Funny T-Shirts

Some readers here already may know about the Australian kook Victor Zammit and his hilarious web site http://victorzammit.com"> Zammit is one of our most hatemongering critics -- even more malignant than Archangel, as hard as that is to imagine. He's accused Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman, and me of acting like "Klu Klux Klan wizards" and calling us "rapists," among other unpleasant things. He's got a whole bunch of diatribes against us on his web site, such as this gem:

"THE 'RAPE' OF SCIENTIFIC METHOD Debunking skeptics ambushed an innocent legally under-aged gifted psychic Natasha Demkina and 'raped' the objectivity of scientific method to attain their negative results. The experimenters blatantly violated the rules of scientific method and abused their position. They willfully bastardized scientific method to bring about negative results consistent with their entrenched negativity. A permanent MONUMENT OF SHAME will be built for these heinous debunkers as a permanent LEGACY of their entrenched negativism."

And he's also added several ill-informed rants written by other "critics."

The hilariousness of his attacks moved me to see if I could be as funny. So I created a spoof "Victor Dammit" web site. Close to a year ago, the retired attorney threatened me with legal action (and suggested that his friends in New Joisey might pay me a visit to tie my legs in a knot) if I didn't immediately take down my satirical web site. I'm still waiting for his law suit and for the horse head in my bed. And the Victor Dammit site is still getting close to 100 visitors a day.

Hi Skolnick,

You said:

“There is no law against lying about your profession (accept on an application for a government job).”.

That is precisely the point, Andrew. If I applied to the equivalent of a government job here in Brazil saying that I am a biologist, I would not be commiting a crime (nor would I be lying). Instead, I would be given the job. (As a matter of fact I did apply some months ago...). Even though you want to stick to this medieval criteria of yours (a dentist is a man who takes teeth out; a lawyer is a man who send people to jail; etc), you ought to understand that words are not what you want them to mean. Nowadays, you are not a doctor AFTER you get a jog in it. You must be a doctor BEFORE getting the job. That is precisely what changed the medievel pre-scientific society of the Dark Ages into the contemporary scientific-technological society of the Twentieth-Twenty First Century. I can fully understand that the Shrek in you wants to stick to the “Cave Traditions”. But the Public Health man in you (ex editor of Jama, CSMMH ativist, etc) has to abide to the new rational ways (and has to abide to the laws...).

But your last email left me wondering, and I think now that you might have understood wrong something that I said. So, just to make it clear, in case you are not aware of the new ways as they are currently practicesed all over the civilized world: when I say that I never worked as a biologist, what I mean is that I never had a JOB as a biologist. Even according to the medieval ways (and that is why I have now decided to re-label your ways as “cave traditions”) I would be a biologist, for I worked for more than a year in laboratories in the University, both in the clinical laboratory of the University Hospital (Bacteriology Laboratory and Immunology Laboratory) and in the research labs of the Microbiology department (where I gathered the empirical data for our published article; how on Earth do you think the other researchers would allow me to be the first author of the article if I had not had a real top role in it?).

Anyway, your comments deserve attention, for you may not be the only one with medieval longings (i.e. Neandertal longings). Therefore I sent an email yesterday to the institution in legal charge of the biology profession here in Brazil seeking to clarify this issue further. No matter what their answer will be (and I will keep this forum informed of that), I think it is clearer if I label my situation as “B.A in Biology and M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology”. So, for the sake of clarity, I will be using these from now on, and for that insight I thank Mr. Skolnick.

“But you wipe the noses of children while trying to teach them the meaning of English words.”.

I do not wipe their noses, and I am saying this because I would really like to do that. My students are very very poor. And what we really do a lot is not wiping their noses, but trying to confort their hearts... Sad, but true.

Best Regards.

Julio

Hi Guys,

Skolnick said:

"The hilariousness of his attacks moved me to see if I could be as funny. So I created a spoof 'Victor Dammit' web site."

I congratulated Andrew when he created this site, and indeed I highly recommend it. As a matter of fact, it is the only work of CSMMH that is totally devoid of serious flaws

Best Regards,

Julio
____________

Part 1-
Hi Everybody,

All right. Being in this forum has been a positive experience for me. And despite disagreeing on Skolnick in many issues, I list below the changes that I have so far considered necessary either in my website or in the way I present myself, etc.

1- I will stop referring to myself as a “biologist” or “clinical bacteriologist”, and instead will refer to myself as “M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology”.

2- I will change, in my first article about the Natasha Issue, the quotation “close the chapter on Natasha” to “close the chapter” on Natasha (the name Natasha will be excluded from the quoting, so as not to mislead the readers about the actual words from CSMMH).
First Article link:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

3- Also the following changes:
Now: "Did you guys see him bending metals only when in his hands or also when far away from him?". "He can do it both ways!". "But Did you guys see him bending metals only when in his hands or also when far away from him?". "He can do it both ways!",

New Altered Version: "Did you guys see him bending metals only when in his hands or also when far away from him?". "He can do it both ways!". "But Did you guys see him bending metals only when in his hands or also when far away from him?". "He can do it both ways!", (this is my free rephrasing of what Hyman said, and not his actual words)

4- Also:
Now: Further, she was so frustrated with those two clinical conditions that Wiseman conforted her by saying something like "Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones".

New Altered Version: Further, she was so frustrated with those two clinical conditions that Wiseman conforted her by saying something like "Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones". [The actual words from Wiseman were: "So if she scored these two (conditions) wrong it wouldn't matter; if these five were correct (pointing to the remaining test cards), we would still consider that a success.". My previous rephrasing of Wiseman’s actual words was heavily criticized by Andrew Skolnick in the forum http://www.museumofhoaxes.com. Even though I am confident that I did not change the meaning conveyed by Wiseman, and even though I had already stressed in my first version of this article that those words that I quoted referred to something SIMILAR to what Wiseman had actually said (I said above: ...“Wiseman conforted her by saying something like ‘Dont worry, for’”...), I nevertheless recommend that the readers take a look of Mr. Skolnick’s postings on the afore mentioned forum regarding this and other Natasha-related issues, at this link) - and the link is:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/483/P320/

Part 2
5- Also, in the link below:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/embarrassing_answers.htm
I will change the following items:

What the translator actually said was: "If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.". It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing. It was something that Natasha said before the test!

I will indicate the exact words from the translator, credit Skolnick for them, and indicate that despite that Natasha was referring to the future.

6- Also in this article:
From: "even if she got those two conditions wrong, she would still get five and pass".
To: "even if she got those two conditions wrong, she would still get five and pass". (this is my free rephrasing of Wiseman’s actual words, while preserving their his original meaning).

7- also:
From: "You don't know it, Natasha, and neither do I"
To: "You don't know it, Natasha, and neither do I" (this is my free rephrasing of what Skolnick actually said, while keeping the original meaning)

Best Regards to all,

Julio Siqueira
M.A. in Clinical Bacteriology

CRITICIZING RAY HYMAN

A preview of my article. Feedbacks are highly welcome:

In the link below, Hyman tries to back up their sloppy test on Natasha once more. Did he succeed this time? Let’s take a closer look at it.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949#continue
Statistics of the Natasha test: response to concerns and questions
Skeptical Inquirer, Sept-Oct, 2005 by Ray Hyman

“Obviously, the major question is whether Natasha's claim of diagnosis by X-ray vision is true.”

I think it is problematic to use this expression X-ray vision without quotation marks. Hyman et al are using this too much and too liberally. It looks as though Hyman and colleagues really mean that X-rays are involved in it, and this is a serious problem. I think what he really means is “X-ray” vision, that is, a vision that can be used for seeing the interior of certain bodies in certain conditions.

“The test was designed and intended to be the first step in a potential sequence of tests.”

This was never said before. Anyway, it is not a problem. Not necessarily so.

“At each step, if she failed to pass the criterion, we would go no further. If she could pass the test at a given stage, this would tell us that it was worth continuing to the next stage. We wrote this into the protocol and made it clear to the Discovery Channel producer.”

No, they did not write this in the protocols. What is actually said is this below:
24.) At this point, the Test Proctor will interpret the results of the test. The goal of this test is for Natasha to match at least 5 of the target medical conditions to the correct subject.
If Natasha correctly matches 5 or more target medical conditions, the Test Proctor will declare that she has demonstrated that she achieved a significantly better than chance score and therefore further, more thorough scientific testing of her claimed abilities are certainly warranted.
If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities.

25.) It is imperative that the Test Proctor be allowed to explain in the Discovery Channel program that the CSICOP/CSMMH test is not in any way a definitive test. It is too simple and brief to determine the truth of Natasha's claims with comfortable certainty. It can only help decide whether further study of Natasha's claimed abilities are warranted.
See this link for it: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/conditions.html
In no way are they saying in the protocols that they would or would not go further. Hyman is unnecessarily and strangely changing the meaning of things here.

“We fully expected that the television program would make the test goals clear to the viewers. Although the television crew did an otherwise excellent job, they completely omitted our important comments about the limited goals for the test. This has aggravated the misconceptions and criticisms of our testing procedures.”

Hyman is putting the blame for his own actions on other people’s shoulders. Unacceptable. It has HE who appeared in the Discovery Channel documentary saying that Natasha was living an illusion, therefore violationg the rule number 25 of his own protocols.

“The criterion: We set the criterion for "passing" the test as five or more correct matches out of seven. Many commentators said that this was too high. These critics rely on abstract ideas about what is a big or a meaningful "effect." Such abstract measures are misleading in our test. In her typical diagnosis, Natasha supposedly has no prior knowledge of the specific ailment that plagues her client. She has to scan the entire body. If her claim is true, this scan requires X-ray vision of extremely high resolution. She has to examine large organs for gross defects. She also has to look for subtle changes in color and texture plus look at processes at the cellular level.”

Hyman clearly entered some hallucinatory process in the above paragraph. I personally think their criteria (stipulating 5 hits at least for declaring that Natasha passed the test) was acceptable. But the problem is how they ended up interpreting (and reporting; and commenting on...) the “failure” itself, and how the researchers view the conditions Natasha was working under. They only seem to see the conditions that supposedly favored Natasha, and biasedly refuse to acknowledge the conditions that might have hindered her performance. Further, Hyman performs hallucinatory reasoning by saying that “if her claim is true, she must have X-ray vision of extremely high resolution”, and then starts to say that she has to see at the cellular level... Not even CAT or PET scans work at such levels, and their diagnosis are for more detailed than Natasha’s. Andrew Skolnick should spend some of his time properly informing Hynan about medical issues, so as to prevent poor Hyman from looking so unsophisticated in his scientific knowledge...


MORE SOON...

WOW, I've been off line for over six months and this thread is still going strong.

I am surprised that anyone would still believe that this girl has X-ray vision in spite of the overwhelming lack of evidence her supporters are able to produce.

I am also very surprised that askolnick hasn't given up in the face of such overwhelming closed-mindedness of "X-ray Girl's" supporters.

Julio, I'm impressed with your great response to Skolnick's "feedback." There is such a distinct difference between you and your positive manner and thoughtful willingness to incorporate changes, and the manner in which Skolnick attacks and ridicules you and your work. You manage to maintain a positive attitude and gain further insight even from Skolnick's worst insults and attempts to ridicule you. I'm still going through all you've written, but just wanted to say: Good work! And thank you for helping bring focus on the real issues with the Demkina "testing" by csicop-csmmh.

You’re wrong again Skolnick! And in so many places it's hard to tell where to start, even from my own “malignant” self. Heh…

Let's start with this lie on your part:

Skolnick says: "Nice dodge. There is no law against lying about your profession"

Yeah, there is. It's called "Fraud." There are many laws against “fraud,” not just the simple one you cite. In any case, you merely twisted what you knew Julio meant. Typical Skolnick trick

Skolnick says: “A barber cuts hair. A brick layer lays bricks. A carpenter builds with wood. A biologist works as a biological scientist. But you wipe the noses of children while trying to teach them the meaning of English words.”

“You've never worked a single day as a biologist or in any scientific profession. You don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher.”

How insulting! Your statements insult and demean every single school teacher in the world. Are you so obsessed with attacking and ridiculing Julio that you don’t see how your words completely insult and demean all teachers? Are you that blind? It’s appalling! You put a teacher below bricklayers, barbers and carpenters. What a hateful, repulsive louse you make yourself out to be. This just proves your arrogance and that you think you are above everyone else.

I hope Julio is right and you have “layers.” You may not have meant to insult teachers with your thoughtless and ill-conceived remarks; I think you were just trying to humiliate and ridicule Julio. This is just what you did to Natasha Demkina and so many others. This is your modus operandi, and puts the lie to your false claim that you weren’t tying to prove Natasha a fake and weren’t making fun of or ridiculing her. You were. Obviously. The collateral damage of your “quest” to ridicule is undeniable, part of this damage being the blackening of your reputation and those who work by your side.

Skolnick says: “It's about time you learned their meaning too and stop using the English language in false and misleading ways in order to build yourself up and tear others down.”

Your own statement applies directly to you, Skolnick. You are the one who uses the English language in false and misleading ways. You insult and ridicule. You twist meanings, take statements out of context and misrepresent word definitions and the underlying meaning of what a person is saying It’s hypocritical of you to make that sort of statement when you do the exact same thing all the while claiming that you’re telling the “truth” and “exposing” the “falsehoods’ of others.

I have to say that the “Victor Dammnit” parody website is really not all that funny. It's not just a parody, it's an attack. It is a good example of your obsessive and ridiculing attacks on people. It’s overdone and completely out of proportion. It also shines a light into your nature, one that obsessively and compulsively belittles and ridicules anyone who dares to disagree with the imperial skolnick. That’s what you did to Natasha. What you did with Natasha isn’t quite as obvious, but it’s very clear that you had no respect for the girl and meant to tear her down by using twisted “science” and ridicule as your weapons. You prove this in so many different ways.

You really ought to climb down from your arrogant high horse and look at the things you say and do. Your obsessive attacks on people, your insulting manner and your twisted lies and falsehoods shine a light on the uglier parts of your soul.

And yeah, skolnick, I realize that my own insulting manner shines a light on my own flaws and ugly parts. Yadda, yadda...

Hi JoeSixpack,

Since you have been away for sometime, just to bring you quickly up to date:

We are not talking actually about Natasha anymore, who, as you properly pointed out, may be only an illusory phenomenon (that is, illusory in her alleged x-ray like vision - YES, I agree with you in which there is lack of evidence, altogether, for her "powers"). We are now concentrating on another hoax that popped out of this case. The CSICOP hoax.

So far, we have been unable to either prove or disprove Natasha (we nevertheless have strong indications of serious problems in Natasha's alleged "abilities"; thanks to CSICOP). But we have indeed been able to prove here that the hoax of CSICOP and CSMMH really exists and is a menace to true scientific and rational thinking.

I am sure you will agree with me on that one too.

Best Regards,
Julio
___________

Hi Archangel,

Thanks for your encouragement. You say:

“There is such a distinct difference between you and your positive manner and thoughtful willingness to incorporate changes, and the manner in which Skolnick attacks and ridicules you and your work. You manage to maintain a positive attitude and gain further insight even from Skolnick's worst insults and attempts to ridicule you.”

Yes, Archangel, I try it indeed and I try it a lot. I have a feeling that I succeed in it, to a certain extent at least. I make a strong distinction between, on the one hand, Skolnick’s (or anyone else’s) attacks or offences and, on the other hand, Skolnick’s (or anyone else’s) feedbacks. Since I, too, am engaged in a public endeavor (when I criticize the organized skeptic movement), so I must be open to feedbacks and I must incorporate them, no matter how painful to my pride it may be.

Also you say:

“How insulting! Your statements (Skolnick) insult and demean every single school teacher in the world. Are you so obsessed with attacking and ridiculing Julio that you don’t see how your words completely insult and demean all teachers?”

I agree with you. Skolnick is hastily and blindly engaged in attacking me, and in this Jihad of his he ends up spilling his napalm on entire groups of people that deserve not only our respect, but our admiration too. So far he has unduly attacked groups of people, laws, and respectful social practices of our contemporary society. What amazes me most in all of this is that he once told me that he felt very offended by Zammit’s clumsy (to say the least) comparison of CSICOP/CSMMH fellows to KKK members, and that these attacks from Zammit were especially painful in light of his (Skolnick’s) past as someone who took active part in the social movements fighting for Human Rights in the USA in the Sixties (Twentieth Century).

Yes, I believe Skolnick has layers. I am God Damn Sure that he has them. But it seems to be getting harder and harder to make he himself remember this. He seems to have strayed from the “Live and Let Live” lane, and to have gone on that so trecherous oneway road called “Live and Let Die”...

Best Regards,
Julio

_____________

Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle!
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.

Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel!
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.

Guess that makes me the "montrous crow"

Nah, you’re more like “Humpty Dumpty”, skolnick. As a matter of fact, you are almost a perfect mirror of Humpty in his conversation with Alice.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
Read the whole conversation between Humpty "Skolnick" and Alice. It’s uncanny how much like Humpty sounds like Skolnick! Humpty makes misleading statements, takes things out of context, unreasonable accusations, insults, misrepresenting the meanings of words, even a bitchy argument over math! Read it! Pure Humpty-skolnick!
http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

I think skolnick can also qualifies as a third “Tweedle,” Tweedledumber.

Aw, heck, let’s just keep it simple Alice, skolnick’s angry rants and writings are full of Jabberwocky.

I also think that skolnick’s “tweedle” allegory answer shows he has a complete disregard in his own accountability for his actions, statements and professional obligations.

One of the first things I noticed in this thread was some people saying that they thought skolnick set out to prove Natasha to be a fake, using ridicule as a tool to tear her down. Skolnick would respond that this was a “falsehood” or a “lie” because he claimed that they didn’t go in to prove her a fake and never ridiculed her. He kept repeating this same thing over and over, then he began saying that since he’s already denied those accusations, thereby “correcting” everyone, further accusations would be considered lies and libel.

So, one of my first comments was that his denial itself wasn’t “proof,” because if it were actually the case that they were out to show Natasha out to be a fake and ridicule her, would he admit to it? Instead of giving me a reasonable answer, he insultingly responded by implying that I was a “paid shill” and asked me if I would admit it if I were a shill. I guess he couldn’t answer the question and chose instead to attack and insult me.

I think skolnik’s subsequent posts, and his other obsessive and insulting “work” on the internet shows a lot of proof that he was lying when he claimed that he wasn’t out to prove Natasha a fake and to ridicule her.

I don’t know what planet skolnick is from that he thinks his is an appropriate or smart response. It’s not clever, it’s foolish. With his sloppy and ridiculing rhetoric he’s insulted and demeaned many, many people, people with important jobs and responsibilities. Then, when it’s pointed out, he didn’t even bother to deny it. So I guess it’s the truth.

I've had the impression that skolnick was an arrogant, pompous little man with delusions of scientific grandeur, all the while insulting the general public as though they were the “unwashed masses.” I’m sad to have my opinion proven, yet satisfied that he outs himself as a hypocritical liar.

The sloppiness and conceit he shows illustrates what many believe to be the shoddy workmanship in his testing and analysis of Natasha Demkina. I guess this is also his round-about way of finally admitting he was wrong when he falsely accused Archangel of being Julio in disguise. You are contemptible, skolnick.

I feel like Alice, in that skolnick is one of the most “`..unsatisfactory people I ever met.”

Hi Archangel and Skolnick,

Good postings, Archangel. We must also remember that Skolnick has not answered (and never will, as it seems...) the questions that I asked him, those ones where I pointed out the very many mistakes in their test and in their conducts.

Well, I am not going to be in this forum for much too long. I will present in my next posting the remainder of my critique of Hyman's latest "article" about their test on Natasha. Then I will post a message highlighting the issues that Skolnick and friends did not answer.

As a matter of fact, Natasha's supporters have been much too nice on CSICOP and appendixes... There is one violation of protocol from the part of the researchers that is particularly devastating: the subjects were to show proof of their clinical conditions, and they simply never did!

Now, if CSICOPers really think their work is a "scientific investigation", then I suggest that they send their article to a good scientific journal (either Nature, Science, or even old Jama itself) and precisely state in the "Material and Methods" that:

"We had agreed that the subjects would show proof of their alleged clinical conditions at the moment of the test; unfortunately, due to our sloppiness, they did not, and they never will. We, to be honest, do not really know for sure if they indeed had their alleged clinical conditions. As a matter of fact, while we recruited those guys and ladies, we only asked about the target condition, and we even failed to ask if they had any of the other conditions that would be looked for by Natasha. As a consequence, it is possible (even though not likely, we hope) that all the subjects have all the conditions, except of course for the seemingly healthy athletic afro-american lad, who, nonetheless, might have several additional ailments, including bullet woulds, piercings and tatoos all over the unseen parts of his body. Our colleague Skolnick was willing (even happy) to dig deeper into this issue particularly, but as he got closer to the lad's pelvis he remembered that old movie, "Hair" it seems, at the moment the army medical white officers were inspecting the black recruit, and poor Skolnick just fled in horror of, how can we put it, "getting stuck in the evidence"...

By guys,
Julio
_______________

Criticizing Ray Hyman

I have already posted the first part of this critique. Now comes the last part (in five pieces). It refers to the article by Hyman on the Skeptical Inquirer, Sep-Oct 2005, where he tries once more to save this swampy test of theirs on Natasha Demkina. The link to Hyman's article is the one below:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949#continue

My critique on the next postings...