In a msg on , Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org writes: Don, I was somewhat aware of the fuss about posting that article, taken from _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ for a couple of reasons: (1) I may have been the one to bring it to Bob's attention in the first place, by detailing its contents in several echos -- quite a while ago. (2) David Bloomberg told me a little about this, after he, acting as co-moderator, told Dunn it wasn't appropriate to post to UFO. Not that you asked, but I certainly agree with your course of action, not because of whom Hansen aims shoddy blows at, but rather because it's simply and obviously off-topic. It's just _not about UFOlogy_. Tbe funny thing was that, quite a long time ago, I photocopied, scanned, and OCR'd that article -- resulting, by the way, in a much more complete and error-free rendition than Dunn's. I briefly considered distributing it, and making it available for download, for the interest of my callers and Internet FTP sites. (It's still on diskette, here, somewhere.) The only reason I didn't do so was that I didn't have reprint permission from _JASPR_, and didn't expect to get it. I wasn't willing to violate copyright law, just to make the article available. The same applied to another anti-CSICOP piece I'd love to make available, Dennis Rawlins's "sTARBABY" piece from _Fate_ magazine. If either publisher will give reprint permission, I'll be first on the block to make them available for free, to the public. I just won't break the law to do this. The reason I'd love to make both these articles available to the public is (1) that they have some interest on their own, and (2) that I could then start compiling and including numerous disassemblies of those pieces by critics. The Hansen piece is quite interesting. First, it's a masterpiece of innuendo. That is, many of the basic facts it starts with are accurate (if selective), but the derogatory inferences Hansen then proceeds to draw from them are both far-fetched and blatantly polemical. To pick a small example (from memory, it being quite a while since I really read the piece), he cites a number of overlapping memberships some officers of CSICOP had with various atheist/humanist outfits, and then suggests (without forthrightly saying so) that this is the skeptics' hidden ideological agenda. He fails to mention that none of the dozens of skeptics' groups endorse such an agenda, and are at some pains to disclaim it. He also neglects to mention the prominent skeptics who are religious, such as Terry Sandbek, founder of Sacramento Skeptics, who is a devout Christian. That is what I mean by innuendo: The same logic would equally poorly support a claim that _scouting_ is skeptics' ideological agenda, if Hansen cited how many prominent skeptics are scoutmasters. ;-> Second, the piece is, notwithstanding its mammoth set of references, not terribly accurate. For example, Hansen puts the date the local skeptics' groups became formally independent of CSICOP (and ceased being local chapters of it) _much later_ than it in fact happened. I know this because I was present when it happened, at the CSICOP conference in Palo Alto, California, in late 1984. Why is this significant? Some of the nastier lawsuits against CSICOP have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish that CSICOP is centrally involved in directing the independent local groups, and thus is legally responsible for their actions. The effect of this, if successful, would be to open CSICOP up to probably fatal (additional) litigation. Curiously, this anti-CSICOP legal tactic was invented by one of the people Hansen thanks as a source, an alleged skeptic who tried it out in the 1986 Hawaii Skeptics lawsuit, as a witness for the plaintiff, and has been more quietly promoting the idea ever since. In fact, the overlap between (1) the tight little group (who shall go nameless) trying to collect information to be used in crippling lawsuits against CSICOP and other skeptics' groups, and (2) those thanked by Hansen as sources, is quite impressive. Quite a lot of the inaccuracies are at least somewhat obscured by vagueness. For example, Hansen throws in the obligatory bit about the Gauquelin "Mars Effect" claims, and the statistical tests related to it that were published in _Skeptical Inquirer_. However, he does not provide anywhere near enough detail for the reader to assess the facts. Again, instead he simply falls back on innuendo. The actual original sources are a confusing muddle, and do not support the rather emotional claims commonly made about CSICOP in the matter. For many of those making the claims, this doesn't matter. Third, Hansen's piece is actually rather valuable as the first compendium of nearly _every_ cheesy bit of rhetoric commonly employed in ad-hominem attacks against skeptics. As such, I recommend that everyone interested in the fringe-sciences read it, for the light that it casts on the mindset of people like Hansen and the aforementioned group of lawsuit fanciers. For, you see, the vast majority of Hansen's article does _not_ argue with the quality and adequacy of skeptics' work, but rather maintains, instead, that they are ignorant, closed-minded, nasty people with concealed ideological agendas. This, of course, is irrelevant -- but quite a lot of people cannot seem to understand why. It's irrelevant because skeptics' work stands or falls on its own merit, just as, say, a UFOlogist's work does. That was why I gave a tongue-lashing, recently, to the fellow on FidoNet UFO who was lambasting Bob Lazar's morals (in his absence), as if that had anything to do with whether Lazar's _factual claims had merit_. Of course, it had none, but I then went on to show why (picking an example) Lazar's claim about a "stable" element 115 (or whatever) was highly suspect, WITHOUT REFERENCE to Lazar's character. In order to get over this curious mental block on the part of many fringe-science afficianados, I will often cheerfully admit that OF COURSE I'm an evil, ignorant, closed-minded, nasty person with any number of hidden ideological agendas, who's trying to conceal the truth about X fringe science, because... well... because They Don't Want the Public to Know, I guess. I then say I'm glad to get _that_ out of the way, and then change the subject back to whatever factual question I was trying to discuss. In short, I don't think Hansen's piece _requires_ a detailed rebuttal, because it's pretty much self-parodying, once you look past the pseudo-neutral, stilted academic prose. However, if I have time, and Bob Dunn posts this _extremely long_ article, I may find time to comment on some aspects of it. I _hope_ that Bob secures formal permission from _JASPR_, which holds the copyright, first, but my comments would not require such permission. For that matter, if Bob can intervene with _JASPR_, I will be delighted to make my BBS and Internet account a primary source to the Net for Hansen's piece, in full, completely accurate electronic rendition (minus Hansen's graphs) -- provided he can get for me formal reprint rights, on signed, dated paper, from _JASPR_. It can come to me at 1742 S. Grant St., San Mateo, CA 94402-2640. I would also be extremely pleased if he could do me the same service with the publishers of _Fate_ magazine, for the earlier "sTARBABY" article. I can make sure that both are included in Internet FTP archives, and already have good ASCII renditions of both, lacking only reprint permission. I would offer this in any event, but I'm especially glad to do so because of my conviction that both pieces are, when read in the original by a fair-minded reader, rather than talked about third-hand, embarrassing to the causes of the authors and those who quote them. In any event, I thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to let me know what may be coming soon. You're of course right, that articles that just don't address UFOlogy are simply and plainly off-topic for FidoNet UFO, and no amount of hand-waving about your being "overly influenced by the skeptics" will change that. Again, you didn't ask my two cents, but, for it's worth, I'd support you on this no matter who's ox was threatened to be gored. (In this case, it's more like an ox being hit with a spitwad, but never mind that.) I'll cross-post this to some echo where Bob will see it, if you don't mind. I'll spare you from having it on UFO, though. ;-> Cheers, Date: Sun Jan 30 1994 17:52:40 From: Rick Moen of 1:125/27 To: Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org Subj: Hansen's article on CSICOP Attr: privileged crash sent fidonet ------------------------------- MSGID: 1:125/27 3b0ecac4 REPLY: 1:3623/18@fidonet.org 0e942d22 In a msg on , Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org writes: Don, I was somewhat aware of the fuss about posting that article, taken from _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ for a couple of reasons: (1) I may have been the one to bring it to Bob's attention in the first place, by detailing its contents in several echos -- quite a while ago. (2) David Bloomberg told me a little about this, after he, acting as co-moderator, told Dunn it wasn't appropriate to post to UFO. Not that you asked, but I certainly agree with your course of action, not because of whom Hansen aims shoddy blows at, but rather because it's simply and obviously off-topic. It's just _not about UFOlogy_. Tbe funny thing was that, quite a long time ago, I photocopied, scanned, and OCR'd that article -- resulting, by the way, in a much more complete and error-free rendition than Dunn's. I briefly considered distributing it, and making it available for download, for the interest of my callers and Internet FTP sites. (It's still on diskette, here, somewhere.) The only reason I didn't do so was that I didn't have reprint permission from _JASPR_, and didn't expect to get it. I wasn't willing to violate copyright law, just to make the article available. The same applied to another anti-CSICOP piece I'd love to make available, Dennis Rawlins's "sTARBABY" piece from _Fate_ magazine. If either publisher will give reprint permission, I'll be first on the block to make them available for free, to the public. I just won't break the law to do this. The reason I'd love to make both these articles available to the public is (1) that they have some interest on their own, and (2) that I could then start compiling and including numerous disassemblies of those pieces by critics. The Hansen piece is quite interesting. First, it's a masterpiece of innuendo. That is, many of the basic facts it starts with are accurate (if selective), but the derogatory inferences Hansen then proceeds to draw from them are both far-fetched and blatantly polemical. To pick a small example (from memory, it being quite a while since I really read the piece), he cites a number of overlapping memberships some officers of CSICOP had with various atheist/humanist outfits, and then suggests (without forthrightly saying so) that this is the skeptics' hidden ideological agenda. He fails to mention that none of the dozens of skeptics' groups endorse such an agenda, and are at some pains to disclaim it. He also neglects to mention the prominent skeptics who are religious, such as Terry Sandbek, founder of Sacramento Skeptics, who is a devout Christian. That is what I mean by innuendo: The same logic would equally poorly support a claim that _scouting_ is skeptics' ideological agenda, if Hansen cited how many prominent skeptics are scoutmasters. ;-> Second, the piece is, notwithstanding its mammoth set of references, not terribly accurate. For example, Hansen puts the date the local skeptics' groups became formally independent of CSICOP (and ceased being local chapters of it) _much later_ than it in fact happened. I know this because I was present when it happened, at the CSICOP conference in Palo Alto, California, in late 1984. Why is this significant? Some of the nastier lawsuits against CSICOP have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish that CSICOP is centrally involved in directing the independent local groups, and thus is legally responsible for their actions. The effect of this, if successful, would be to open CSICOP up to probably fatal (additional) litigation. Curiously, this anti-CSICOP legal tactic was invented by one of the people Hansen thanks as a source, an alleged skeptic who tried it out in the 1986 Hawaii Skeptics lawsuit, as a witness for the plaintiff, and has been more quietly promoting the idea ever since. In fact, the overlap between (1) the tight little group (who shall go nameless) trying to collect information to be used in crippling lawsuits against CSICOP and other skeptics' groups, and (2) those thanked by Hansen as sources, is quite impressive. Quite a lot of the inaccuracies are at least somewhat obscured by vagueness. For example, Hansen throws in the obligatory bit about the Gauquelin "Mars Effect" claims, and the statistical tests related to it that were published in _Skeptical Inquirer_. However, he does not provide anywhere near enough detail for the reader to assess the facts. Again, instead he simply falls back on innuendo. The actual original sources are a confusing muddle, and do not support the rather emotional claims commonly made about CSICOP in the matter. For many of those making the claims, this doesn't matter. Third, Hansen's piece is actually rather valuable as the first compendium of nearly _every_ cheesy bit of rhetoric commonly employed in ad-hominem attacks against skeptics. As such, I recommend that everyone interested in the fringe-sciences read it, for the light that it casts on the mindset of people like Hansen and the aforementioned group of lawsuit fanciers. For, you see, the vast majority of Hansen's article does _not_ argue with the quality and adequacy of skeptics' work, but rather maintains, instead, that they are ignorant, closed-minded, nasty people with concealed ideological agendas. This, of course, is irrelevant -- but quite a lot of people cannot seem to understand why. It's irrelevant because skeptics' work stands or falls on its own merit, just as, say, a UFOlogist's work does. That was why I gave a tongue-lashing, recently, to the fellow on FidoNet UFO who was lambasting Bob Lazar's morals (in his absence), as if that had anything to do with whether Lazar's _factual claims had merit_. Of course, it had none, but I then went on to show why (picking an example) Lazar's claim about a "stable" element 115 (or whatever) was highly suspect, WITHOUT REFERENCE to Lazar's character. In order to get over this curious mental block on the part of many fringe-science afficianados, I will often cheerfully admit that OF COURSE I'm an evil, ignorant, closed-minded, nasty person with any number of hidden ideological agendas, who's trying to conceal the truth about X fringe science, because... well... because They Don't Want the Public to Know, I guess. I then say I'm glad to get _that_ out of the way, and then change the subject back to whatever factual question I was trying to discuss. In short, I don't think Hansen's piece _requires_ a detailed rebuttal, because it's pretty much self-parodying, once you look past the pseudo-neutral, stilted academic prose. However, if I have time, and Bob Dunn posts this _extremely long_ article, I may find time to comment on some aspects of it. I _hope_ that Bob secures formal permission from _JASPR_, which holds the copyright, first, but my comments would not require such permission. For that matter, if Bob can intervene with _JASPR_, I will be delighted to make my BBS and Internet account a primary source to the Net for Hansen's piece, in full, completely accurate electronic rendition (minus Hansen's graphs) -- provided he can get for me formal reprint rights, on signed, dated paper, from _JASPR_. It can come to me at 1742 S. Grant St., San Mateo, CA 94402-2640. I would also be extremely pleased if he could do me the same service with the publishers of _Fate_ magazine, for the earlier "sTARBABY" article. I can make sure that both are included in Internet FTP archives, and already have good ASCII renditions of both, lacking only reprint permission. I would offer this in any event, but I'm especially glad to do so because of my conviction that both pieces are, when read in the original by a fair-minded reader, rather than talked about third-hand, embarrassing to the causes of the authors and those who quote them. In any event, I thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to let me know what may be coming soon. You're of course right, that articles that just don't address UFOlogy are simply and plainly off-topic for FidoNet UFO, and no amount of hand-waving about your being "overly influenced by the skeptics" will change that. Again, you didn't ask my two cents, but, for it's worth, I'd support you on this no matter who's ox was threatened to be gored. (In this case, it's more like an ox being hit with a spitwad, but never mind that.) I'll cross-post this to some echo where Bob will see it, if you don't mind. I'll spare you from having it on UFO, though. ;-> Cheers, Rick M. Date: Sun Jan 30 1994 17:52:40 From: Rick Moen of 1:125/27 To: Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org Subj: Hansen's article on CSICOP Attr: privileged crash sent fidonet ------------------------------- MSGID: 1:125/27 3b0ecac4 REPLY: 1:3623/18@fidonet.org 0e942d22 In a msg on , Don Allen of 1:3623/18@fidonet.org writes: > [orignal message omitted] Don, I was somewhat aware of the fuss about posting that article, taken from _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_ for a couple of reasons: (1) I may have been the one to bring it to Bob Dunn's attention in the first place, by detailing its contents in several echos -- quite a while ago. (2) David Bloomberg told me a little about this, after he, acting as co-moderator, told Bob it wasn't appropriate to post to UFO. Not that you asked, but I certainly agree with your course of action, not because of whom Hansen aims shoddy blows at, but rather because it's simply and obviously off-topic. It's just _not about UFOlogy_. Tbe funny thing was that, quite a long time ago, I photocopied, scanned, and OCR'd that article -- resulting, by the way, in a somewhat more complete and error-free rendition than Bob's. I briefly considered distributing it, and making it available for download, for the interest of my callers and Internet FTP sites. (It's still on diskette, here, somewhere.) The only reason I didn't do so was that I didn't have reprint permission from _JASPR_, and didn't expect to get it. I wasn't willing to violate copyright law, just to make the article available. The same applied to another anti-CSICOP piece I'd love to make available, Dennis Rawlins's "sTARBABY" piece from _Fate_ magazine. If either publisher will give reprint permission, I'll be first on the block to make them available for free, to the public. I just won't break the law to do this. The reason I'd love to make both these articles available to the public is (1) that they have some interest on their own, and (2) that I could then start compiling and including numerous disassemblies of those pieces by critics. The Hansen piece is quite interesting. First, it's a masterpiece of innuendo. That is, many of the basic facts it starts with are accurate (if selective), but the derogatory inferences Hansen then proceeds to draw from them are both far-fetched and blatantly polemical. To pick a small example (from memory, it being quite a while since I really read the piece), he cites a number of overlapping memberships some officers of CSICOP had with various atheist/humanist outfits, and then suggests (without forthrightly saying so) that this is the skeptics' hidden ideological agenda. He fails to mention that none of the dozens of skeptics' groups endorse such an agenda, and are at some pains to disclaim it. He also neglects to mention the prominent skeptics who are religious, such as Terry Sandbek, founder of Sacramento Skeptics, who is a devout Christian. That is what I mean by innuendo: The same logic would equally poorly support a claim that _scouting_ is skeptics' ideological agenda, if Hansen cited how many prominent skeptics are scoutmasters. ;-> Second, the piece is, notwithstanding its mammoth set of references, not terribly accurate. For example, Hansen puts the date the local skeptics' groups became formally independent of CSICOP (and ceased being local chapters of it) _much later_ than it in fact happened. I know this because I was present when it happened, at the CSICOP conference in Palo Alto, California, in late 1984. Why is this significant? Some of the nastier lawsuits against CSICOP have attempted -- unsuccessfully -- to establish that CSICOP is centrally involved in directing the independent local groups, and thus is legally responsible for their actions. The effect of this, if successful, would be to open CSICOP up to probably fatal (additional) litigation. Curiously, this anti-CSICOP legal tactic was invented by one of the people Hansen thanks as a source, an alleged skeptic who tried it out in the 1986 Hawaii Skeptics lawsuit, as a witness for the plaintiff, and has been more quietly promoting the idea ever since. In fact, the overlap between (1) the tight little group (who shall go nameless) trying to collect information to be used in crippling lawsuits against CSICOP and other skeptics' groups, and (2) those thanked by Hansen as sources, is quite impressive. Quite a lot of the inaccuracies are at least somewhat obscured by vagueness. For example, Hansen throws in the obligatory bit about the Gauquelin "Mars Effect" claims, and the statistical tests related to it that were published in _Skeptical Inquirer_. However, he does not provide anywhere near enough detail for the reader to assess the facts. Again, instead he simply falls back on innuendo. The actual original sources are a confusing muddle, and do not support the rather emotional claims commonly made about CSICOP in the matter. For many of those making the claims, this doesn't matter. Third, Hansen's piece is actually rather valuable as the first compendium of nearly _every_ cheesy bit of rhetoric commonly employed in ad-hominem attacks against skeptics. As such, I recommend that everyone interested in the fringe-sciences read it, for the light that it casts on the mindset of people like Hansen and the aforementioned group of lawsuit fanciers. For, you see, the vast majority of Hansen's article does _not_ argue with the quality and adequacy of skeptics' work, but rather maintains, instead, that they are ignorant, closed-minded, nasty people with concealed ideological agendas. This, of course, is irrelevant -- but quite a lot of people cannot seem to understand why. It's irrelevant because skeptics' work stands or falls on its own merit, just as, say, a UFOlogist's work does. That was why I gave a tongue-lashing, recently, to the fellow on FidoNet UFO who was lambasting Bob Lazar's morals (in his absence), as if that had anything to do with whether Lazar's _factual claims had merit_. Of course, it had none, but I then went on to show why (picking an example) Lazar's claim about a "stable" element 115 (or whatever) was highly suspect, WITHOUT REFERENCE to Lazar's character. In order to get over this curious mental block on the part of many fringe-science afficianados, I will often cheerfully admit that OF COURSE I'm an evil, ignorant, closed-minded, nasty person with any number of hidden ideological agendas, who's trying to conceal the truth about X fringe science, because... well... because They Don't Want the Public to Know, I guess. I then say I'm glad to get _that_ out of the way, and then change the subject back to whatever factual question I was trying to discuss. In short, I don't think Hansen's piece _requires_ a detailed rebuttal, because it's pretty much self-parodying, once you look past the pseudo-neutral, stilted academic prose. However, if I have time, and Bob Dunn posts this _extremely long_ article, I may find time to comment on some aspects of it. I _hope_ that Bob secures formal permission from _JASPR_, which holds the copyright, first, but my comments would not require such permission. For that matter, if Bob can intervene with _JASPR_, I will be delighted to make my BBS and Internet account a primary source to the Net for Hansen's piece, in full, completely accurate electronic rendition (minus Hansen's graphs) -- provided he can get for me formal reprint rights, on signed, dated paper, from _JASPR_. It can come to me at 1742 S. Grant St. #3, San Mateo, CA 94402-2640. I would also be extremely pleased if he could do me the same service with the publishers of _Fate_ magazine, for the earlier "sTARBABY" article. I can make sure that both are included in Internet FTP archives, and already have good ASCII renditions of both, lacking only reprint permission. I would offer this in any event, but I'm especially glad to do so because of my conviction that both pieces are, when read in the original by a fair-minded reader, rather than talked about third-hand, embarrassing to the causes of the authors and those who quote them. In any event, I thank you sincerely for taking the trouble to let me know what may be coming soon. You're of course right, that articles that just don't address UFOlogy are simply and plainly off-topic for FidoNet UFO, and no amount of hand-waving about your being "overly influenced by the skeptics" will change that. Again, you didn't ask my two cents, but, for it's worth, I'd support you on this no matter who's ox was threatened to be gored. (In this case, it's more like an ox being hit with a spitwad, but never mind that.) I'll cross-post this to some echo where Bob will see it, if you don't mind. I'll spare you from having it on UFO, though. ;-> Cheers, Rick M.