this group?

On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:34:37 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Officer

Post by Bob Officer
So do we actually discuss and be skeptical about science (pseudo science)
claims like we did in the old days, or is just another group which caters
to the great and pointless God debate...

Since most of the "great" pseudoscience woowoos are gone
(RileyG, Ted, Curley, etc.) I think your question is
answered.

--
Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

BruceS

2016-02-26 20:09:04 UTC

This group has become strong and lively, in the homeopathic sense. The
"active ingredient" posts have been repeatedly diluted, so we now have
something about 10X strong.

How's that for on-topic?

Perhaps what we need now is a thread about the safety of fracking.

Bob Officer

2016-02-26 22:19:26 UTC

This group has become strong and lively, in the homeopathic sense. The
"active ingredient" posts have been repeatedly diluted, so we now have
something about 10X strong.
How's that for on-topic?
Perhaps what we need now is a thread about the safety of fracking.

Now there are so many forums on the net, I have been off looking at all
sorts of woo and pseudoscience sites.

I posted just one of the videos I found the other day and hope to generate
a reaction with the free energy peeps but none of them are left, I guess.
Even a comment from you or Bob might be fun...

--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.

BruceS

2016-03-09 18:48:03 UTC

This group has become strong and lively, in the homeopathic sense. The
"active ingredient" posts have been repeatedly diluted, so we now have
something about 10X strong.
How's that for on-topic?
Perhaps what we need now is a thread about the safety of fracking.

Now there are so many forums on the net, I have been off looking at all
sorts of woo and pseudoscience sites.
I posted just one of the videos I found the other day and hope to generate
a reaction with the free energy peeps but none of them are left, I guess.
Even a comment from you or Bob might be fun...

I'm sorry for the slow response---I don't know why I haven't been on
Usenet for a while. Where did you post the vid? Some days I start with
one vid on YouTube and then spend a while going from one of the
"suggested" to another, keeping in a topic. It can be quite amusing,
especially when I take the time to read the comments. I've done that
with "free energy" stuff, and I've also done that with various woo
medical topics, unusual gardening practices, precious metal "stacking",
off-the-grid living, buying real estate on the cheap, and other
subjects. There are some very interesting people out there, some I'd
like to sit down and have a drink with, others I'd rather were properly
medicated and protected.

Bob Officer

2016-03-09 19:01:51 UTC

This group has become strong and lively, in the homeopathic sense. The
"active ingredient" posts have been repeatedly diluted, so we now have
something about 10X strong.
How's that for on-topic?
Perhaps what we need now is a thread about the safety of fracking.

Now there are so many forums on the net, I have been off looking at all
sorts of woo and pseudoscience sites.
I posted just one of the videos I found the other day and hope to generate
a reaction with the free energy peeps but none of them are left, I guess.
Even a comment from you or Bob might be fun...

I'm sorry for the slow response---I don't know why I haven't been on
Usenet for a while. Where did you post the vid?

Here.

Very slick video.

Question do photons have magnet fields? I have seen examples of photons
being deflected by mass, but never by a magnetic field or electrical field.

The EMF emission I play with on a daily basis doesn't see to ever exhibit
any deflection by and magnetic field. If it did I might need the big
antennas required for ham radio.

Are precise measurement justified if the premise you are making them is
wrong?

Some days I start with

Post by BruceS
one vid on YouTube and then spend a while going from one of the
"suggested" to another, keeping in a topic. It can be quite amusing,
especially when I take the time to read the comments. I've done that
with "free energy" stuff, and I've also done that with various woo
medical topics, unusual gardening practices, precious metal "stacking",
off-the-grid living, buying real estate on the cheap, and other
subjects. There are some very interesting people out there, some I'd
like to sit down and have a drink with, others I'd rather were properly
medicated and protected.

--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.

BruceS

2016-03-10 14:23:57 UTC

This group has become strong and lively, in the homeopathic sense. The
"active ingredient" posts have been repeatedly diluted, so we now have
something about 10X strong.
How's that for on-topic?
Perhaps what we need now is a thread about the safety of fracking.

Now there are so many forums on the net, I have been off looking at all
sorts of woo and pseudoscience sites.
I posted just one of the videos I found the other day and hope to generate
a reaction with the free energy peeps but none of them are left, I guess.
Even a comment from you or Bob might be fun...

I'm sorry for the slow response---I don't know why I haven't been on
Usenet for a while. Where did you post the vid?

Here.
Very slick video.
http://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI

I have to admit this is one of those cases of "your mileage may vary".
I found the opening certainly *tried* to be slick, but to me it felt
like someone with a new toy, pressing all the buttons to see what
happens. As for the content, That lost my interest after a bit.
There's plenty of hand-waving and promises of complete solutions to
everything, but I got a bit bored with the "Look! A dome! God's
talking to us!" and quit shortly after that. I'll leave it to someone
else to watch the whole thing (and maybe even the subsequent part 2, 3,
etc. vids) and critique them. For my part, I'll just say that the key
to studying the nature of the universe is not looking at pictures of
buildings and comparing them to homemade lab equipment, but rather is
math. Unless one is British, in which case the key is maths.

Bob Officer

2016-03-10 16:05:42 UTC