Yep.
Today is 9/11.
I wonder why Americans seem to go on about it so much about this day?
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Interesting Developments
Firstly, I have to apologise to Robert Lancaster and his wife for this post. I've been a bit naughty.
I've been looking at the blog that has appeared, replacing the excellent Sylvia Browne articles written by Robert Lancaster.
As we all know, Robert Lancaster's website, Stop Sylvia Browne has been taken over by someone.
That's right. I now have no clue as to who owns the website. According to the site, it now supposedly belongs to a bloke called Matt.
See, as far as I can tell this Matt clearly isn't Boris Kreiman.
As a side, the linked page says that Kreiman has been accused of taking anabolic steroids. Clearly I don't know what they do, since Kreiman is a chess player. I mean I'd understand if it was say, chess boxing, but chess???
Anyway.
This person is asking (I'm trying out the "nofollow" html, so I hope it works, unless Blogger is already using it, then it would be a bit redundant.) for people to submit evidence of readings whether successful or not.
Sounds like this has never been done before right?
Oh wait, just take a look at this Sylvia Browne related link.
Yep.
Robert Lancaster has tried to get people to provide examples of readings being successful.
Doesn't seem to have worked at present.
Well the comments are interesting, there is somebody there called "Mike" who is claiming that Stop Sylvia Browne is biased against Sylvia Browne.
He also suggests that people who support Sylvia Browne should link to that site.
I think that if they want to support her they should link to say Go Sylvia Browne. Yep, there already is a site dedicated to supporting Sylvia Browne.
The one thing that I'm assuming will happen is that what once was Stop Sylvia Browne will turn into a pro-SB site.
I've been looking at the blog that has appeared, replacing the excellent Sylvia Browne articles written by Robert Lancaster.
As we all know, Robert Lancaster's website, Stop Sylvia Browne has been taken over by someone.
That's right. I now have no clue as to who owns the website. According to the site, it now supposedly belongs to a bloke called Matt.
See, as far as I can tell this Matt clearly isn't Boris Kreiman.
As a side, the linked page says that Kreiman has been accused of taking anabolic steroids. Clearly I don't know what they do, since Kreiman is a chess player. I mean I'd understand if it was say, chess boxing, but chess???
Anyway.
This person is asking (I'm trying out the "nofollow" html, so I hope it works, unless Blogger is already using it, then it would be a bit redundant.) for people to submit evidence of readings whether successful or not.
Sounds like this has never been done before right?
Oh wait, just take a look at this Sylvia Browne related link.
Yep.
Robert Lancaster has tried to get people to provide examples of readings being successful.
Doesn't seem to have worked at present.
Well the comments are interesting, there is somebody there called "Mike" who is claiming that Stop Sylvia Browne is biased against Sylvia Browne.
He also suggests that people who support Sylvia Browne should link to that site.
I think that if they want to support her they should link to say Go Sylvia Browne. Yep, there already is a site dedicated to supporting Sylvia Browne.
The one thing that I'm assuming will happen is that what once was Stop Sylvia Browne will turn into a pro-SB site.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
Stop Sylvia Browne Still Lives On
Stop Sylvia Browne
Take that people on the internet who support Sylvia Browne and were most likely cheering for the demise of the site. You've lost anyway.
This is an excellent site, with plenty of resources that show how Sylvia Browne is a fraud and a liar etc.
I know that many of the people who read this blog will know of the site, I just thought that I would point it out.
And considering recent events involving the original domain name being taken over by an apologetic, foolish, possibly illegal "entrepreneur" slash "chess grandmaster" most things are well with the universe.
Except people who find news sources with the old address on it.
However, in the vein of Stop Kaz, RSL's family has found a new place to host all the lovely, eye opening information about everybody's favourite psychic, Sylvia Browne on the Kaz-like address of Stopsylvia.com.
If you really want to help, link to the new site. And make the git who pounced on the old domain rue the day they chose to hijack a site with a good search ranking by moving it off the first page of google.
Take that people on the internet who support Sylvia Browne and were most likely cheering for the demise of the site. You've lost anyway.
This is an excellent site, with plenty of resources that show how Sylvia Browne is a fraud and a liar etc.
I know that many of the people who read this blog will know of the site, I just thought that I would point it out.
And considering recent events involving the original domain name being taken over by an apologetic, foolish, possibly illegal "entrepreneur" slash "chess grandmaster" most things are well with the universe.
Except people who find news sources with the old address on it.
However, in the vein of Stop Kaz, RSL's family has found a new place to host all the lovely, eye opening information about everybody's favourite psychic, Sylvia Browne on the Kaz-like address of Stopsylvia.com.
If you really want to help, link to the new site. And make the git who pounced on the old domain rue the day they chose to hijack a site with a good search ranking by moving it off the first page of google.
Wednesday, 29 October 2008
Filler Post
Well I gotta post now because I haven't posted in a few weeks.
I couldn't think of anything no matter how many insults I put in it.
I'd better post something so I don't lose you all.
Thinking of something is just past my limit.
This is the filler post, the filler post
It's not a killer post
It's just a filler post
It goes "blah blahbity blah blah blah blahbity blah blah blah"
It goes "blah blahbity blah blah blah blahbity blah blah blah"
Shamlessly nicked from The Chaser:
I couldn't think of anything no matter how many insults I put in it.
I'd better post something so I don't lose you all.
Thinking of something is just past my limit.
This is the filler post, the filler post
It's not a killer post
It's just a filler post
It goes "blah blahbity blah blah blah blahbity blah blah blah"
It goes "blah blahbity blah blah blah blahbity blah blah blah"
Shamlessly nicked from The Chaser:
Thursday, 16 October 2008
America: Land of Scientific Humour
That's what Texas seems to have made the US recently. I thank Panda's Thumb for this snippet of humour.
This newspaper blog thingy said that the Texas State Board of Education decided to put a few creationists on the board.
PZ Meyers has, on his blog, a list of the people on the board.
And that's not including the head of the board who is a dentist and an IDiot.
I don't know if he will be on that panel but if he is then the voting will go 3-4 pro ID all the time.
Well barring conflicts of interest (like two of the ID guys having a book that they might use this opportunity to get into the curriculum), it is something of a joke.
When it comes to science standards I would like people who currently accept all mainstream scientific theories to determine them.
This is like having a committee on medical practices where a majority of the committee are "alternative medicine" people.
ID fails in science. And it fails hard.
It might be a fallacy but I'm saying that my analogy would be apt.
At least (according to the newspaper blog thingy) there are groups that are pissed off about it. They called them idealogues, and that is what they are. I guess the dentist IDiot can't find enough IDiots in his home state because he had to get some non-Texans for this board.
I wonder what exactly that says about Texas?
This newspaper blog thingy said that the Texas State Board of Education decided to put a few creationists on the board.
PZ Meyers has, on his blog, a list of the people on the board.
And that's not including the head of the board who is a dentist and an IDiot.
I don't know if he will be on that panel but if he is then the voting will go 3-4 pro ID all the time.
Well barring conflicts of interest (like two of the ID guys having a book that they might use this opportunity to get into the curriculum), it is something of a joke.
When it comes to science standards I would like people who currently accept all mainstream scientific theories to determine them.
This is like having a committee on medical practices where a majority of the committee are "alternative medicine" people.
ID fails in science. And it fails hard.
It might be a fallacy but I'm saying that my analogy would be apt.
At least (according to the newspaper blog thingy) there are groups that are pissed off about it. They called them idealogues, and that is what they are. I guess the dentist IDiot can't find enough IDiots in his home state because he had to get some non-Texans for this board.
I wonder what exactly that says about Texas?
Saturday, 11 October 2008
A Challenge to The Skeptic Zone
I've been listening to The Skeptic Zone. (I also was the first person to digg the site, but do I get credit for that? No...)
It's an excellent podcast (at least at the moment).
However, I've got a bone to pick with them.
It has to do with their theme song.
You can download it from the link above.
It has to do with the lyrics:
I want them, and I feel quite confident that someone who has something to do with it will find their way here, maybe from the JREF forum.
Prove to me that The Skeptic Zone is indeed a miracle of technology.
Honestly. How do we know that there wasn't some other schmo out there who wanted to start a podcast called "The Skeptic Zone" and was beaten by you guys.
I can put money on it if you want but then I'll have to create some criteria.
I'm thinking something along the lines of "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that The Skeptic Zone is indeed a miracle and that nothing else could have created it".
And if you do you can win 1,168.46 dollars*. To be paid to you in person when you were last in Adelaide.1
I await your response.2
By the way, to other people who still haven't figured out what I am going on about, go to The Skeptic Zone page and find out.
For once there is a podcast where the Australians (i.e. all the main people) all sound normal compared to the Yanks.
*By dollars I mean Zimbabwe dollars and by 1,168.46, I mean 10 Australian. This is the current exchange rate from here at 2008.10.10 14:02:22 UTC.
1And if you are wondering, yes. I did choose my "criteria" from here
2If you haven't figured it out by now, this is a joke. Just listen to the damn podcast...
It's an excellent podcast (at least at the moment).
However, I've got a bone to pick with them.
It has to do with their theme song.
You can download it from the link above.
It has to do with the lyrics:
"The Skeptic Zone,Now my problem is the bolded bit. I'm skeptical of that if you will.
a miracle of technology.
A universe of reason,
the Skeptic Zone"
I want them, and I feel quite confident that someone who has something to do with it will find their way here, maybe from the JREF forum.
Prove to me that The Skeptic Zone is indeed a miracle of technology.
Honestly. How do we know that there wasn't some other schmo out there who wanted to start a podcast called "The Skeptic Zone" and was beaten by you guys.
I can put money on it if you want but then I'll have to create some criteria.
I'm thinking something along the lines of "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that The Skeptic Zone is indeed a miracle and that nothing else could have created it".
And if you do you can win 1,168.46 dollars*. To be paid to you in person when you were last in Adelaide.1
I await your response.2
By the way, to other people who still haven't figured out what I am going on about, go to The Skeptic Zone page and find out.
For once there is a podcast where the Australians (i.e. all the main people) all sound normal compared to the Yanks.
*By dollars I mean Zimbabwe dollars and by 1,168.46, I mean 10 Australian. This is the current exchange rate from here at 2008.10.10 14:02:22 UTC.
1And if you are wondering, yes. I did choose my "criteria" from here
2If you haven't figured it out by now, this is a joke. Just listen to the damn podcast...
Sunday, 5 October 2008
MPAA Classification System
I've just finished watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated and I've got to say, what the fuck?
I mean, as a foreigner what they do in the US is extremely confusing.
Here in Australia we have the Office of Film and Literature Classification. It's a government body that does pretty much what it's title suggest (and video games and other media too).
As a side note, I'd just like to shout out to Michael Atkinson (Attorney-General of SA) and say the following:
You are a bloody idiot for not allowing an R18+ rating for video games. Honestly, why the hell can't we have such a rating for video games? We seem to do just fine with one for movies.
Anyway, back to what I am supposed to be talking about.
It seems that, on top of nobody having any bloody clue about the rules for classification in the US, and that the "appeals" process sounds just like a way for the Motion Picture Association of America to say "we're keeping our rating". As far as I can tell the closest thing that there is to rules is reading the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Now compare that to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFCA for ease now), where you can actually download a copy of their guidelines.
Funnily enough the same thing appears to exist with the MPAA review board and their appeals board. At most the public only gets the list from 2005 which the film found through the use of a private investigator. The MPAA go on about some crap about "protecting integrity".
My god that must mean that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are a bunch of corrupt bastards because we can easily find out who they are, what they can do, and where they are from. What utter bastards. Well that clearly means that I can't trust them because I know who they are and what qualifications they hold.
Right?
Oh wait, I know the answer to this question. No.
In fact it actually helps understand why they make the decisions that they do. You know, it gives the boards a bit more respectability then "faceless reviewers" and "faceless appeals board with a Catholic and an Episcopalian priest to give the board credibility but you can't know who exactly they are".
Meh.
I guess the US people care about their right to free speech only if it's the government that is restricting that right.
Well, good on them I guess. I'll stick with a classification body that has accountability.
I mean, as a foreigner what they do in the US is extremely confusing.
Here in Australia we have the Office of Film and Literature Classification. It's a government body that does pretty much what it's title suggest (and video games and other media too).
As a side note, I'd just like to shout out to Michael Atkinson (Attorney-General of SA) and say the following:
You are a bloody idiot for not allowing an R18+ rating for video games. Honestly, why the hell can't we have such a rating for video games? We seem to do just fine with one for movies.
Anyway, back to what I am supposed to be talking about.
It seems that, on top of nobody having any bloody clue about the rules for classification in the US, and that the "appeals" process sounds just like a way for the Motion Picture Association of America to say "we're keeping our rating". As far as I can tell the closest thing that there is to rules is reading the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Now compare that to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFCA for ease now), where you can actually download a copy of their guidelines.
Funnily enough the same thing appears to exist with the MPAA review board and their appeals board. At most the public only gets the list from 2005 which the film found through the use of a private investigator. The MPAA go on about some crap about "protecting integrity".
My god that must mean that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are a bunch of corrupt bastards because we can easily find out who they are, what they can do, and where they are from. What utter bastards. Well that clearly means that I can't trust them because I know who they are and what qualifications they hold.
Right?
Oh wait, I know the answer to this question. No.
In fact it actually helps understand why they make the decisions that they do. You know, it gives the boards a bit more respectability then "faceless reviewers" and "faceless appeals board with a Catholic and an Episcopalian priest to give the board credibility but you can't know who exactly they are".
Meh.
I guess the US people care about their right to free speech only if it's the government that is restricting that right.
Well, good on them I guess. I'll stick with a classification body that has accountability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)