<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fostering Communication Outside the Conference Box</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/</link>
	<description>The official blog of the Skeptologists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:44:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10282</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:40:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10282</guid>
		<description>And when he takes off his skeptical hero&#039;s cape, he goes right back to sittings with psychic believers, clearly letting them believe he&#039;s got paranormal powers, working magic in minutes. He&#039;s either working them as a psychic or as an unlicensed and unprofessional therapist, a losing proposition either way. 

As for hard won wars, the battle will not be won by skeptics exposing psychics on stage. That tactic has gone on since the late 1800s to little avail. The way to win the war is with basic education in science and critical thinking, a grassroots effort, not a grandstand effort. 

He works both sides of the &#039;war&#039;. No thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And when he takes off his skeptical hero&#8217;s cape, he goes right back to sittings with psychic believers, clearly letting them believe he&#8217;s got paranormal powers, working magic in minutes. He&#8217;s either working them as a psychic or as an unlicensed and unprofessional therapist, a losing proposition either way. </p>
<p>As for hard won wars, the battle will not be won by skeptics exposing psychics on stage. That tactic has gone on since the late 1800s to little avail. The way to win the war is with basic education in science and critical thinking, a grassroots effort, not a grandstand effort. </p>
<p>He works both sides of the &#8216;war&#8217;. No thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susan Gerbic</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10279</link>
		<dc:creator>Susan Gerbic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10279</guid>
		<description>Devil &amp; Mark, I hate to see you fighting.  I understand Devil that it appears that Mark is on the fence and does not state his side clearly. See his new video that clearly shows what side he is on. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asA2jqmPgVY

Having Mark on OUR side is invaluable, his knowledge of the psychic world is extensive. For the skeptic community not to embrace him as the skeptic he is is just ridiculous. Many magicians, mentalists and other skeptics totally support and understand where he is coming from. As Penn Jillette says on Bullshit episode I, &quot;Mark is on our side&quot;.  

Has Mark Edward not been writing over and over in his blog about bringing down the psychic world? Had you heard the term &quot;guerrilla skepticism&quot; before, I hadn&#039;t.  

Mark has done far more than most of us skeptics (I&#039;m top of this list) have done to educate.  Just watch the Bullshit episode I referred to earlier.  Imagine if someone had exposed Sylvia Browne years ago at a critical point in her career before she started on the tours, the books and the millions.  This is what Mark Edward did to Rosemary Altea on that show.  This woman had the act down, that sweet British accent would have made her millions and gotten her the spot on Montel. But after Mark Edward got through with exposing her she skulked back into near obscurity. The producer of that show took total direction from Mark, that was his take-down.  

The problem is that with the psychics it is like a wack-a-mole game.  As soon as you knock one down another one pops up.  We need to be supporting each other and not fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. This is going to be a hard won war, and we will need talented intelligent people like yourselves working together to get ahead.

Now play nice, or you both will have to put your noses in the corner until you can get along.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Devil &amp; Mark, I hate to see you fighting.  I understand Devil that it appears that Mark is on the fence and does not state his side clearly. See his new video that clearly shows what side he is on. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asA2jqmPgVY" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asA2jqmPgVY</a></p>
<p>Having Mark on OUR side is invaluable, his knowledge of the psychic world is extensive. For the skeptic community not to embrace him as the skeptic he is is just ridiculous. Many magicians, mentalists and other skeptics totally support and understand where he is coming from. As Penn Jillette says on Bullshit episode I, &#8220;Mark is on our side&#8221;.  </p>
<p>Has Mark Edward not been writing over and over in his blog about bringing down the psychic world? Had you heard the term &#8220;guerrilla skepticism&#8221; before, I hadn&#8217;t.  </p>
<p>Mark has done far more than most of us skeptics (I&#8217;m top of this list) have done to educate.  Just watch the Bullshit episode I referred to earlier.  Imagine if someone had exposed Sylvia Browne years ago at a critical point in her career before she started on the tours, the books and the millions.  This is what Mark Edward did to Rosemary Altea on that show.  This woman had the act down, that sweet British accent would have made her millions and gotten her the spot on Montel. But after Mark Edward got through with exposing her she skulked back into near obscurity. The producer of that show took total direction from Mark, that was his take-down.  </p>
<p>The problem is that with the psychics it is like a wack-a-mole game.  As soon as you knock one down another one pops up.  We need to be supporting each other and not fighting and bickering amongst ourselves. This is going to be a hard won war, and we will need talented intelligent people like yourselves working together to get ahead.</p>
<p>Now play nice, or you both will have to put your noses in the corner until you can get along.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10229</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:18:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10229</guid>
		<description>Oh, I think we have your measure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I think we have your measure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Edward</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10219</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Edward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:28:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10219</guid>
		<description>Trying to defend my &quot;mutation&quot; is not why I&#039;m here. Check my creds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trying to defend my &#8220;mutation&#8221; is not why I&#8217;m here. Check my creds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10175</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10175</guid>
		<description>Well, I&#039;ve learned that despite never presenting yourself to private sitters as being psychic or otherwise paranormally gifted, your customers are all woo believers. How odd. Coincidence? Is there a chance they think you&#039;re a psychic (or whatever paranormally gifted label they prefer)and, though you do not profess any paranormal powers, you also do nothing to disavow them of this errant assumption of theirs? 

It disconcerts me a bit that your reason for not employing magic tricks as part of your sittings (&#039;levitate a rose&#039;)is because it isn&#039;t necessary - they walk in already believing - rather than because it would be a decidedly immoral thing to do. I understand your post wasn&#039;t meant to be all-inclusive of your every motive, but... 

&quot; This however may not be true with thousands of other counselors, readers, psychologists and book-trained therapists. Their sitters may also believe they too can accomplish something they can’t.&quot;

That&#039;s not at all how it works with professionals. The professional therapist, psychologist, counselor, etc., will very early in therapy discuss with the client what the client&#039;s expectations are, and will immediately address any unrealistic expectations. This is for the benefit of the client and to separate what a therapist can and can&#039;t do, should and shouldn&#039;t do, from what unlicensed and unprofessional pretend therapists do. 

&quot;My point has always been that as a civilization, we have lost the ability to just sit down and talk to each other about what’s really bugging us unless we pay for it. That’s a real pity, but there you have it.&quot;

Forgive me, but this sounds like a grand justification for making your customers pay for it. After all, you&#039;re not responsible for what the entirety of civilization has lost the ability to do. To do this effectively and without causing harm takes education, training, and experience, and that takes time and money, so I don&#039;t think it&#039;s necessarily a bad thing that professionals charge fees for it. I also know that most people do sit down and talk to each other about what’s really bugging us, to friends, family, etc. I&#039;m not sure where that assertion comes from, unless it&#039;s part and parcel of the aforementioned justification.

&quot;...when you are able to &#039;level&#039; with them and get down to real nitty-gritty issues in a matter of a few minutes, then provide some positive feedback that makes them go away feeling better, it can feel and appear magical.&quot;

If this is occurring in a matter of a few minutes, I strongly suspect you are exaggerating or overstating its &#039;magical&#039; aspects. Isn&#039;t it more of a case of you letting them or getting them to vent current issues and problems, then tossing off some feel-good verbal salve and sending them off less a few dollars? This hardly sounds magical, but then, I&#039;ve never been there to witness it. 

&quot;What’s a person to do? I actually like to make people feel better. That’s about it really. The problem is; since this is so rare an occurrance in our society, it now requires some sort of label: “psychic,” “intuitive,” “sensitive.”and on and on.&quot;

Hmm, sounds like more justification, that you are able to provide such a rarity - and it also sounds a wee bit egotistical. It is also untrue. It is not unusual, happens every day in society, and does not constitute a &#039;rarity&#039; because you happen to be unaware of it. 

&quot;If I’m not invited or billed at skeptical events, I would counter that those who shun me are only missing a great opportunity to understand the psychology of what we now are forced to call “psychics” out of a loss for any other label and their “sitters.”

Oh, I&#039;ll grant you they are missing an opportunity to understand some psychology, but not in the way you think. More to the point, I suspect they already understand the psychology of you. You seem to be just another mutation of the psychic-type who&#039;s trying to play both sides of the skeptic/believer dichotomy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, I&#8217;ve learned that despite never presenting yourself to private sitters as being psychic or otherwise paranormally gifted, your customers are all woo believers. How odd. Coincidence? Is there a chance they think you&#8217;re a psychic (or whatever paranormally gifted label they prefer)and, though you do not profess any paranormal powers, you also do nothing to disavow them of this errant assumption of theirs? </p>
<p>It disconcerts me a bit that your reason for not employing magic tricks as part of your sittings (&#8216;levitate a rose&#8217;)is because it isn&#8217;t necessary &#8211; they walk in already believing &#8211; rather than because it would be a decidedly immoral thing to do. I understand your post wasn&#8217;t meant to be all-inclusive of your every motive, but&#8230; </p>
<p>&#8221; This however may not be true with thousands of other counselors, readers, psychologists and book-trained therapists. Their sitters may also believe they too can accomplish something they can’t.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s not at all how it works with professionals. The professional therapist, psychologist, counselor, etc., will very early in therapy discuss with the client what the client&#8217;s expectations are, and will immediately address any unrealistic expectations. This is for the benefit of the client and to separate what a therapist can and can&#8217;t do, should and shouldn&#8217;t do, from what unlicensed and unprofessional pretend therapists do. </p>
<p>&#8220;My point has always been that as a civilization, we have lost the ability to just sit down and talk to each other about what’s really bugging us unless we pay for it. That’s a real pity, but there you have it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Forgive me, but this sounds like a grand justification for making your customers pay for it. After all, you&#8217;re not responsible for what the entirety of civilization has lost the ability to do. To do this effectively and without causing harm takes education, training, and experience, and that takes time and money, so I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s necessarily a bad thing that professionals charge fees for it. I also know that most people do sit down and talk to each other about what’s really bugging us, to friends, family, etc. I&#8217;m not sure where that assertion comes from, unless it&#8217;s part and parcel of the aforementioned justification.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;when you are able to &#8216;level&#8217; with them and get down to real nitty-gritty issues in a matter of a few minutes, then provide some positive feedback that makes them go away feeling better, it can feel and appear magical.&#8221;</p>
<p>If this is occurring in a matter of a few minutes, I strongly suspect you are exaggerating or overstating its &#8216;magical&#8217; aspects. Isn&#8217;t it more of a case of you letting them or getting them to vent current issues and problems, then tossing off some feel-good verbal salve and sending them off less a few dollars? This hardly sounds magical, but then, I&#8217;ve never been there to witness it. </p>
<p>&#8220;What’s a person to do? I actually like to make people feel better. That’s about it really. The problem is; since this is so rare an occurrance in our society, it now requires some sort of label: “psychic,” “intuitive,” “sensitive.”and on and on.&#8221;</p>
<p>Hmm, sounds like more justification, that you are able to provide such a rarity &#8211; and it also sounds a wee bit egotistical. It is also untrue. It is not unusual, happens every day in society, and does not constitute a &#8216;rarity&#8217; because you happen to be unaware of it. </p>
<p>&#8220;If I’m not invited or billed at skeptical events, I would counter that those who shun me are only missing a great opportunity to understand the psychology of what we now are forced to call “psychics” out of a loss for any other label and their “sitters.”</p>
<p>Oh, I&#8217;ll grant you they are missing an opportunity to understand some psychology, but not in the way you think. More to the point, I suspect they already understand the psychology of you. You seem to be just another mutation of the psychic-type who&#8217;s trying to play both sides of the skeptic/believer dichotomy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Edward</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10169</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Edward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:09:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10169</guid>
		<description>And my final answer is : No, I don&#039;t use mentalism, trickery or even big dollops of the ever-popular &quot;cold reading&quot; most skeptics are so fond of recoiling from. The fact is, it&#039;s totally unnecessary. I merely talk to people about their problems and give them my intuitive reactions to those issues just as I would a person who wanted to talk to a bartender (I have done that too.) The woo is on them, so to speak. I hold no claims up to being &quot;psychic&quot; or more than normally gifted with anything, and I think that&#039;s why what I do seems to work so well when I do it. I don&#039;t wear a turban, newage garb or play any of that game. Why bother. I learned long ago that putting any magic trick into a reading situation is a total waste of time and energy becuase 90% of the people who sit down for what has become accepted as a &quot;reading&quot; already are believers and to levitate a rose or use a mentalist&#039;s techniques for gaining information is useless and more work than it&#039;s worth. It gilds a very healthy lily.The other 10% are just looking for a lark. It&#039;s all much simpler this way and I have found that it attracts more people beacuse I don&#039;t look or act like a loony. Most of what is is generally considered &quot;taking people’s money for private sittings and tricking them into believing you can do something you cannot&quot; is totally irrelevant in my case. This however may not be true with thousands of other counselors, readers, psychologists and book-trained therapists. Their sitters may also believe they too can accomplish something they can&#039;t. My point has always been that as a civilization, we have lost the ability to just sit down and talk to each other about what&#039;s really bugging us unless we pay for it. That&#039;s a real pity, but there you have it. Bear in mind that with many people, when you are able to &quot;level&quot; with them and get down to real nitty-gritty issues in a matter of a few minutes, then provide some positive feedback that makes them go away feeling better, it can feel and appear magical. What&#039;s a person to do? I actually like to make people feel better. That&#039;s about it really. The problem is; since this is so rare an occurrance in our society, it now requires some sort of label: &quot;psychic,&quot; &quot;intuitive,&quot; &quot;sensitive.&quot;and on and on. If I&#039;m not invited or billed at skeptical events, I would counter that those who shun me are only missing a great opportunity to understand the psychology of what we now are forced to call &quot;psychics&quot; out of a loss for any other label and their &quot;sitters.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And my final answer is : No, I don&#8217;t use mentalism, trickery or even big dollops of the ever-popular &#8220;cold reading&#8221; most skeptics are so fond of recoiling from. The fact is, it&#8217;s totally unnecessary. I merely talk to people about their problems and give them my intuitive reactions to those issues just as I would a person who wanted to talk to a bartender (I have done that too.) The woo is on them, so to speak. I hold no claims up to being &#8220;psychic&#8221; or more than normally gifted with anything, and I think that&#8217;s why what I do seems to work so well when I do it. I don&#8217;t wear a turban, newage garb or play any of that game. Why bother. I learned long ago that putting any magic trick into a reading situation is a total waste of time and energy becuase 90% of the people who sit down for what has become accepted as a &#8220;reading&#8221; already are believers and to levitate a rose or use a mentalist&#8217;s techniques for gaining information is useless and more work than it&#8217;s worth. It gilds a very healthy lily.The other 10% are just looking for a lark. It&#8217;s all much simpler this way and I have found that it attracts more people beacuse I don&#8217;t look or act like a loony. Most of what is is generally considered &#8220;taking people’s money for private sittings and tricking them into believing you can do something you cannot&#8221; is totally irrelevant in my case. This however may not be true with thousands of other counselors, readers, psychologists and book-trained therapists. Their sitters may also believe they too can accomplish something they can&#8217;t. My point has always been that as a civilization, we have lost the ability to just sit down and talk to each other about what&#8217;s really bugging us unless we pay for it. That&#8217;s a real pity, but there you have it. Bear in mind that with many people, when you are able to &#8220;level&#8221; with them and get down to real nitty-gritty issues in a matter of a few minutes, then provide some positive feedback that makes them go away feeling better, it can feel and appear magical. What&#8217;s a person to do? I actually like to make people feel better. That&#8217;s about it really. The problem is; since this is so rare an occurrance in our society, it now requires some sort of label: &#8220;psychic,&#8221; &#8220;intuitive,&#8221; &#8220;sensitive.&#8221;and on and on. If I&#8217;m not invited or billed at skeptical events, I would counter that those who shun me are only missing a great opportunity to understand the psychology of what we now are forced to call &#8220;psychics&#8221; out of a loss for any other label and their &#8220;sitters.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10155</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10155</guid>
		<description>&quot;Private “sittings” or doing a tarot, palm or handwriting analysis sessions have nothing to do with “reading minds” any more than a session with a psychiatrist or therapist does.&quot;

Do you do anything on a private basis that involves you pretending to do something in the &#039;mentalism&#039; category that you cannot actually do, only using techniques to make it seem so, wherein a paying  customer believes they&#039;ve received a genuine service that is actually fake? 

I apologize for the legalize-sounding question, made necessary by the absence of a direct answer so far, but basically I want to know if you take people&#039;s money for private sittings and trick them into believing you can do something you cannot. If so, it might help to explain why you don&#039;t receive invites and/or billing at skeptical events, you know?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Private “sittings” or doing a tarot, palm or handwriting analysis sessions have nothing to do with “reading minds” any more than a session with a psychiatrist or therapist does.&#8221;</p>
<p>Do you do anything on a private basis that involves you pretending to do something in the &#8216;mentalism&#8217; category that you cannot actually do, only using techniques to make it seem so, wherein a paying  customer believes they&#8217;ve received a genuine service that is actually fake? </p>
<p>I apologize for the legalize-sounding question, made necessary by the absence of a direct answer so far, but basically I want to know if you take people&#8217;s money for private sittings and trick them into believing you can do something you cannot. If so, it might help to explain why you don&#8217;t receive invites and/or billing at skeptical events, you know?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Edward</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10153</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Edward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10153</guid>
		<description>Please. If I could read minds I wouldn&#039;t be sitting here writing this, I&#039;d likely be in some cell at Gitmo or in CIA custody. Private &quot;sittings&quot; or doing a tarot, palm or handwriting analysis sessions have nothing to do with &quot;reading minds&quot; any more than a session with a psychiatrist or therapist does. When I&#039;m contracted to do my mentalism show, it&#039;s in some form of procenium or staged situation, it may not be on a &quot;two dimensional flat screen&quot;, but unless you are woefully undereducated (a situation that I must admit is the crux of this issue)it&#039;s clearly A SHOW. Once again, I&#039;m not paid to explain how I do what I do or the resaons why I put on that show. In fact, to do so seriously takes the edge off the entertainment value of what I&#039;m selling. Like my good friend Doc Hilford told once me: 
&quot;Doing a disclaimer is like sitting down to a meal at a fancy French restaurant, and right before the food is served, the chef comes out and says it came out of a can.&quot; 
This being said, for me it all depends on the venue, audience and agreement I have with the contractor, agent or party host. I&#039;m not paid to educate and when I do a seance, I go for the jugular. I hope this clears this up and doen&#039;t sound too dodgey. These issues are what I felt needed to be addressed not only at TAM7, but way back at TAM1, when I proposed a paper on the subject. Not surprisingly, it was rejected. I like controversial issues, and this one won&#039;t go away until we confront it head on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Please. If I could read minds I wouldn&#8217;t be sitting here writing this, I&#8217;d likely be in some cell at Gitmo or in CIA custody. Private &#8220;sittings&#8221; or doing a tarot, palm or handwriting analysis sessions have nothing to do with &#8220;reading minds&#8221; any more than a session with a psychiatrist or therapist does. When I&#8217;m contracted to do my mentalism show, it&#8217;s in some form of procenium or staged situation, it may not be on a &#8220;two dimensional flat screen&#8221;, but unless you are woefully undereducated (a situation that I must admit is the crux of this issue)it&#8217;s clearly A SHOW. Once again, I&#8217;m not paid to explain how I do what I do or the resaons why I put on that show. In fact, to do so seriously takes the edge off the entertainment value of what I&#8217;m selling. Like my good friend Doc Hilford told once me:<br />
&#8220;Doing a disclaimer is like sitting down to a meal at a fancy French restaurant, and right before the food is served, the chef comes out and says it came out of a can.&#8221;<br />
This being said, for me it all depends on the venue, audience and agreement I have with the contractor, agent or party host. I&#8217;m not paid to educate and when I do a seance, I go for the jugular. I hope this clears this up and doen&#8217;t sound too dodgey. These issues are what I felt needed to be addressed not only at TAM7, but way back at TAM1, when I proposed a paper on the subject. Not surprisingly, it was rejected. I like controversial issues, and this one won&#8217;t go away until we confront it head on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devil's Advocate</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10141</link>
		<dc:creator>Devil's Advocate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10141</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll try again, since you didn&#039;t answer.

De Niro performs on a two dimensional flat screen at the movies or on TV. P &amp; T advertise themselves as magicians and skeptics and no one believes magicians actually perform magic. 

You&#039;ve mentioned doing private sittings for people. 

Can you read minds, and if not, do your customers who pay for that service know you can&#039;t read minds?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll try again, since you didn&#8217;t answer.</p>
<p>De Niro performs on a two dimensional flat screen at the movies or on TV. P &amp; T advertise themselves as magicians and skeptics and no one believes magicians actually perform magic. </p>
<p>You&#8217;ve mentioned doing private sittings for people. </p>
<p>Can you read minds, and if not, do your customers who pay for that service know you can&#8217;t read minds?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Lippard</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/07/17/fostering-communication-outside-the-conference-box/#comment-10117</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Lippard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=3489#comment-10117</guid>
		<description>SkeptiCamp (http://www.skepticamp.com/) is one attempt to create conferences with a low barrier to entry.

Ignite Phoenix (http://www.ignite-phoenix.org/) uses an interesting conference format--topics are submitted in advance, participants vote on the best ones, and then the selected presenters each get 5 minutes and 25 slides which proceed at a fixed pace.  There are also a couple of timeslots between presentations for everyone to mingle and talk.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SkeptiCamp (<a href="http://www.skepticamp.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.skepticamp.com/</a>) is one attempt to create conferences with a low barrier to entry.</p>
<p>Ignite Phoenix (<a href="http://www.ignite-phoenix.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ignite-phoenix.org/</a>) uses an interesting conference format&#8211;topics are submitted in advance, participants vote on the best ones, and then the selected presenters each get 5 minutes and 25 slides which proceed at a fixed pace.  There are also a couple of timeslots between presentations for everyone to mingle and talk.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

