CFI Portland Meetup Group Message Board Announcements › Tone of comments about debates

Tone of comments about debates

A former member
Post #: 21
This discussion is not as respectful of those putting on the debates as they deserve. It seems like Bernie is being badgered over his relationship to CFI, something that matters little if at all to members. There are many forms of relationships among the various programs and organizations in the Freethought Community. There might be better forums for the debates just as there might be better ice cream than Ben & Jerry's. That won't stop me from grabbing an ice cream cone and benefiting from a debate Bernie has organized. Rather than vague attacks about the science, how about a specific concern about misinformation? I have not heard of any.

We owe it to the community to be more supportive of the lightening rods.
Bernie D.
BernieDehler
Hillsboro, OR
Post #: 1,042
Lisa- maybe the controversy is on purpose to drive attendance? It is like Coca Cola introducing New Coke, all along knowing it would go back to old coke, just to drive controversy and get free advertising. Something for conspiracy theorists to consider...

See, now more atheists have to attend the meetings to see if what I say really is pseudoscience, as I'm being criticized for presenting. Unfortunately, I'm wrecking the scheme by also putting the videos online, which makes it easier for people to skip the in-person meeting. Or maybe that's my diversion so I can claim the controversy isn't really manufactured. Hmmmm ;-)
A former member
Post #: 20
Lisa,

There have been ongoing conversations on the CFI-Portland mailing list. I have also had ongoing conversations with Kurt in email and on the phone, and with Dani in email. You are listed as an organizer, which I assume means you are a member of the board? Perhaps it would be helpful if you asked for facts about the controversy before jumping to conclusions. And, perhaps it would be helpful if you coordinated your responses with other organizers, before publicly chastising me based on your faulty interpretations, and forcing me to publicly correct you.

There are two substantive issues that have been discussed, neither of which has to do with ice cream.

1) Bernie stated that he and CFI-Portland "co-sponsored" this debate, and that CFI-Portland "helps him plan" such debates.

Kurt informed me that neither statement is correct.

2) Bernie has made specific, fundamental misstatements about the facts of evolution and about cosmological models of theoretical physics which are in clear contradiction to scientific consensus. I have listed these in the mailing list discussion, and others have chimed in there. Bernie refused to even acknowledge the possibility of error, and, like you seem to here, promotes the notion that this is all a matter of opinion.

This is not about ice cream flavors. This is about two very simple things:
a) Being truthful and informative about the relationship of CFI to these debates - which should not be a controversial request - so that members of the public and of CFI can make informed decisions about where to spend their time;

b) Ensuring that science education, particularly with regards to evolution, is accurate.

One would also expect all organizers and members of CFI-Portland to have a desire to protect the integrity of the CFI brand, and to avoid even the appearance of promoting pseudo-science and New Age religious woo-woo.

I had pretty much stopped writing about this, because Kurt had requested that further discussions about this wait until board members were back from vacation--and, because Kurt had posted a disclaimer on the CFI-Portland Meetup page making it clear that the event was NOT sponsored by CFI-Portland. I left the Westside group once it became clear that its agenda was disingenuous. I will not be attending Monday's debate, as I have other commitments.

Perhaps you will reconsider your haste in jumping to conclusions on this matter and publicly announcing conclusions, as a CFI-organizer, before you have actually conducted your research, examined the evidence, compared your findings to your hypothesis, and arrived at a rationally defensible conclusion.

I would be happy to discuss this matter with you personally, or you may prefer to wait, as Kurt has requested, until board members have returned from vacation and are ready to meet as a group.

Thank you.

A former member
Post #: 23
I am not a board member. After the summer's activities, I will not be an organizer. I have found CFI members on balance to be unusually considerate, responsible, reasonable, and fascinating. I've very much enjoy a summer of activity and adventure. I do not speak for CFI. It was merely my hope that we solve problems together in a more helpful fashion.

I also prefer to have scientists at debates, if nothing else to support the information presented. Organizations in the Freethought Community are public. That is usually interpreted to mean they belong to us. It would then seem to be our responsibility to let the board know what we want. I respect those for speaking up. One issue I have is with the pointing out of errors in announcements that seem to be an effort to discredit. A private email or more friendly not about missing addresses and overlapping times would be less incendiary.

I did not mean to insult anyone. We are surely better than this. Let's bring our best selves to resolve this so we can get back to learning and having fun.
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 1,450
One issue I have is with the pointing out of errors in announcements that seem to be an effort to discredit. A private email or more friendly not about missing addresses and overlapping times would be less incendiary.

I did not mean to insult anyone. We are surely better than this. Let's bring our best selves to resolve this so we can get back to learning and having fun.

I mentioned about the address on web of the pages (of the Westside group) so that the problem would be corrected, otherwise people might show up at the wrong location. Since the incorrect information was on the web page, I thought it was appropriate to post my question there. Bernie did not complain about me doing that. I mentioned the overlapping times stated on the meetup event page (of the Westside group) because I wanted to have that information corrected and because I wanted to know how much time would actually be devoted to those sections, the ones which times were listed as overlapping. Since the incorrect information was on the web page, I thought it was appropriate to post my question there. Bernie did not complain about me doing that. Those two posts of mine made no comments about discrediting anyone.
A former member
Post #: 24
Gavin,

I'm sorry, this really has gotten messy. I do look forward to meeting you.
Gavin
Atheistic-ExJW
Beaverton, OR
Post #: 1,456
OK. It will be nice to meet you also.
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy