid refutation of the numerous claims you have spread far and wide, this suddenly becomes a "loss of perspective"? "You need to disengage." I need to disengage with YOU, sir, and I am doing so. As to Mr. Sabsay and his OTHER apologists, I refer you to points #8 and 10 above. "If you can't, you need to consider whether you should resign from the board of BAS." Your opinion is noted, and will be weighed in light of the record (of which you are clearly monumentally ignorant) and your residual credibility with me. "You've escalated the poison pen stuff so rapidly with me...." Each and every posting of mine has been an attempt to counter your base tactics of defamation, innuendo, citing of anonymous sources, phony "objectivity", and reckless, tendentious rumour-mongering. Vaso, if you cannot see that, then you have a problem. "...I can understand how irretrievably entangled you must have got with Sabsay." See points #8 and 10 above. I plead guilty to thinking that Sabsay's tactics, like yours, should not be rewarded with success. However, all Sabsay has to do is back off and finally deal with our expressed grievance. Then he'd get all the stuff he says we're too mean and vindictive to give him. He'll never DO that, however. Try suggesting it to him, and just listen to the evasions that follow. Other than your message, I've received a few other personal e-mail messages on this subject. ( I am not able to reply, though.) The one I am about to quote from I regard as over-optimistic, given that the whole discussion (which I did not AT ALL want) has been a disaster. Nonetheless, let me quote from it: "Ok, so it's none of my business, but I just have to express my admiration for the amount of energy you've been expending in refuting old Vaso. If I were judging this bout, giving points for rationality, forbearance, civility, and goodness-and-light, it'd be a knockout in your column. Vaso sounds like a Moonie to me." "You've accomplished something here, though, however insignificant it may be -- you've interested me in what your group does. I figure that anybody who can stand his ground against lunatics without resorting to descending to their level of emotionalism, threats, and unsubstantiated charges, has his act together." I do NOT agree that you sound like a Moonie, are a lunatic, or have made threats, but the rest I do appreciate. You state "I have not responded to your last posting." I deeply and sincerely thank you for that. Yours Truly, Rick Moen