Dear Lord_Shandor,

Thank you for your continued participation in our discussion. I also
appreciated the article by Steve Pavlina about skeptics which you
graciously copied for our convenience. (I have a hunch, though, that if
it's copyrighted, a link to it would be more appropriate.)

A few comments:

1. I'm not following you regarding why we need to "debunk" things like
air, emotions, and ethics. To debunk means to objectively demonstrate
that something which is tauted as real is actually not. Air, emotions,
and ethics are very real. The objective study of air is part of the
science of chemistry; the objective study of emotions is part of the
science of psychology; and the objective study of ethics is part of the
science of sociology.

2. Regarding Mr. Pavlina's comments:

A. His sentiments about science and scientists shows me that he has
never actively worked in the scientific endeavor or even visited a science
laboratory to see how we work. I encourage him to do so, before
continuing to spread disinformation about who we are and what we do.
(Please read my last message to you in the cloud-busting thread.)

B. I'm glad that his world-view works for him, and if his goal is to
help liberate people from their limiting beliefs, wow, I think that's
wonderful, and I wish there were more people like him. More power to him!

C. Why do we need to be at cross purposes here? Those of us who
prefer to work in "objective reality," as he terms it, find great
satisfaction, enjoyment, liberation, motivation, and challenge in what we
do. And we have produced some amazing things to show for it, the very
things that Mr. Pavlina is using to conveying his ideas. It is his
prerogative to reject our reality and create his own, but as he says, he
is going to fade further and further away from our reality, and soon we
will not be in contact anymore. If that makes him happy, okay, fine.
Let him have his reality. In my reality, there are billions of people who
are actually struggling through life in more "objective" ways, and my
purpose is to help them in this particular reality.

D. Regarding the JREF prize vs. the Pavlina Prize. Hmm ... I'm
astonished someone like Mr. Pavlina, who claims to have an IQ which
qualifies to be in MENSA, could come up with such a convoluted argument.
In effect, his argument boils down to: "You can't prove me wrong, because
I believe I'm right." On what basis is an intelligent, rational person
suppose to proceed in a constructive manner, then? Look, if in his
reality, he claims to possess supernatural/paranormal powers, fine - all
the best to him. But what good does that do for me or for the rest of
humanity? Let him wield his wonderful powers in his fantasy-reality,
shared or solitary, and allow us to work in "objective reality" where we
can actually help people in more "objective" ways.

I look forward to our continued discussion,

HF