Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe => Messages and Questions From the Panel => Topic started by: Steven Novella on February 22, 2007, 12:35:32 PM

Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Steven Novella on February 22, 2007, 12:35:32 PM
In an effort to quantify some of the constructive feedback we have been getting, we are going to run a number of polls, starting with this one. Please answer honestly, this is our attempt to fine-tune the show. We understand that forum denizens are a select group of listeners, and those who answer this poll are also self-selected - so this is not a representative sample of our listeners. But it is likely to be a good overall indication.

Don't worry if this poll does not contain a choice that you like - there will be other polls. If you have a question you would like to have asked, then add it here as a suggestion.

Thanks.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Ivan Lysenko on February 22, 2007, 12:51:58 PM
Personally I have not minded the banter much. Granted it mostly depends on my mood and thus nothing you need to worry about. Really for me its the happier and more energized you guys are the better the podcast.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: IRON MAN on February 22, 2007, 09:39:13 PM
I selected, "It's just right - don't change a thing", because that's generally the gut feeling I have.  

The chemistry between you guys is awesome.  The fact that none of you try to steal the limelight from one another seems to be either a fortunate coincidence, or excellent editing.

Some major changes I have seen suggested, including the introduction of additional personalities, would almost certainly threaten the natural pacing and interaction you have going on at the moment.

So that's not to say the show should not gradually and naturally change, evolve and try new ideas every now and then, but personally I think you don't want to be too blasé about changing the format, or change it too quickly like Kent Hovind's cat giving birth to a dog.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Mike on February 22, 2007, 09:57:54 PM
I voted the same.

IRON MAN pretty much summed up exactly what I think.  The show is absolutely wonderful the way it is.  Of course, it will evolve, and changes are inevitable, but I think the current format of the show is perfect.

I would rather you not "change it too quickly like Kent Hovind's cat giving birth to a dog.". ;)

That sounds like a perfect photoshop image subject IM :)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: ATGreat on February 22, 2007, 10:39:46 PM
I voted "It's just right..." also, but I do want to qualify that a bit.

First off, I don't see those choices as being mutually exclusive. Why can't you have more but shorter topics AND a little more humor? Those two sound like a natural match.

On the other hand, why can't the choice be more topics on a busy news week and fewer topics on a slow week? Or go back to old topics on a week with no guest?

I'm guessing that you are trying to figure out how to edit the show to keep it within the 1:15 time limit, so I'm sure that fun stuff is getting cut because it goes off topic. And I'm trying to think of how to tell you to edit the show so that it's just like it is now but better.

I got nothin. It's like telling a painter how much red to use...

All I will say is that I do want to hear enough of a topic that I understand the issue and why all of you are talking about it. And I want to hear the banter of people bringing science and smart-ass commentary to the subject.

Editing is an artistic balancing act, and I think you are dong a fine job. I would love to tell you how to do it better, but unless you try it different ways and hear us scream about it afterward, no one will know if it's better or not that way. So try an episode with shorter topics. Try an episode with more smart-ass commentary. If you don't notice a difference, then have one of the other rogues edit two or three episodes and see what they come up with. Play with it and see what happens. I'll be back the week after...
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: mindme on February 23, 2007, 01:14:40 AM
The only thing I would change is bring back the spot the logical fallacy bit. The shows with guests are the best ones. James Oberg I'm tellin' you you gotta get.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Gilnei on February 23, 2007, 09:33:55 AM
I almost agree; I think the Logical Fallacy segment should return (it's a VERY valuable teaching tool for those new to skepticism), but with the different approach suggested here a while ago: choosing one fallacy per week and showing recent examples of its use, explaining them clearly, without any guessing involved. It's not like any of the rogues (let alone the listeners!) could compete with Dr. Novella's years of practice spotting fallacies anyway.  :P
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Jay on February 23, 2007, 12:33:37 PM
Steve is also an expert at spotting fake boobs.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Dave The Drummer on February 23, 2007, 01:17:50 PM
I'd like to see the logical fallacy quiz back again too.
Even if that didn't come back the format is great as it stands.
The format doesn't need to be rigid. Flexibility is good.
On occasion you have had almost a whole episode devoted to an interview. Other episodes have had a much more mixed format.
It's all good.
Do what needs to be done to educate, inform and make people think.

I would personally like to see the occasional object lesson in critical thinking so one can sharpen one's mind a little.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: kel on February 23, 2007, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: "Jay"
Steve is also an expert at spotting fake boobs.


Sheesh, is there anything that man can't do?

I voted for keep it the same too. Perfecto. :D
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: mindme on February 23, 2007, 08:01:51 PM
Quote from: "Jay"
Steve is also an expert at spotting fake boobs.


(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40160000/jpg/_40160440_red_card.jpg)

The "I can always spot a toupee" fallacy! See, I've learned a lot from the old days.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Gilnei on February 23, 2007, 11:21:41 PM
Er... I think that's an in-joke from the exact same episode where they explained that fallacy.

(I'm not sure if you were aware of that or not, but just in case. =P )
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: mindme on February 24, 2007, 10:06:07 AM
Quote from: "Gilnei"
Er... I think that's an in-joke from the exact same episode where they explained that fallacy.

(I'm not sure if you were aware of that or not, but just in case. =P )


Dude :)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: IRON MAN on February 24, 2007, 06:02:38 PM
I wonder if Randi would test someone with that claim.  If I said that I could distinguish fake breasts by touch, would he get a bunch of women together for me to try my powers out on?

(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3187/photoshootbeachul1.jpg)

"Only 5%?  Way below chance alone?  Well, don't I feel like a loser ..."
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Paul Ganssle on February 24, 2007, 06:06:27 PM
I am not sure if that is paranormal, but with some tweaking, you could probably get away with something like that.

"My claim is that simply by being orally stimulated by a woman, I can tell at what time she was born to within 15 minutes.  I propose that a random sample of 100 undiseased, attractive women orally stimulate me to completion over the course of one week (or two).  I would consider it a successful test if I was correct 95 out of 100 times."
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: cosmicvagabond on February 24, 2007, 06:17:01 PM
Quote from: "Jay"
Steve is also an expert at spotting fake boobs.


Sheesh... that one is easy:


Fake Boobs:

(http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/gallery/i/p/p_anderson3/lg1.jpg)

Real Boobs:

(http://www.truthdig.com/images/diguploads/bush_804.jpg)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: ATGreat on February 24, 2007, 06:22:39 PM
Quote
"My claim is that simply by being orally stimulated by a woman, I can tell at what time she was born to within 15 minutes. I propose that a random sample of 100 undiseased, attractive women orally stimulate me to completion over the course of one week (or two). I would consider it a successful test if I was correct 95 out of 100 times."


In a one week period, that would be about 14 times a day, every day for a week. I think that if that if you lived through that, you would be able to demonstrate a different power then guessing time of birth... :)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Paul Ganssle on February 24, 2007, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: "ATGreat"
Quote
"My claim is that simply by being orally stimulated by a woman, I can tell at what time she was born to within 15 minutes. I propose that a random sample of 100 undiseased, attractive women orally stimulate me to completion over the course of one week (or two). I would consider it a successful test if I was correct 95 out of 100 times."


In a one week period, that would be about 14 times a day, every day for a week. I think that if that if you lived through that, you would be able to demonstrate a different power then guessing time of birth... :)


And if I didn't, I'd die very, very happy.  Sounds like a win/win for me!
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Gilnei on February 24, 2007, 07:51:46 PM
Quote
I would consider it a successful test if I was correct 95 out of 100 times."


Dude, the test would be called off as soon as you failed guessing for the sixth time. That's horrible planning, haven't you learned anything from our fake psychics? You have to claim to make the vaguest predictions possible, so that you cannot be declared a miss so soon (obviously not a hit either, but who cares)?  :D
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Paul Ganssle on February 24, 2007, 08:00:22 PM
Quote from: "Gilnei"
Quote
I would consider it a successful test if I was correct 95 out of 100 times."


Dude, the test would be called off as soon as you failed guessing for the sixth time. That's horrible planning, haven't you learned anything from our fake psychics? You have to claim to make the vaguest predictions possible, so that you cannot be declared a miss so soon (obviously not a hit either, but who cares)?  :D


In order for proper blinding conditions, I would write down the birth time of each participant during the test, and birth certificates would be examined afterwards.  Presumably most people do not know when they are born, and even if some of the women did, they aren't saying anything ;).
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: IRON MAN on February 25, 2007, 09:32:47 PM
Well this thread certainly took a left turn.  Sorry Steve.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: champagnej on February 26, 2007, 01:36:29 AM
Quote from: "IRON MAN"
Well this thread certainly took a left turn.  Sorry Steve.


Jay's fault
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Jay on February 27, 2007, 01:18:46 PM
cosmicvagabond...awesome post...my god that woman has a set of lungs on her.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: cosmicvagabond on February 27, 2007, 03:01:43 PM
Quote from: "Jay"
cosmicvagabond...awesome post...my god that woman has a set of lungs on her.


I chose the image purely for illustrative purposes... of course.  :wink:
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Joe Shmoe on February 27, 2007, 04:01:36 PM
Quote from: "IRON MAN"
Well this thread certainly took a left turn.  Sorry Steve.


Hating Bush and company is hardly a left-wing monopoly...
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: SCriminal on March 14, 2007, 04:11:44 AM
I've always thought the spot the logical fallicy segment should be in every show.  I've never really liked science or fiction.  Or if it doesn't work well on the show, it'd be neat if you guys could post quotes for us to pick at here on the boards.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Mike on March 14, 2007, 05:42:48 AM
I really enjoyed the spot the logical fallacy as well.  I think they do record one every once in a while but it ends up on the cutting room floor most of the time to meet the time constraints.   Now that I think about it.  There isn't a rule that says that episodes must be 1h20m or less.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Dave The Drummer on March 14, 2007, 05:54:38 AM
Obviously it takes more resources, time, bandwidth etc... for the podcasts to be longer but I for one would have no problems with a longer podcast.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: tileeater on April 18, 2007, 08:42:14 PM
I voted for keeping the show the way it is but I also wouldn't mind an occasional show with a theme... A theme suggestion could be occupational woo-woo.

Example: I work in web development and I constantly deal with SEO (search engine optimization) charlatans. Clients are always allured by magical links you can put on your homepage to give you "Top 10 Ranking in Google!!!" While SEO is a legitimate enterprise a very large percentage of it is total BS. I could go on but that's a whole other thread on another message board...

Anyway, I'm curious to hear what others deal with day to day in their work lives.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on April 22, 2007, 12:05:31 PM
I've never understood the reasoning behind the one-hour time limit. It's a podcast. If you have the material, why not let it run long?
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Dave The Drummer on April 22, 2007, 02:36:51 PM
Quote from: "skidoo"
I've never understood the reasoning behind the one-hour time limit. It's a podcast. If you have the material, why not let it run long?


Part of it is down to bandwidth.
If you increase the file size by half you add 50% to your bandwidth requirements.
That costs more money.
Especially with thousands of people all downloading the podcast on a Saturday.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on April 22, 2007, 06:56:18 PM
Quote from: "Dave The Drummer"
Quote from: "skidoo"
I've never understood the reasoning behind the one-hour time limit. It's a podcast. If you have the material, why not let it run long?


Part of it is down to bandwidth.
If you increase the file size by half you add 50% to your bandwidth requirements.
That costs more money.
Especially with thousands of people all downloading the podcast on a Saturday.

True, true. I forget how popular SGU is. 9,000 listeners X 27.5 megs = nearly a quarter gig.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: tileeater on April 22, 2007, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: "skidoo"

True, true. I forget how popular SGU is. 9,000 listeners X 27.5 megs = nearly a quarter gig.


It's a lot more than that. There's about 15,000 listeners X 30 megs or so a show is approaching the half terabyte mark.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on April 22, 2007, 09:47:24 PM
Quote from: "tileeater"
Quote from: "skidoo"

True, true. I forget how popular SGU is. 9,000 listeners X 27.5 megs = nearly a quarter gig.


It's a lot more than that. There's about 15,000 listeners X 30 megs or so a show is approaching the half terabyte mark.

Oops. I meant terabyte. And I think I must've heard the 9,000 number in an older episode. Pay no attention to me.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: wastrel on April 22, 2007, 10:43:29 PM
Quote from: "skidoo"
Pay no attention to me.


*Stores way for future reference*
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on April 22, 2007, 11:12:01 PM
Quote from: "wastrel"
Quote from: "skidoo"
Pay no attention to me.


*Stores way for future reference*

ConTEXT is king!  :lol:
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Schottky90 on August 31, 2007, 04:42:55 PM
Consider me Goldylocks and SGU the Baby Bear.

Gads... can you tell I have two young daughters with a comment like that?
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Mark7300 on August 31, 2007, 04:50:06 PM
I like the format. Humor is always good. I personally think interviews should not be too long and kept to 10 minutes or so. Though there have been guests I could listen too longer...

I don't know really. It's a really well made show. Interesting topics, enough different things that if there is something you don't like the next thing will be around soon. You guys sound good. I can't listen to Skepticality because the voices annoy me... I'm very specific..

More sex? Just trying to fit in with the hormonally charged adolescents here...
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: parallellines on October 09, 2007, 02:04:54 AM
I think the show is a perfect mix of banter, science and topical discussion. I like how you guys also try to explain some of the terminology and add a bit of background. It's especially good for someone like me who is a huge fan of science, but doesn't quite have the background to fully digest some of the topics.

Great work!
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Zarvox on October 30, 2007, 05:52:06 PM
I'll throw my money in with the "spot the logical fallacy" crowd. Bring it back! Handier'n heck and always amusing.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: mars.marvel on October 31, 2007, 04:31:52 PM
What can I say other than, I love the show! I think it's great how it is!
Title: Noob to the show, don't change a thing!
Post by: pleclair on November 07, 2007, 08:48:01 PM
I've just started listening to the shows in reverse order and I must say I've switched off my "CBC - As It Happens" during the morning commute in favor of the Podcast! (That's a feat!)

It hasn't ceased to entertain and inform me yet and I'm 7 shows in!  Almost busted a gut today listening to the fact or fiction on Episode 113!  You guys are nuts! (..in a good way!)  Skepchick is sexy and smart!

Thanks guys, keep up the great work!  I'm hooked!
Paul
Title: Re: Noob to the show, don't change a thing!
Post by: Neutral Milk on November 08, 2007, 04:24:05 AM
Quote from: "pleclair"
It hasn't ceased to entertain and inform me yet and I'm 7 shows in!


I think it's pretty safe to say it will keep entertaining and informing you for another 112, and then you'll have some more new ones at that point.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Skepkid on November 08, 2007, 05:28:20 PM
Quote from: "Dave The Drummer"
Quote from: "skidoo"
I've never understood the reasoning behind the one-hour time limit. It's a podcast. If you have the material, why not let it run long?


Part of it is down to bandwidth.
If you increase the file size by half you add 50% to your bandwidth requirements.
That costs more money.
Especially with thousands of people all downloading the podcast on a Saturday.


I'm not for sure on this but I think they use libsyn, which has unlimited free bandwidth and only charge you for memory per month here is a link (http://www.libsyn.com/index.php?&mode=logout&message=)
Title: Re: SGU Poll 1
Post by: gcason on November 14, 2007, 08:44:00 PM
Quote from: "Steven Novella"

Don't worry if this poll does not contain a choice that you like - there will be other polls. If you have a question you would like to have asked, then add it here as a suggestion.

Thanks.


I would like to see a more dissenting voice on the panel.  It seems like the panel is pretty much lock step on most topics these days.  A little healthy discussion would improve the podcast.  It was more interesting and helpful to have Perry and Rebbecca arguing about a topic than it is to have everyone saying, "Yeah.  Me too."  I think a dissenting voice would make the entire panel have to work harder.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Skeptical Gadfly on November 14, 2007, 10:14:54 PM
Quote from: "Mark7300"
I personally think interviews should not be too long and kept to 10 minutes or so. Though there have been guests I could listen too longer


I feel the opposite, I really like the interviews.  The longer the better.  One suggestion might be to try and get the "other side" on more often.  I listened to a Point of Inquiry with Michael Behe and I was thinking, this is going to be awful because I am really anti I.D. But it was fascinating listening to Behe's postion.  DJ was  asking really penetrating questions without being rude and you came away with a much better understanding of the argument at hand.  One thing that was clear, this is a difficult enemy; very calm, cautious and clever.  You need to be prepared if you are going up against them.  He skewered Behe at the end with a question on evil.  Behe had to admit that "death by malaria" must have been part of the intelligent designer's plan. Great plan!
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: iamaelephant on November 18, 2007, 06:47:46 PM
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Kwisatz Haderach on November 18, 2007, 06:59:53 PM
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.


I was just listening to some old podcats with Perry.  Perry was particularly funny and raised the level of everyone else's humor.  Everyone is less funny without him.

However, Bob's rants during "Science or Fiction" are still first-rate entertainment!
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on November 18, 2007, 11:29:17 PM
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.

I think there's a separate entrance for trolls.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on November 18, 2007, 11:33:08 PM
Quote from: "Febo"
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.


I was just listening to some old podcats with Perry.  Perry was particularly funny and raised the level of everyone else's humor.  Everyone is less funny without him.

However, Bob's rants during "Science or Fiction" are still first-rate entertainment!

All of them are funny as hell when they get going. That elephant guy is either a troll or an unsupervised mongoloid.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Trisomy21 on November 20, 2007, 02:23:06 AM
Quote

All of them are funny as hell when they get going. That elephant guy is either a troll or an unsupervised mongoloid.


What do you mean by unsupervised mongoloid?
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on November 21, 2007, 11:38:01 AM
Quote from: "Trisomy21"
Quote

All of them are funny as hell when they get going. That elephant guy is either a troll or an unsupervised mongoloid.

What do you mean by unsupervised mongoloid?

(http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/043006/how-eclipses-are-made.gif)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: triumphene on November 21, 2007, 12:17:54 PM
Quote from: "Trisomy21"
Quote

All of them are funny as hell when they get going. That elephant guy is either a troll or an unsupervised mongoloid.


What do you mean by unsupervised mongoloid?


Quote
Since people with Down syndrome may appear to have epicanthic folds, the condition was formerly called "Mongol" or "Mongoloid Idiocy"[40] Mistakenly, John Langdon Down, for whom the syndrome was named, claimed in his book Observations on the Ethnic Classification of Idiots (1866), that the Mongol-like features represented an alleged evolutionary degeneration when manifested in Caucasoids. Though this view was discounted in the 20th century, the use of the term "Mongoloid" for racial purposes has acquired offensive connotations because of the connection with Downs syndrome.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid
Title: Just about perfecrt
Post by: antho on November 25, 2007, 10:40:57 AM
I discovered the podcasts a few months ago and methodically listened to the 100+ hours of archived posts on iTunes to catchup. The mix of articles, guests, features, and banter has evolved to near perfection.

Don't tinker with a working model.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: antho on November 25, 2007, 10:46:19 AM
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.


I totally disagree. The humor makes this skeptical podcast unique. When Rebecca told the guys that clipping phones to their belts was unsexy, and the only way they'd get laid was to hang a vibrator from their belts, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

You have a strong format that you enjoy producing and we enjoy hearing. Don't make big changes.
Title: iamnotmockingiamaelephanteventhoughitshouldbeiamanelephant
Post by: IrishJazz on November 25, 2007, 01:41:25 PM
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.


I second this opinion, and move that you type in all future comments and then render them as computer generated voices. It would be more egalitarian- I often find the differentiation between participants distracting, especially Rebecca's distressingly effeminite tone. It would also make everyone sound more like Stephen Hawking, and you can't get more scientific than that.

And less sarcasm please. It is wasted on the rationally enlightened.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Trisomy21 on November 27, 2007, 03:04:37 AM
Yes I understand what Mongloid can mean.  I was just wondering if Skidoo was refering to the race that conquered; Europe, Asia and the Middle east or if he was using a slur that refers to people who through no fault of there own have an extra 21st chromosome.  The later is called Trisomy 21 or Down Syndrome of which my 8 week old daughter is a member.  Either of which would make Skidoo a prick.
But I have to agree that the banter on air is absolutely perfect.  I have listened to many other science podcasts but Skeptics guide has ruined them all for me.  I must settle for replaying old episodes until the next SGU episode arrives.  Keep up the great work!

P.S.  My icon is now my 8 week old daughter.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: KarenX on November 27, 2007, 05:07:17 AM
Your eight-week-old daughter is a sweetness and a half! Congrats. I have a nine-month-old girl. I don't know if you have any other children, but my girl is so different from her brother (who is about two) that it's wiggin' me out. Not to go all inherent gender differences but it's amazing. Boys like cars. Girls like stuffed animals to hug and sleep with. Who would have thought it?
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Niobe on November 27, 2007, 08:21:07 AM
Quote from: "Trisomy21"
Mongoloid
As an aside, I've read something years back that we shouldn't feel bad about associating the happy kids with the name of a proud horseback people, but that the racist asshole that gave his name to the disorder would only be adequate if you refer to the mental retardation aspect of it.

Also your daughter is a doll.


And Rebecca is hilarious. "Well it would be going in a pig". OH SNAP
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on November 29, 2007, 12:53:13 PM
Quote from: "Trisomy21"
Yes I understand what Mongloid can mean.  I was just wondering if Skidoo was refering to the race that conquered Europe, Asia and the Middle east or if he was using a slur that refers to people who through no fault of there own have an extra 21st chromosome.

Gosh, I wonder? Oh wait, I see what you're doing there! What a **clever** rhetorical device! But really, only a retard would think I could actually have been referring to the Mongoloid race.

Quote
The later is called Trisomy 21 or Down Syndrome of which my 8 week old daughter is a member.

Does she get a quarterly newsletter from them or something? No? She just gets to live her life in blissful ignorance, her every whim catered to by her loving parents? Oh. That's nice.

Quote
Either of which would make Skidoo a prick.

So I'm either a racist or a mental capacity-ist? Yay for eugenics! Uh-huh. That's me alright.

Listen here you self-absorbed holier-than-thou drama queen. My two perfectly healthy, perfectly well-adjusted children (10 and 7) are going to ***DIE*** one day. One day, they will be no more; they will cease to exist. And in the interim, they will suffer. Heartbreak, tragedy, and loss will punctuate their brief lives. They'll watch the people they love suffer and die. They don't have the luxury of blissful ignorance to look forward to.

So yeah, it sucks that your kid has Down Syndrome. I'm really sorry for you, blah, blah, blah. But seriously: Shut the hell up with the self-righteous nonsense. Your child has a physical defect, the most visible side-effects of which are not exactly flattering. Sorry, but your child's condition works as a great metaphor. Who's fault is that? Not mine.

I submit that it is you who are being rude, coming in here with your personal agenda, demanding a class get special exemption from negative stereotyping just because your child happens to be a member of it.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: CapSponge on November 29, 2007, 07:28:35 PM
Quote from: "skidoo"

Listen here you self-absorbed holier-than-thou drama queen. My two perfectly healthy, perfectly well-adjusted children (10 and 7) are going to ***DIE*** one day.


 :shock:

Um....  I got nuthin.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Ubermoogle on November 30, 2007, 12:08:15 PM
If I had my druthers, I'd say each podcast should be at least 2 hours long. But that's a pipe dream.

I guess I'll just have to listen to something that exercises my brain on a regular basis.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Skeptigator on November 30, 2007, 12:47:28 PM
I have to agree with a gcason I believe in that a dissenting opinion would be nice sometimes. Maybe not necessarily a truther or a believer but at least someone who would be willing to, on occasion, play Devil's Advocate.  :twisted:

They don't need to be a contrarian but someone whose willing say, "Now wait a second, not ALL alternative medicine is bunk, some of it may actually have benefits"

Perhaps a handsome midwesterner  :wink:
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on November 30, 2007, 12:57:25 PM
Quote from: "Skeptigator"
I have to agree with a gcason I believe in that a dissenting opinion would be nice sometimes. Maybe not necessarily a truther or a believer but at least someone who would be willing to, on occasion, play Devil's Advocate.  :twisted:

They don't need to be a contrarian but someone whose willing say, "Now wait a second, not ALL alternative medicine is bunk, some of it may actually have benefits"

Perhaps a handsome midwesterner  :wink:

I don't see the point. If the panel is ever unfair or incorrect about an implication or an assertion, the fans are all over it. If you're not looking for an ombudsman or a whipping boy, I don't see the purpose behind adding another panelist with an official (even if unspoken) role. Sounds more like you're simply looking for someone you agree with. :D
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Skad on November 30, 2007, 05:20:32 PM
Quote from: "skidoo"
Quote from: "Trisomy21"
Yes I understand what Mongloid can mean.  I was just wondering if Skidoo was refering to the race that conquered Europe, Asia and the Middle east or if he was using a slur that refers to people who through no fault of there own have an extra 21st chromosome.

Gosh, I wonder? Oh wait, I see what you're doing there! What a **clever** rhetorical device! But really, only a retard would think I could actually have been referring to the Mongoloid race.

Quote
The later is called Trisomy 21 or Down Syndrome of which my 8 week old daughter is a member.

Does she get a quarterly newsletter from them or something? No? She just gets to live her life in blissful ignorance, her every whim catered to by her loving parents? Oh. That's nice.

Quote
Either of which would make Skidoo a prick.

So I'm either a racist or a mental capacity-ist? Yay for eugenics! Uh-huh. That's me alright.

Listen here you self-absorbed holier-than-thou drama queen. My two perfectly healthy, perfectly well-adjusted children (10 and 7) are going to ***DIE*** one day. One day, they will be no more; they will cease to exist. And in the interim, they will suffer. Heartbreak, tragedy, and loss will punctuate their brief lives. They'll watch the people they love suffer and die. They don't have the luxury of blissful ignorance to look forward to.

So yeah, it sucks that your kid has Down Syndrome. I'm really sorry for you, blah, blah, blah. But seriously: Shut the hell up with the self-righteous nonsense. Your child has a physical defect, the most visible side-effects of which are not exactly flattering. Sorry, but your child's condition works as a great metaphor. Who's fault is that? Not mine.

I submit that it is you who are being rude, coming in here with your personal agenda, demanding a class get special exemption from negative stereotyping just because your child happens to be a member of it.


skidoo,

     Do you actually believe this or is this a defensive rant because he called you a prick?

I find it interesting that you have no qualms about referring to him as a "self-absorbed holier-than-thou drama queen" all the while telling us the heart wrenchingly sad story of your children’s lack of down syndrome and their eventual death.  I do find it hard to pity your kids because of their lack of "blissful ignorance" though.  
   
You also mention that he is driven by a personal agenda; do you lack a personal agenda?  It seems to me that your personal agenda pops its head up a lot..... for instance earlier in this thread when you decided to attack another person who didn't agree with your point of view.
Quote from: "skidoo"
All of them are funny as hell when they get going. That elephant guy is either a troll or an unsupervised mongoloid.


I think that all Trisomy21 was trying to do was point out that you were using a archaic reference developed in a time when any physical or mental deformity was treated as a scourge from god.  By propagating such ideologies it further dehumanizes the individuals it is based on.  If I were to say something was too expensive would you call me a Jew?  

I just want to add that I don't think that you are a racist or a mental capacity-ist.  Sometimes being a skeptic isn't about forcing someone to accept your point of view but presenting the evidence for them to stew over.  I see the point you are trying to make and it is a valid one. We should not have to step on eggshells when we are referencing taboo subjects however blatant ad hominem attacks do not help your argument and neither does using the same fallacies that your target uses.

I appreciate you position and I truly hope I didn't offend you.

ALSO:
(http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/042106/checkerboard.gif)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Mark7300 on November 30, 2007, 05:32:17 PM
A combination of way too much PC and someone being a prick about it. Deep breath and on to the next subject...
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on November 30, 2007, 10:44:34 PM
Quote from: "Skad"
...I don't think that you are a racist or a mental capacity-ist.... I see the point you are trying to make and it is a valid one. We should not have to step on eggshells when we are referencing taboo subjects.

I appreciate you position....

Thanks for your support!

(http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/081106/children-crying.gif)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: LaPalida on November 30, 2007, 11:00:09 PM
Uh news flash... skidoo is a prick everyone knows that!
Title: Jokes Flops
Post by: DoctorAtlantis on November 30, 2007, 11:15:02 PM
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.



Why do you spell humor as humour - yet write skepticism and not scepticism?

I think you are a poser.

I posit that you're not a <sic> elephant at all!

(And I would know, because I'm a Doctor from Atlantis!)

But I do like the quantity of the humor in the show as it is.  The recent episode where Doctor Steve (and I use that term loosely, because he went to a terrestrial school instead of a good sea-weed league University like myself) inserted the music from MPATHG was about as much post-production sound effect add-ins as I'd like to hear.  I much prefer the raw "nerds talking smart trash" feel of the show.  

Besides, the show already makes me laugh out loud at least two or three times an episode.  It has a natural feel, and we all know that natural is good.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on December 01, 2007, 12:03:44 AM
Actually, I'm in a mincing mood, so I'll address your points individually.

Quote from: "Skad"
skidoo,

     Do you actually believe this or is this a defensive rant because he called you a prick?

Are you asking me if I regret that post? No.

Quote
I find it interesting that you have no qualms about referring to him as a "self-absorbed holier-than-thou drama queen" all the while telling us the heart wrenchingly sad story of your children’s lack of down syndrome and their eventual death.

Er, that's the whole point. My kids are going to suffer and die, but I don't go around expecting special treatment as a result. And the story of my kids (and all our kids) ***is*** a sad story. If children suffering from Down Syndrome deserve some level of existential compassion and consideration, then ***doubly*** so for healthy children.

Quote
I do find it hard to pity your kids because of their lack of "blissful ignorance" though.

What is this? Just some meaningless rhetorical assertion? Or do you just not get what I'm saying?
   
Quote
You also mention that he is driven by a personal agenda; do you lack a personal agenda?

Huh? I'm not presuming to lecture people on their insensitivity because of some self-righteous sense of authority or entitlement. But I'll concede that personal agenda wasn't the right term in that context. Maybe "chip on his shoulder" would've been more appropriate (I'm assuming he's a he?). And it's that aforementioned unjustified claim to authority and entitlement that really chaps my ass. Like he's got some special insight into suffering. I see it all the time. Frustrating.

Quote
It seems to me that your personal agenda pops its head up a lot..... for instance earlier in this thread when you decided to attack another person who didn't agree with your point of view.
Quote from: "skidoo"
All of them are funny as hell when they get going. That elephant guy is either a troll or an unsupervised mongoloid.

Hey, er, that's the post we're all discussing here. Try to keep up! :lol:

Quote
I think that all Trisomy21 was trying to do was point out that you were using a archaic reference developed in a time when any physical or mental deformity was treated as a scourge from god.

Bullshit. Trisomy21 was getting his rocks off with "moral indignation." And assuming (along with the rest of the herd) that he was automatically entitled to the moral highground. In fact, there is no highground. We're all in this brutal desert, and it's perfectly flat, as far as the eye can see.

Quote
By propagating such ideologies it further dehumanizes the individuals it is based on.

I'm not propogating any ideology. That's nonsense. Actual mongoloids are mentally retarded and do have physical features which suggest a low IQ. That's just the way it is.

Now, if the word itself has become old-fashioned and offensive and no longer acceptable, that's a different story. But so far, neither me nor I suspect anyone in the various circiles in which I travel have gotten that memo.

Quote
If I were to say something was too expensive would you call me a Jew?

I might, given the right context. I might even actually call you a hebe. :D

Quote
I just want to add that I don't think that you are a racist or a mental capacity-ist.

Of course I'm not. And I'm also not entirely insensitive. I can't imagine what an incredible paradigm shift it would be to have a seriously handicapped child. I blow a fuse even trying to think about it.

Quote
Sometimes being a skeptic isn't about forcing someone to accept your point of view but presenting the evidence for them to stew over.

Hmm. Uh...what? What are you lecturing me about? I'm not forcing anyone to accept my point of view. I'm presenting the case and rebutting and rejoindering. To assume that a person who uses the word mongoloid as a pejorative is a bigot is in itself prejudicial and imprudent. Let's face it: mongoloid does roll off the tongue nicely.

Quote
I see the point you are trying to make and it is a valid one.

Of course it is.

Quote
We should not have to step on eggshells when we are referencing taboo subjects

It shouldn't even be a taboo subject, but I get what you're saying. It's all such ridiculousness though.

They're just words. But words can be powerful! Of course they can! But the extent to which you choose to give words power is the extent to which those words (and necessarily their context) should be critically evaluated and examined for logical consistency. That is, the more weight you give the words, the more you should think about what the speaker is really saying.

Quote
however blatant ad hominem attacks do not help your argument

I have not committed one single ad hominem fallacy. Please feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Quote
and neither does using the same fallacies that your target uses.

Such as...? Assertum non est demonstratum. To assert is not to demonstrate.

Quote
I appreciate you position and I truly hope I didn't offend you.

Offended? Not possible! I type every post on this board with a smile on my face. :D
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on December 01, 2007, 12:12:14 AM
Quote from: "LaPalida"
Uh news flash... skidoo is a prick everyone knows that!

Yeah, maybe there should be a sticky in one of the forums.

Skidoo is a harmless prick. Take everything he says with a grain of salt. Except for his tips on Holly Hobby collecting (http://www.dollkind.com/holly-hobbie-doll.shtml): You can take that info straight to the bank!

(http://www.dollkind.com/images/hobbie1.gif)
Title: Re: Jokes Flops
Post by: skidoo on December 01, 2007, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: "DoctorAtlantis"
Quote from: "iamaelephant"
Please don't increase the "witty banter" or humour. Firstly, although I've had a few chuckles out of the show, none of you are particularly funny and most of your jokes flops. Badly. Secondly, it's not a comedy podcast, and it's a waste of valuable listening time. Stick to the science and skepticism please.



Why do you spell humor as humour - yet write skepticism and not scepticism?

I think you are a poser.

I posit that you're not a <sic> elephant at all!

(And I would know, because I'm a Doctor from Atlantis!)

But I do like the quantity of the humor in the show as it is.  The recent episode where Doctor Steve (and I use that term loosely, because he went to a terrestrial school instead of a good sea-weed league University like myself) inserted the music from MPATHG was about as much post-production sound effect add-ins as I'd like to hear.  I much prefer the raw "nerds talking smart trash" feel of the show.  

Besides, the show already makes me laugh out loud at least two or three times an episode.  It has a natural feel, and we all know that natural is good.

Well-said, well-said.

EDIT: And I'll just add that not only are popular podcasts dramatically increasing their production values, but high-quality, well-funded science radio programming is now available via podcast (e.g. Radio Lab). And that's cool and all, but the laid-back feel of the SGU commands a refreshing niche in the crowd of slickness.

And make no mistake: This is not Wayne and Garth in their moms' basements. These guys are comfortable behind the microphones, and they're comfortable with each other. Their banter, combined with the tight editing, gives the show a subtly professional quality. It's like what a Cracker Barrel wishes it was. It manages to come across as relaxed and laid back, but the fact is, these guys are always prepared, and they're always current, and they do the show every single week. Total pros. :D

Where's the ass-kissing smiley? :lol: What were we talking about again? Eh, the SGU podcast rocks.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: Skeptigator on December 07, 2007, 12:30:11 PM
sorry for the seriously late reply

Quote
From skidoo
I don't see the point. If the panel is ever unfair or incorrect about an implication or an assertion, the fans are all over it. If you're not looking for an ombudsman or a whipping boy, I don't see the purpose behind adding another panelist with an official (even if unspoken) role. Sounds more like you're simply looking for someone you agree with


My point wasn't specifically about alt-health or whatever the example was. When discussing an issue with a believer they often bring up points that are never brought up by the panel because no one ever (well rarely) challenges what's even being said.

If in the course of one of Dr. Novella's explanations he makes a point based off of an assumption (that a believer doesn't share but the SGU panel accepts) or draws a quick conclusion, I think the Devil's Advocate should at least respond with some of the more common rebuttals/replies that a skeptic may receive from a believer.

I think it would make the education (for the lack of a better term) that I receive from the show better if I already know some of the ready-made responses to a logical fallacy or some commonly held false assumption.

I don't think its very relevant whether I'm a cynical skeptic or believe that Jesus built my hot rod, I'm just offering my opinion as to what I think would make the show better.
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: skidoo on December 07, 2007, 01:10:05 PM
Quote from: "Skeptigator"
sorry for the seriously late reply

Quote
From skidoo
I don't see the point. If the panel is ever unfair or incorrect about an implication or an assertion, the fans are all over it. If you're not looking for an ombudsman or a whipping boy, I don't see the purpose behind adding another panelist with an official (even if unspoken) role. Sounds more like you're simply looking for someone you agree with


My point wasn't specifically about alt-health or whatever the example was. When discussing an issue with a believer they often bring up points that are never brought up by the panel because no one ever (well rarely) challenges what's even being said.

If in the course of one of Dr. Novella's explanations he makes a point based off of an assumption (that a believer doesn't share but the SGU panel accepts) or draws a quick conclusion, I think the Devil's Advocate should at least respond with some of the more common rebuttals/replies that a skeptic may receive from a believer.

I think it would make the education (for the lack of a better term) that I receive from the show better if I already know some of the ready-made responses to a logical fallacy or some commonly held false assumption.

I don't think its very relevant whether I'm a cynical skeptic or believe that Jesus built my hot rod, I'm just offering my opinion as to what I think would make the show better.

So...someone dedicated to understanding and presenting the true believer perspectives on topics discussed? I think they need a Karl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pilkington). :)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/RickyGervaisShowSeason2.jpg)
Title: SGU Poll 1
Post by: JakePT on December 09, 2007, 01:13:40 AM
If you can't spend much time on a topic, then don't bring it up, that's how I feel. I voted for don't change a thing.