From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: I visited the icr in p
Date: 24 Sep 92 00:39:43 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com
 
In article <LEET.92Sep17085811@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas)
wrote as follows:

> Actually, we shouldn't be talking about anything but skepticism in
> this newsgroup, and we should be doing that based on evidence, not
> opinion.  THAT, however, would cut the volume of this group to
> probably a tenth of its current volume.  (Wow - just imagine!)  If it
> wasn't for the fact that several CSICOP members and other skeptics are
> also involved in responding to creationism, this wouldn't come up here
> at all.

Lee, two matters:  (1) The only "members" of CSICOP in any meaningful
sense of the term are its Executive Council members, and I don't believe
any of them are up here.  Those are the only people who make and are
responsible for CSICOP's policy decisions, and at least one notice in
_Skeptical Inquirer_ has clarified that no one may speak for CSICOP
unless so authorised by the Executive Council.  There is at least one
CSICOP Fellow here (hi, Robert!), a subcommittee head or two, and
probably a CSICOP Scientific or Technical Consultant, but these aren't
"members" in any meaningful sense.

This is an important point because of matters of legal liability.  Some
parties hostile to CSICOP try actively to promote the idea that CSICOP
is accountable for doings of Fellows and Consultants (it isn't), and
even for doings of the independent local skeptics' groups (which it most
certainly isn't), in order to expand its legal exposure.

That leads me to the second point:  (2) I got into a long debate on
CompuServe's Issues forum with one Richard Broughton, whom I assume to
be the author of _Parapsychology: The Controversial Science_ (which I
haven't found yet, but would like to read).  He was making quite a
number of rather emotional charges about CSICOP's motives and nature --
which I did not much dispute directly, although I did mock his
protestations of scientific detachment.  However, he did make some
claims of fact, which I DID dispute.  (My favourite was that _Fate_
magazine refused to publish Philip J. Klass's "Crybaby" article in
response to Rawlins's "sTARBABY" attack on CSICOP only because CSICOP's
Executive Council hadn't endorsed Klass's response -- a quite wonderful
non sequitur.)

So, as part of his campaign, Broughton alleged that CSICOP was
dishonest, etc., in maintaining that only Council members were "members
of CSICOP" and could speak for it, etc.  I said this was incorrect, and
gave specific references where _SI_ had addressed this matter, and so
on.  Broghton dragged this on for quite a ways, then triumphantly hauled
out what he said was a quotation from CSICOP's New York state by-laws,
in which it says Fellows and Consultants are _non-voting_ members.  Come
on, Broughton, I said.  Non-voting means no voice in CSICOP's decisions
and no responsibility for its actions, and cannot be called "membership"
in any meaningful sense of the term.  Predictably, he ignored this
point, selectively omitted that part of my message in his reply, and
claimed that membership is membership.

Anyway, does anybody happen to have a copy of CSICOP's by-laws, other
than Richard Broughton, Robert McConnell, and other veteran
CSICOP-bashing propagandists?  I would like to check on whether the
wording is as Broughton claims, irrespective of the conclusions
Broughton and such like draw from it.

For those interested in seeing the entire CSICOP-bashing discussion on
CompuServe, the forum sysops collected the messages in four text files,
called CSIC01.TXT through CSIC04.TXT, in the ISSUES forum's Paranormal
Issues section (#10).  It appears to be substantially complete, unlike
some at least one prior compilation, from which messages embarrassing to
the forum regulars were omitted.

Cheers,
Rick Moen, Director
Bay Area Skeptics
Editor, _BASIS_

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic