• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

About the speakers

Luciana

Skeptical Carioca
Luciana
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
10,984
Location
Rio de Janeiro - RJ
ELECTRIC MONK was mentioned by Dawkins!!! In a meaningful context. Somebody explain that one later. But EM has every right to feel honored.

Let's all agree that that presentation of Friday 13th superstition sucked big time. And her dressing as a nurse in the back was just embarrassing. If anyone liked it, raise your modem and hide yourself in shame. :p The best thing is that it lasted less than 30 minutes.

Dawkins was brilliant. Thought-provoking lecture, and it exceeded my expectations (and they weren't low).

Julia Sweeney is the most lovely woman in the world. Her presentation, actually a play, is highly entertaining and moving. Anyone who gets a chance to go see her, specially if there's a fence-sitter on the god issue, must do it asap. I just can't praise it enough. I believe Mercutio can find the words to convey the effects of her presentation.

Lance Burton, though not part of TAM itself, wasn't, imho, worth the price. It's outdated with those strobe lights, semi-naked chicks, smoke, fire, ridiculous costumes and that overload of levitation tricks. And his voice, what was that? The whole thing was just tacky.

Michael Shermer's lecture was also very good. I liked the part about "self-serving bias". I didn't buy his book but intend to soon. That's what it was, a summary of his book, but it was interesting enough.

And that guy doing that magic square trick (90)? Richard Wiseman, I think? I was flabbergasted. Stimpy said there's an algorythm, still, it's impressive.

Jamy Ian Swiss was more spectacular than last year. And Scrut played a part in it. "Collaborated"??? What about "kitchenware"? (somebody explain that one later, also).

Let's add our impressions of the speakers here, folks!
 
Some information on magic squares:

http://www.codehappy.net/magicsquares.htm

I thought Wiseman was the surprise hit of the meeting. I had a great chat with him afterward, where he gave me some interesting information about the parapsychology biz.

Hitchens was so dry I almost shriveled up, but I enjoyed him anyway. Nickell was interesting, as always, and I enjoyed seeing the Cheese Sandwich Virgin Mary. I also got a huge kick out of seeing Sonny Fox.

~~ Paul
 
Debatable Issues

G6 is talking about speakers on the Pink Sheet thread as well.
At TAM2 there was a significant debate (and a very long forum thread) on the question: Can someone be a skeptic and not be an atheist? Randi's nomination of Hal Bidlack (not an atheist) to the JREF board was interesting end to TAM2.
This year, given the presence of Christopher Hitchens and Shermer's endorsement of John Kerry, I thought the debate would be: Can someone be a skeptic and still have voted for Bush? There was about a one minute discussion with CH claiming he was a single issue voter and the war in Iraq was his issue and that's why he voted for Bush. Sounds like Penn Gillette did also. But the topic was dropped and never resurfaced. Can't think of any other issue that permeated the entire conference and maybe that's a good thing.
 
Well, I liked Lance Burton because he went out of his way to acknowlege Randi. Plus, it was an old fashioned real Vegas magic act. And I loved the juggler guy! It's hard to ride a unicycle so well that it looks like you ride it badly!


The nurse dude, couldn't any of us in a given weekend put together a better party than that? And she wants us to buy directions for it???

Joe Nickell was wonderful about talking with people. Once I finally caught him he was thoughtful and we had a delightful talk.

Jerry Andrus. I love that man, I really really do. His mind is beyond brilliant.

I adore Andrew Mayne, I think he's really grown as a speaker.

Jamy Ian Swiss, what can I saw, expect not only is he entertaining, he welcomes talking one on one. Did I mention he's pretty hot too?

I was really moved by the scientific papers too. I've got a mind full of new ideas and thoughts on ways to be a more involved skeptic. These plans do not include a sexy nurse outfit though...
 
kittynh said:
I was really moved by the scientific papers too. I've got a mind full of new ideas and thoughts on ways to be a more involved skeptic. These plans do not include a sexy nurse outfit though...
Click to expand...

:(

Did she ruin sexy nurse outfits for you skepchicks? Kill kill kill kill kill....
 
Thumbs down on Hitchens, Penn OK, Thumbs up on Dawkins

This was my first time and I was impressed. But the pluses and minuses are as follows:

I continue to be disappointed in Hitchens. His Slate review of F9-11 seemed to me poorly argued. And his argument that Kerry was as big a theocrat as Bush is intellectually dishonest. Bush under the guise of "strict construction" will continue to whittle as church/state issues and continue to deny liberty to non-Christians. Roe V Wade hangs by a thread and this cowboy will appoint maybe 3 justices. Expect to see more Intelligent Design taught as science. Hitchens makes his arguments for one reason - he is an apologist for the Iraq Invasion.

Similarly with Penn, but there is a difference. Penn doesn't claim to be objective. He tells you right out front that he is bias and he is. Where he applies himself, great. I love that he is doing the ******** series although I have not seen it. However, his filters keep him from being more effective. He told me (and others) that the criticism of Pat Robinson was because Pat was southern. That is utter non-sense. Pat Robinson is a dangerous force in society today. And he steals from those that can least afford it by faking healings and miracles over the airwaves and then asking for money. While Penn is justifiably incensed at Jonathan Edwards, Edwards is small potatoes compared to Robinson. Robinson through the Christian Coalition has a direct line to Bush. The former president was the head of Bush's Southeast Campaign. He will be influential in appointing the next Supreme Court justice. And he defrauds millions more from the unsophisticated than Edwards could ever dream of. But at least you know Penn's bias. I just he had done more of a routine. Like....

Banachek. That guy was great. So was Jamie. And Julie, damn she was just outstanding.

But my highlight was Richard Dawkins. Kudos to Randi for having him. This man is truly brilliant. And he is approachable and engaging. He didn't present and leave. He stayed and participated. I had him autograph his book and this is something I will pass on to my children.

Thanks to James Randi for a truly Amazing Meeting.

Mrick
 
Re: Thumbs down on Hitchens, Penn OK, Thumbs up on Dawkins

I understand your point about Hitchens Mrick but I found him to be very interesting. I might not agree with everything he says and I’m definitely not pro bush but he does have some good points. I think it was a good idea to have a speaker with different views then the others. It kept it interesting. Besides, all the Anti-Bush jokes were starting to get old.
 
On the flight home, Carol and I were reviewing the speakers and were throwing heaps of praise left and right... until we got to the superstition party thing. That whole presentation just seemed oddly out of place in the line-up, even though the subject matter had the potential to be a nice change of pace from some of the heavier topics.

We thought that the whole thing would have worked better had she actually set up the superstition stations in the lobby for us to go through during the lunch break. I think people would have had a bit of fun with that... moreso than just listening to a talk about a party.
 
Re: Re: Thumbs down on Hitchens, Penn OK, Thumbs up on Dawkins

BrianW. said:
I understand your point about Hitchens Mrick but I found him to be very interesting. I might not agree with everything he says and I’m definitely not pro bush but he does have some good points. I think it was a good idea to have a speaker with different views then the others. It kept it interesting. Besides, all the Anti-Bush jokes were starting to get old.
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

I think you are exactly right. If you liked him and others did that is good enough. I can't argue about what points he made as his presentation is already leaving my memory. I think the "kill as many of 'them' as possible, what don't you understand" statement is about all I remember.

I don't know what to tell you about the Bush jokes, but I know what you mean. How can one keep politics out of a skeptics meeting when a whole presidential campaign is based on the antithesis?

Be well.

Mrick
 
Hitchens: I Hate british accents, I hate cigarette smoke, and I hate pompous british attitudes... BUT, I LOVED THIS GUY! I want to party with this guy. He rocked! I loved his "in your face" attitude about being a skeptic. Lighting the cigarette on stage was awesome.

The skinny bald guy (British Accent): Quite a surprise. His pesentation was very entertaining.

The Hot Mamma Jamma (Superstition Party): Bored me to death.

Paper Presentations on Sunday: Very interesting and even entertaining. Who'd a known?

Shermer: He rocks!

Phil Plait (M'cee): When will he wake up and realize that Pluto is a planet?

Jerry Andrus: This guy is friggin' awesome! This old geezer can party! ...and jack up your vision.

:)
 
Re: Debatable Issues

PaulK said:
There was about a one minute discussion with CH claiming he was a single issue voter and the war in Iraq was his issue and that's why he voted for Bush.
Click to expand...
Hitchens is not a citizen (although he lives in DC), and so he did not vote. He would have voted for Bush if he could, based on that one issue.
 
I definately want more stuff like Sunday's presentations.

Especially papers like Schlosser,Andrews-Hart, and Asser's. They got down into the details of what to do and what the human costs are.
 
BrianW. said:
I believe Hitchens said something like Clinton was more of Christian then Bush. I didn't understand where he was coming from when he made that comment, but according to this article maybe he's right-

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF
Click to expand...
Well, they certainly talked about religion (and, in Bill's case, Christianity) as often. But beware of taking anything a politician does too literally. It's still necessary to appear at least somewhat religious in order to get elected to high office.
 
Luciana Nery said:
Michael Shermer's lecture was also very good. I liked the part about "self-serving bias". I didn't buy his book but intend to soon. That's what it was, a summary of his book, but it was interesting enough.
Click to expand...
Does anybody know of a link to the "basketball video clip"?. I asked Mr Shermer about it, and he said it was on the internet under "Dan Simon". After a 30-minute google search I've come up with nothing. Anyone?...Thanks!
 
kevinsbikes said:
Paper Presentations on Sunday: Very interesting and even entertaining. Who'd a known?
Click to expand...

Well...

I had a hunch these six would go over well— out of about 20 reasonable submissions. It sure felt like a tough call to pick ‘em though...

I appreciate the idea of having the papers on friday and Saturday— although this year I found the rhythm of entertainment to “straight forward” talks rather well balanced.

Still, I’m all for having about three 30 minute papers per day. Maybe right after lunch.

These paper sessions are such a great way to showcase and celebrate what we all can do for the skeptic movement, and to encourage up and coming skeptic talent. I hope to see more at tam4 (plus I have this great talk on quantum mechanics-- I hear there are heisenberg fans out there...)
 
Despite being worn out from running around and the jet lag, I made a point of being there for Sunday and in my line of work, it was the most valuable part. I agree that there should be more interspersed throughout the TAM (such as the suggestion about after lunch / 30 min per day) as their practical nature was, to me, very encouraging. I wouldn't slam anything entertaining (although the Friday 13th party had me quirking my eyebrows; I can see how it's a nice idea but not really deserving so much time in a presentation) but it was the practical items such as resources out there, actions 'ordinary' people are taking and ways to deal with conflicting ideas brought up by others about skepticism on the Sunday that made it extra 'amazing'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom