linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/bovan.txt

Text File | 1996-02-19 | 90KB | 2,053 lines

Following are selected messages from the international "sci.skeptic"
newsgroup on USEnet, a world-wide UNIX-based e-mail network.
============================================================

#4   06 Oct 89  14:23:58 [3]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Hundredth Monkey

Rod Schmidt (lll-winken!riacs!rutgers!mentor.com!rods) recently
wrote to me:

>    I read somewhere that the Bermuda Triangle was invented
> by a reporter who had a deadline to meet, but no story.
> 1. Have you heard of this and can you point me to a source?
> 2. Do you know of any other examples of popular notions
> whose history is easily traced back to something with
> obviously low credibility? The story about the reporter
> is the most powerful debunking I can imagine for the
> Bermuda Triangle. I would like to apply the same technique
> to other things. "Pyramid power" was discovered by someone
> who visited Egypt and found a dead, dessicated cat in a
> trash can in the Cheops Pyramid. (Yes, in the desert.)
> I think the current SiO2-crystal business is due to a
> crystal miner who wanted to boost the price of otherwise
> worthless quartz.

To the best of my knowledge, the "Bermuda Triangle" story
emerged full-grown from the imagination of Charles Berlitz
(of multi-lingual fame).  I'm unaware of any prior source.

Crystals have been in vogue before - it comes and goes.  I don't
know of any one particular avaricious rock-hound behind the
current fashion.

Hmm.  Example of popular notion traceable to an untrustworthy
source....  Have you heard of the "Hundredth-Monkey Phenomenon"?
It approaches the status of holy writ among some New Agers.

According to Lyall Watson's widely-quoted (1) book "Lifetide"
(2), in 1952-2, young monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima
figured out how to make sweet potatoes (provided by
primatologists) more edible by washing them.  They then taught
their peers and parents, until by 1958, this behaviour was found
among widely-spread members of the troop.

So far, so good.  Then in that year, a sort of group
consciousness developed among the monkeys, when, say, the
*hundredth* monkey began washing potatoes.  Suddenly, almost
*all* the monkeys began so doing.  Further, "the habit seems to
have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously
... in colonies on other islands and one the mainland in a troop
at Takasakiyama."

This anecdote has been used to provide ideological support to
such diverse notions as telepathy and nuclear disarmament -- you,
the reader, could be the "hundredth monkey" necessary for global
transformation.  What gets lost in the shuffle is the evidence
for Watson's factual claim.  Like many New Agers, Watson voices
the sentiment that "when a myth is shared by large numbers of
people, it becomes a reality".  Ron Amundson of the Hawaii
Skeptics, who investigated Watson's claim (3), suggested that
this latter statement could be rephrased as "Convince enough
people of a lie, and it becomes the truth". (Amundson found that
ALL of Watson's claimed documentation was grossly misrepresented,
and in fact contradicted the - now famous - claim.)

Whether one buys this philosophical stance or not, the notion
that this alleged mass consciousness is somehow politically
progressive is a curious one.  Per Watson's vision, "Peace, love,
and a taste for brown rice and tofu", as commentator Tim
Farrington (4) put it, "will at a given point instantly envelope
the planet, and humanity will live happily ever after....
Neuroses, bad habits, ignorance will all be dissolved in a flash,
without effort on the part of the rest of us."  Let's savour, for
a moment, this balmy image, before allowing ourselves to think
about it.

Back in 1933 there must have been some hundredth German monkey
who joined the Nazi party, mustn't there?  The mass consciousness
of the society was transformed.  As the "Herrenrace" myth became
shared by large numbers of people, it transformed the reality of
Europe.

Farrington continues: "There is no guarantee that the hundredth
monkey will be any wiser than the first, and no assurance that
the first will be wise at all.  The myth of critical mass, and
its magic, is double-edged."

Farrington suggests that, rather than admire the hundredth
monkey, brainlessly falling in tune with the mass consciousness
of the other 99, we instead take our hats off to the one-hundred-
first monkey's "individual acts of conscience and reason, acts
not effortless, nor particularly inspired, acts not necessarily
validated by the herd nor telepathically obvious; but acts simply
that are steps, one by one, on the difficult, intricate,
sometimes ambiguous, rewarding path of a single human life."

----
References:
(1) - "The Hundredth Monkey" by Ken Keyes, Jr., 1982.  Vision
      Books, Coos Bay, Oregon.
    - Article: "The Hundredth Monkey" in "Updated Special Issue:
      'A New Science of Life'" of "Brain/Mind Bulletin", 1982.
    - Film and videotape:  "The Hundredth Monkey", Elda Hartley,
      producer, 1982.  Hartley Film Foundation, Inc., Cos Cob,
      Conn.
(2) "Lifetide" by Lyall Watson, 1979.  Simon and Schuster, NY.
(3) Article: "The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" by Ron Amundson,
    in "Skeptical Inquirer", Summer 1985, pp.348-56.  Follow-up
    in Spring 1987 issue, pp. 303-4.  Watson had alleged, in
    "Whole Earth Review", Fall 1986 (the "Fringes of Reason"
    issue) that his citations weren't really citations, and that
    the whole story, although contradicted by his supposed
    evidence, is nonetheless true.  See also article "Spud-
    Dunking Monkey Theory Debunked" by Boyce Rensberger,
    "Washington Post", July 6, 1989).
(4) Article "The 101st Monkey" by Tim Farrington, in "The Node"
    magazine, Winter 1987, San Francisco.

Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board (415-648-8944)
FidoNet 1:125/27 and 8:914/207
Internet [e-mail]

"A skeptic, not a cynic."
"All spelling errors subject to change without notice!"




#5   06 Oct 89  14:29:17 [2]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Review in "The Nation"

Keith Rowell ([e-mail]) has made reference in this
discussion group to "the perceptive book review of Not Necessarily
the New Age (Prometheus Press) by Tom Anthanasiou posted here
recently" (review from "The Nation", July 10, 1989, pp 61-3).
As chance would have it, Mr. Athanasiou recently sent me a copy
of that review and asked for my comments.  Following is the text
of my recent reply:

Dear Tom:

First of all, thank you for the copy of your review from "The
Nation".  It's always a pleasure to read a well-written review of
any type, and I collect those on topics like yours, as part of my
little hobby of being a card-carrying skeptic.

May I indulge myself with a few comments?  It might help to tell
you a bit about my own perspective, first.  I'm an old-time leftie,
a sort of anarcho-socialist:  volunteer worker on a far-left
kibbutz in Israel, volunteer campaign worker for Art Agnos, Leo
Ryan, Ron Dellums, & Jesse Jackson, ACLU member, NOW member,
donator to Greenpeace, that sort of thing.  Your article was all
the more interesting, given that background.

So, your skirting around the brink of saying that New Age-ism is
(or might be) some sort of progressive force was one of the things
that perplexed me.  You do this in several places:  "[The New Age]
shares its dark visions, if not always its metaphysical
conclusions, with ecological movements and often with the left."
"The left, for its part, can't afford such an easy dismissal, for
in the New Age we can measure a profound alienation, one that we've
largely failed to link to an attractive and compelling vision of
socialism."

You do draw back from the brink to say "New Age theorists are
largely hostile not only to the left tradition, which they see as
bound to reductionism and domination, but to critical thought and
historical analysis as well [etc.]", yet I sense that you are
looking back wistfully.  Tom, New Age thought has, to date, been
antithetical to ANY organized political efforts.  A movement that
teaches people not to analyse is NOT going to be an effective force
for meaningful social change.

On the other hand, you ascribe to the skeptics a hidebound
ideological stance "that scientific knowledge can be easily and
unproblematically abstracted from the society that holds it", and
"rejects superstitions about the supernatural world only to embrace
equally superstitious beliefs in science".  This IS NOT THE
SKEPTICISM I'M FAMILIAR WITH.

Skeptics use scientific inquiry as, as a friend of mine puts it,
"a neat tool".  Belief in science is NOT a part of it.  I do know
some folks who do take part in a quaint worship of science -- I
keep them at a distance.  The day that belief becomes prevalent in
skepticism is the day I and many others drop out.

You would not criticise your neighbourhood carpenter for a
"superstitious belief in hammers", so why criticise skeptics for
their attraction to the tool called science?  Yet, as BAS Secretary
and as system operator of our computer conference system, I hear
this sort of (unsupported) criticism all the time.  We are (take
your pick) fundamentalist materialists, victims of scientism,
scientific realists, logical positivists, atheistic humanists,
simple-minded rationalists, and/or bourgeois ideologues, according
to our critics.  And I didn't even get a bumper sticker!

Also, skeptics already have their work cut out for them.  Our
chosen area of concentration is the EXAMINATION OF TESTABLE CLAIMS,
in the fringe-science/medicine and paranormal fields.  That's quite
a task.  We should be critics of science and epistemology, too?
If we don't take on that additional chore, does that mean we
"embrace superstitious beliefs in science" and are "bourgeois
ideologues"?

You also say that "science is a form of power as well as a method,
and there are good reasons to distrust, not to say hate, its
existing institutions".  But we don't anywhere endorse those
institutions.  We teach and advocate a particular application of
critical thought.  I submit that critical thought is a (welcome)
threat generally to entrenched institutions.  Who is more likely
to empower people to attack those institutions, the New Agers, who
shun critical thought, or we, who teach it?

You say "Martin Gardner, James Randi, and other luminaries of the
skeptical movement are mercilessly logical in their pursuit of
superstitious bunko, but they're uncritical to the point of
servility when it comes to science and instrumental technology. And
when high technology is at issue, artificial intelligence and
nuclear power plants, skeptics are prone to an optimism both naive
and credulous...."  Well, I have ALL the back issues of "Skeptical
Inquirer" and "BASIS" (our newsletter), and I can't find that
ANYWHERE.  Where, sir, might I find it?

You certainly won't find it in our organization, and certainly not
in ME.  I'm no Feyerabend or Roszak, but I am a critic of science
institutions and of technology, particularly of the type you
mention.  In addition, like most skeptics, I respect other
approaches to knowledge (such as anthropology, non-scientific
psychology, and mystical experience), where they are appropriate.

The skeptics' movement has had two good tactical reasons to remain
silent on political issues of all kinds:  1. The movement caters
to very diverse sorts.  There's a significant (but definitely
minority) libertarian contingent, an almost equal number of genuine
lefties (the chair and vice-chair of BAS are, respectively, a
"Black Scholar Magazine" worker/Black Panther hanger-on and a
dedicated union activist), some Norman Rockwell Reaganites, and the
rest are all over the map.  ANY political alignment would
drastically restrict our appeal, and so be unwise.  2. In the
opinion of many, it would diminish our credibility, reduce our
impact, and diffuse our efforts.  For similar reasons, we stay
clear of purely philosophical/ethical disputes.

So, those of us who DO advocate political change do so outside of
the skeptics' movement, and hope that in the long term, less public
credulity toward channeling, UFOs, psychic surgery, and other
opiates will stimulate more interest in real societal change.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is not our chosen field to examine
epistemological problems, the psychology of belief, and so on, you
WILL find such examination in the pages of "Skeptical Inquirer" and
"BASIS".  Thus I find your allegation of its absence to be
mystifying.  I refer you in particular to "SI" XIV.1 pp. 25-34,
XIII.4 pp. 365-90, XIII.1 pp. 70-75, XII.4 376-85, XI.4 pp 44-50,
IX.1 pp 36-55, and "BASIS" of June 1987 (on metaphysics) for
starters.

Even if all we did was "debunk", a world with less bunk would be
a better place, no?  However, that is NOT all we do!

Your further comments would be most welcome, if you have time.  If
you would like to write an article for "BASIS" on problems of
skepticism or most any topic, I'm sure it would be warmly received.
-- Rick Moen, Secretary, Bay Area Skeptics
([e-mail])
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board, 415-648-8944, 1:125/27, 8:914/207




#16  20 Oct 89  11:39:55 [2]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Re: Scientology

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes as follows:

> The fact that you think the Scientology nonsense says a lot about
> religion in general reveals how irrational many "skeptics" really
> are. You are assuming what needs to be proven : that all
> religions are invented by men, thus none are revealed. Finding
> one religion obviously concocted by a con artist, you then
> conclude that this says a lot about religion in general. Assuming
> the conclusion, guilt by association  ---- really great logic
> here.
>
> ...Nothing like Occam's Razor, in the hands of you rational
> skeptics ! Thanks for the myth about Hubbard. Now I know I should
> drop out of the Christian world altogether. The only logical
> conclusion to draw, right ?

Unfortunately, there is a small but noisy minority attempting to
use the skeptics' movement as cover for anti-religious sentiment,
science-worship, and pro-technology ideology, seldom if ever
bothering with the "scientific investigation of claims of the
paranormal".  These few cranks and fanatics bear much the same
parasitic relationship to the skeptics' movement that Lyndon
LaRouche bears to the (U.S.A.) Democratic Party, and are in
general best ignored.

Most skeptics I know of are more cautious in their assertions,
and do not have that sort of ideological axe to grind.  It is an
unfortunate fact that every movement attracts extremist hanger-
ons who attempt to latch onto its established credibility.  I
hope the difference is sufficiently clear.

Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics,

a local skeptics' group (formed originally as part of CSICOP) that
-- is neutral on questions of religion per se
-- is not an apologist for high technology
-- uses science as a tool, not a belief system
-- does NOT advertise local events in international e-mail
conferences
-- is NOT a social club for the like-minded
-- investigates testable fringe-science claims and invites a
variety of perspectives on them.

Internet: [e-mail]
MCI Mail: RMOEN (acct. 389-5960)
Dial-up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board BBS; SF, CA --
   badly damaged, but survived the 'quake)
FidoNet: 1:125/27
RBBS-Net: 8:914/207
ParaNet: Address pending




#8   23 Oct 89  15:07:59 [0]
From: Vaso Bovan
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Rick Moen) writes:
>
>Unfortunately, there is a small but noisy minority attempting to
>use the skeptics' movement as cover for anti-religious sentiment,
>science-worship, and pro-technology ideology, seldom if ever
>bothering with the "scientific investigation of claims of the
>paranormal".  These few cranks and fanatics bear much the same
>parasitic relationship to the skeptics' movement that Lyndon
>LaRouche bears to the (U.S.A.) Democratic Party, and are in
>general best ignored.
>
>Most skeptics I know of are more cautious in their assertions,
>and do not have that sort of ideological axe to grind.  It is an
>unfortunate fact that every movement attracts extremist hanger-
>ons who attempt to latch onto its established credibility.  I
>hope the difference is sufficiently clear.
>
>Rick Moen, Secretary
>Bay Area Skeptics,
>
>a local skeptics' group (formed originally as part of CSICOP) that
>-- is neutral on questions of religion per se
>-- is not an apologist for high technology
>-- uses science as a tool, not a belief system
>-- does NOT advertise local events in international e-mail
>conferences
>-- is NOT a social club for the like-minded
>-- investigates testable fringe-science claims and invites a
>variety of perspectives on them.
>
>Dial-up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board BBS; SF, CA --
>badly damaged, but survived the 'quake)

The above posting may raise some eyebrows among the uninitiated. There is
unfortunately a "turf war" among skeptics' groups in the San Francisco Bay
Area. I'm not directly involved, and heard about it originally through
"between
the lines reading" of postings on sci.skeptic. I offer my comments for what
they're worth.

There is, on one hand, the Bay Area Skeptics (BAS), an enormously influential
organization (among skeptics), which was formed some 7+ years ago by Bob
Steiner, (magician, humanist, advocate of skepticism) and others. On the
other hand, there is a breakaway organization, the East Bay Skeptics Society,
(EBSS) formed about 18 months ago, largely by Daniel Sabsay (inventor,
software
engineer).

I've corresponded with, and had long telephone conversations with several of
the principals. I base my conclusions on that. There has been almost zero
discussion in BASIS, (the BAS newsletter), or on the "Skeptic's Board BBS."
I've been a subscriber to BASIS for over six years, but never was aware of
the organizational infighting because it was never mentioned within those
pages. More about that later.

BAS and EBSS have radically different organizational structures. BAS is not
an open membership organization. BAS *is*, I understand, just the score or so
directors, and technical advisors. The rest of us are not members, but merely
subscribers/supporters. This structure has several implications about how BAS
operates. On the plus side, BAS has attracted many very capable and justly
famous "directors." The newsletter of BAS is very intellectually up-scale,
and aware. The "semi-closed" nature of the directorship (it is not "elected"
in any meaningful sense) is highly resistant to infiltration by fringe
crusaders/agitators. On the minus side, I think the BAS can rightly be accused
of cronyism, resistance to organizational evolution, and a certain smugness.
The BASIS newsletter is also somewhat aloof from the great unwashed mass of
skeptics who subscribe to the publication.

EBSS makes a great show of its "democratic" nature. Membership is "open to
all." There are currently some 150 members. Directors are elected, but it must
be said that at this point in EBSS development, Daniel Sabsay is the main
driving force of the organization. EBSS specializes in a sort of "social/
political" skeptical agenda. There is much talk of board "gender balance,"
pot-luck suppers, voluntarism, touchy-feely stuff. The ESBB newsletter, "The
Beacon" is a house organ, full of organizational news (in stark contrast to
BASIS). However, the Beacon is intellectually lightweight, and occasionally
too sneering/strident, for my taste, in its assessment of the non-skeptic
world.

Why the split ?  I've heard different versions of the story. There is an
unfortunate tendency to paint the other side as composed of unreasoning
ogres. Sabsay and supporters felt BAS was dominated by a very small clique
of founders who had refused to entertain new ideas. Especially, Sabsay and
supporters felt BAS was too centralized and jealous of its power and
influence. Sabsey et al wanted BAS to be an "umbrella organization" within
the Bay Area, but that power should devolve to smaller, local organizations,
such as "East Bay Skeptics," "South Bay Skeptics," etc.

BAS, or at least, the active portion of its board, saw the dabate in terms
of Sabsay's personality. These directors rejected his organizational ideas,
and resented his continual "badgering." They saw no need for multiple
autonomous Bay Area organizations, and absolutely rejected "democratization"
of the BAS.

In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and badly handled by all
participants, in my opinion. Since then, Sabsay, and primarily, several
directors of BAS, have been taking pot shots at each other, as appears
occasionally on this forum. It seems to me some of these shots border on
slander and libel.

Sabsay has done a remarkable job with EBSS. From almost nothing, he has built
up the organization in 18 months to about 150 members. He has done so, in my
view, in the teeth of fierce hostility by some elements within BAS. Today,
EBSS is recognized by CSICOP and is listed as an "affliated skeptics' group"
in Skeptical Inquirer. On the other hand, it is clear that Sabsay's somewhat
abrasive personality contributed to his difficulties while within BAS, and he
himself admits he can be rude and obnoxious at times, especially to "psychic
charletans" and their supporters.

There are a couple of disturbing aspects to the way BAS has handled this
affair. First, I think Sabsay is correct in his assessment that BAS was, and
still is to some extent, a self perpetuating oligarchy. (In its defence, BAS
never pretended to be a "democratic organization," nor to have a political
agenda). I think BAS has been needlessly vicious in its attempts to isolate,
defame, and squash EBSS, (in both local and national arenas). I think BASIS
and the "Skeptic's Board" BSS have reflected too much the personal biases and
preoccupations of some BAS members. (Apparently, there is an unwritten rule
never to mention the EBSS in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three words
"East Bay Skeptics" or EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's
Board BBS.) Lastly, I think this skirmish has gone on too long. The principals
need to disengage. EBSS is established and will survive. It is time for BAS
to come to a friendly accomodation. Apparently, the BAS Board came within one
vote of recognizing EBSS at the last BAS board meeting (I'm told this second-
hand), but backed off when some board members threatened to quit BAS if EBSS
was recognized.

If I have got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal. I post this
little essay in sci.skeptic because I believe it is of general interest to
skeptics, and because I believe discussion in other forums has been throttled.

-Vaso

(All the usual disclaimers apply)




#19  23 Oct 89  23:33:15 [2]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
has made some severely mistaken statements about the Bay Area
Skeptics.  I would like to set the record straight.

> There is unfortunately a "turf war" among skeptics' groups in the
> San Francisco Bay Area.

Bay Area Skeptics has at no time been involved in any turf war
with any party or parties.  It does not claim any "turf", and
has never done so.

> BAS *is*, I understand, just the score or so directors, and
> technical advisors. The rest of us are not members, but merely
> subscribers/supporters. This structure has several implications
> about how BAS operates.... The "semi-closed" nature of the
> directorship (it is not "elected" in any meaningful sense) is
> highly resistant to infiltration by fringe crusaders/agitators.

This is highly inaccurate.  In seven years of BAS history, only
one person has ever been rejected for any post with BAS, and that
only because he was (and is) fanatical and nearly impossible
to work with.  More importantly, he had, while acting in an official
BAS capacity, behaved so as to bring public disrepute on BAS and
the skeptics' movement.  Good riddance.

There has been a constant shortage of activists, and all who
step forward (with that one exception) have been immediately
snatched up and placed, often partially unwillingly, on the Board
of Directors.  I was a prime example. I was not, I freely admit,
a "crusader/agitator", and I'm thankful that few such have arisen
to trouble those of us who have REAL work to do.

The Board serves an almost strictly theoretical function of
settling policy issues, and membership is irrelevant to BAS
activism.  It appears that Vaso has been misled on this point.

> On the minus side, I think the BAS can rightly be accused of
> cronyism, resistance to organizational evolution, and a certain
> smugness. The "BASIS" newsletter is also somewhat aloof from the
> great unwashed mass of skeptics who subscribe to the publication.

"Cronyism":  Given the dearth of new activists, this is at best
highly unfair.  What are we supposed to do, put out want ads?
"Resistance to organizational evolution":  What evolution??
BAS's organization is deliberately kept minimal to keep it out of
the way of those volunteers who get the work done, and reflects
their needs.  Given this flexibility and minimal nature, I cannot
guess what Vaso has in mind.  "Smugness":  Does Vaso mean "the
quality of being highly self-satisfied"?  What on earth???

> BAS, or at least, the active portion of its board, saw the dabate
> in terms of Sabsay's personality. These directors rejected his
> organizational ideas, and resented his continual "badgering."
> They saw no need for multiple autonomous Bay Area organizations,
> and absolutely rejected "democratization" of the BAS.

I will make no comment on Mr. Sabsay's personality.  I certainly
have better ways to spend my time, and those curious about Mr.
S.'s psyche can judge it for themselves.  I will also make no
comment about Mr. Sabsay's ACTIONS, whose merits can and have
been debated entirely apart from his personality.  As to our
rejecting his "organizational ideas", Mr. Sabsay served on our
By-Laws committee and wrote the bulk of our by-laws' text.

BAS has NOT opposed formation of other groups.  Not counting Mr.
S's club, we have been, or are presently being, instrumental in
setting up no fewer than four other groups, and I will gladly
document for Vaso BAS directors' encouragement of Mr. S. in his
very different approach.  Also, we sent the text of our completed
by-laws to Mr. S. by modem so he would not have to write his own
from scratch.  Mr. S. has been extremely difficult to establish a
reasonable basis for cooperation with, but it has not been for
lack of effort on BAS's part.

> In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and badly
> handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since then, Sabsay,
> and primarily, several directors of BAS, have been taking pot
> shots at each other, as appears occasionally on this forum. It
> seems to me some of these shots border on slander and libel.

Neither I nor any other BAS director have made ANY public comment
on Mr. S., and such private comments as I have made have been
carefully, copiously, and solidly documented.  On the other hand,
my sole response to two separate libels against me personally has
been not to react at all.

Since Vaso admittedly did not observe this "parting of the ways",
he would seem ill-qualified to pass judgement on our part in it,
especially since he has NOT gotten the facts right.

> [Sabsay] has done so, in my view, in the teeth of fierce
> hostility by some elements within BAS.

Vaso's view is mistaken.  BAS has taken no action against Mr. S.
whatsoever, nor has any board member.  I HAVE told Mr. S. he may
not use my BBS, The Skeptic's Board, until further notice.  For
those sufficiently curious to want to hear how he richly earned
this unique honour, I will refer you to the man himself, though
his account may be highly selective.

[continued]

Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board BBS (down for repairs, but back soon)

Internet: [e-mail]
FidoNet: 1:125/27
RBBS-Net: 8:914/207
MCI Mail: RMOEN (acct. #387-5960)
ParaNet: Alpha Centauri
Dial-Up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board, SF, CA)

               "It takes two to tell the truth: one to speak,
               and another to hear."   -- Henry David Thoreau

Disclaimer:  Everything in this message is a lie.



#20  23 Oct 89  23:34:49 [1]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
has made some severely mistaken statements about the Bay Area
Skeptics.  This reply is continued from a prior message.

> There are a couple of disturbing aspects to the way BAS has
> handled this affair. First, I think Sabsay is correct in his
> assessment that BAS was, and still is to some extent, a self-
> perpetuating oligarchy.

An oligarchy gives power to the wealthy.  I can testify (by quick
reference to my bank balance) that BAS is NOT an oligarchy.  The
organization itself owns a few hundred back issues of "BASIS", a
copy of Ventura Publisher, and a small amount of cash.  Far from
being an exclusive club, BAS has put in positions of responsi-
bility ALL who came forward, all but one sole, solitary... ah...
shall we say... "crusader/agitator".

> I think BAS has been needlessly vicious in its attempts to
> isolate, defame, and squash EBSS, (in both local and national
> arenas).

Vaso is engaging in innuendo, and should either support this
point (which he cannot, since it is false), or should withdraw it
and apologise.

> (Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention the EBSS
> in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay
> Skeptics" or EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's
> Board BBS.)

As system operator (and owner) of The Skeptic's Board, I hereby
formally request a retraction and apology from Vaso for this
allegation.  This is particularly outrageous.  I also predict
that when Vaso tells us his sources for this information, it will
turn out to come, directly and indirectly, from exactly one
person.  (Guess who.)

> If I have got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal.
> I post this little essay in sci.skeptic because I believe it is
> of general interest to skeptics, and because I believe discussion
> in other forums has been throttled.

I invite Vaso and any others to make a far, far greater effort to
arrive at the facts IN ADVANCE of posting such wildly and
egregiously mistaken statements.  I hope to see his apologies
posted in this forum, where the original was placed, with a copy
sent directly to me.

I certainly profoundly disagree with Vaso's assessment of the
general interest of this matter.  On the basis of long and bitter
experience, I know for a fact that, on the contrary, it bores and
drives away the public, activists, and potential activists.

I also resent being forced into yet another debate over Mr. S.
and his club, when my concern was with the far more significant,
disturbing fringe elements, taking cover within the skeptics'
movement, and using it to advance their science-worship, anti-
religious, pro-technology, sociological, and ideological views.
That was in fact the subject of my message.  I'm sick to death of
ideologues, be they in Oakland or wherever, giving the skeptics'
movement a bad name, and I intend to speak out against it
wherever I find an appropriate occasion.

Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics
Sysop, The Skeptic's Board BBS (down for repairs, but back soon)

Internet: [e-mail]
FidoNet: 1:125/27
RBBS-Net: 8:914/207
MCI Mail: RMOEN (acct. #387-5960)
ParaNet: Alpha Centauri
Dial-Up: 415-648-8944 (The Skeptic's Board, SF, CA)

               "It takes two to tell the truth: one to speak,
               and another to hear."   -- Henry David Thoreau

Disclaimer:  Everything in this message is a lie.




#2   24 Oct 89  03:24:03 [3]
From: Elaine Milas
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan) writes

     "EBSS makes a great show of its "democratic" nature.
      Membership is "open to all." There are currently some 150
      members. Directors are elected, but it must be said that at
      this point in EBSS development, Daniel Sabsay is the main
      driving force of the organization. EBSS specializes in a
      sort of..."

You've got it wrong, friend.  I've watched both groups at
work, and EBSS is in practice about as democratic as the Bolshevik
Party.  It's all Daniel Sabsay, when you get right down to it.
And it's all a device to express his resentment at Bay Area
Skeptics giving him the heave-ho because of his extreme rudeness
to Loyd Auerbach the parapsychologist, when Auerbach came to talk
and Sabsay was the Skeptics' meeting moderator.  He'd never, ever
apologise, so he had to invent a means to "get back" at the
Skeptics.  That's why he sucks off Bay Area Skeptics' reputation,
and refuses to change the name of his group, and why he'll never
make peace.  It's all just his stupid grudge.  And I wouldn't
join a group run by that egomaniacal bozo if you paid me.

Oh, yeah.  The Skeptics asked Sabsay to change the name of his
group, about a year ago, because a lot of people have been
confusing the groups.  They even supposedly got threatened with a
lawsuit by some group that was mad at one of SABSAY's people.
Sabsay didn't even reply to the request.  That's because A-1
assholes **never** back down.  And you want the SKEPTICS(!) to
"come to a friendly accomodation"?   Earth to Vaso!!!

You, Vaso Bovan, also say:

     "In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and
      badly handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since
      then, Sabsay, and primarily, several directors of BAS, have
      been taking pot shots at each other, as appears
      occasionally on this forum. It seems to me some of these
      shots border on slander and libel."

Like hell!   I've never seen the BAS people indulge in any sort
of backlash at Daniel Sabsay or EBSS (by name at least) at all.
They must be awfully tempted, though, with all the crap the guy
throws at them.  I don't know where you're getting fed all this
tripe, but you're sure being led down the primrose path.

You (Vaso) go on:

     "(Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention
      the EBSS in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three
      words `East Bay Skeptics' or `EBSS' is enough to get you
      thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.)"

Did it ever occur to you that a lot of Sabsay-type bickering in
the pages of "BASIS" would be a colossal turn-off for readers?
And that maybe that's exactly what Daniel Sabsay wants to happen?
Why don't you suggest that Sabsay run his sad little oppressed
victim's story in his "Beacon", if he's so put-upon by having
"discussions in other forums throttled"?  Maybe he doesn't do it
for the same reason "BASIS" doesn't?  Or could it be that this
embarrassment to the skeptics movement is embarrassed, himself?
(Not really likely.)

Get the facts, guy!  Kindly remove foot from mouth before talking!
A little more skepticism, ye skeptics!

  ---  Elaine Milas  ---




#2   26 Oct 89  15:01:25 [3]
From: George Warren
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area


      "I can be rude and obnoxious at times, especially to
      `psychic charletans' and their supporters."
                  -- Daniel Sabsay, as paraphrased in article
                  <[e-mail]> by Vaso Bovan
                  ([e-mail])

Ho, ho, ho!

      "I regret that my sexual anomalies, stemming from
      repression in childhood, led me to indiscreet violation of
      the persons of some ladies."
                  -- Jack the Ripper

      "Within the time-frame of my youth, it was my proclivity
      toward derring-do that led me to further acts of doubtful
      legitimacy."
                  -- John Dillinger

      "In extenuation, may I remind you that the man was a
      troublemaker, an outside agitator from Nazareth, and
      obviously trying to subvert law and order."
                  -- Judas Iscariot





#6   27 Oct 89  17:57:17 [0]
From: Robert Firth
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Rick Moen) writes:

>An oligarchy gives power to the wealthy

I think you mean a 'plutocracy'.  But then, who knows
Greek any more.  Judging by this group, the meaning of
'skepsis' eludes the majority of contributors.




#30  27 Oct 89  18:04:43 [0]
From: Vaso Bovan
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Elaine Milas) writes:
>In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan) writes
>
>     "EBSS makes a great show of its "democratic" nature.
>      Membership is "open to all." There are currently some 150
>      members. Directors are elected, but it must be said that at
>      this point in EBSS development, Daniel Sabsay is the main
>      driving force of the organization. EBSS specializes in a
>      sort of..."
>
>You've got it wrong, friend.  I've watched both groups at
>work, and EBSS is in practice about as democratic as the Bolshevik
>Party.  It's all Daniel Sabsay, when you get right down to it.
>And it's all a device to express his resentment at Bay Area
>Skeptics giving him the heave-ho because of his extreme rudeness
>to Loyd Auerbach the parapsychologist, when Auerbach came to talk
>and Sabsay was the Skeptics' meeting moderator.

I put my comments parentithically because there is disagreement about the
degree of "democracy" in EBSS. You've cut out the context in which I made
my comment. Whatever can be said now about "dominant" personalities could
equally have been said about BAS in its early years, as I'm sure you're
aware.

>He'd never, ever apologise,

Sabsay has the tape of this incident. He agrees the incident gives him no
credit, but has said the true problem was that Auerbach was one of a BAS
Director's friends, and that this friend blew the incident out of proportion
to win points with Auerbach. I wasn't at this meeting, but at other meetings
I've been so disgusted at this director's badgering of people who disagreed
with him, I almost walked out. The kettle shouldn't be calling the pot black.

>so he had to invent a means to "get back" at the Skeptics.

This is an example of the unfortunate characterizations of this "affair"

>That's why he sucks off Bay Area Skeptics' reputation,
>and refuses to change the name of his group, and why he'll never
>make peace.  It's all just his stupid grudge.  And I wouldn't
>join a group run by that egomaniacal bozo if you paid me.
>
I take it you prefer other egomaniacs.

I've been told that EBSS makes peace overtures every couple of months,
and is willing to grant BAS "primus inter pares" status. I've been told
BAS deliberately ignores these overtures. I've been told the BAS policy
is basically to ignore EBSS altogether. Finally, I've been told the BAS Board
came within a vote of deciding to cooperate with EBSS, but did not because
certain members threatened to quit if such a thing happened. Was I given
these stories correctly ?

>Oh, yeah.  The Skeptics asked Sabsay to change the name of his
>group, about a year ago, because a lot of people have been
>confusing the groups.  They even supposedly got threatened with a
>lawsuit by some group that was mad at one of SABSAY's people.
>Sabsay didn't even reply to the request.  That's because A-1
>assholes **never** back down.  And you want the SKEPTICS(!) to
>"come to a friendly accomodation"?   Earth to Vaso!!!
>

Asked ?  I've heard it characterized as a threat.

>You, Vaso Bovan, also say:
>
>     "In short, the parting of ways was inevitable, ugly, and
>      badly handled by all participants, in my opinion. Since
>      then, Sabsay, and primarily, several directors of BAS, have
>      been taking pot shots at each other, as appears
>      occasionally on this forum. It seems to me some of these
>      shots border on slander and libel."
>
>Like hell!   I've never seen the BAS people indulge in any sort
>of backlash at Daniel Sabsay or EBSS (by name at least) at all.

Was there an incident where a BAS director got up in front of a national
CSICOP conference, and thoroughly embarrassed himself by delivering a
harangue against EBSS ?  Did CSICOP nevertheless decide to list EBSS
(perhaps in reaction to the harangue) in Skeptical Inquirer as a
"cooperating organization" ?  Have I been given the story straight ?


>They must be awfully tempted, though, with all the crap the guy
>throws at them.  I don't know where you're getting fed all this
>tripe, but you're sure being led down the primrose path.
>

As a matter of fact, I'm getting much of this tripe from long phone
conversations with "several" past and present BAS Board members, who are
mortified by the entire handling of this situation, and are actively
searching for a face-saving accomodation.


>You (Vaso) go on:
>
>     "(Apparently, there is an unwritten rule never to mention
>      the EBSS in BASIS, and apparently, mentioning the three
>      words `East Bay Skeptics' or `EBSS' is enough to get you
>      thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.)"
>

>Did it ever occur to you that a lot of Sabsay-type bickering in
>the pages of "BASIS" would be a colossal turn-off for readers?

As I stated earlier, I've been a supporter/subscriber of BASIS for
a half-dozen years. (Apparently the only official "members" are the
directors of BAS. The rest of us don't count). There has never been any
discussion of the issues (and I believe there are substantive issues that
Sabsay wanted to put forward). The broad supporting subscribership has never
been consulted about any BAS policies. At the very least, it is presumptuous
to assume the readership would be turned off, though you may be right.

>And that maybe that's exactly what Daniel Sabsay wants to happen?
>Why don't you suggest that Sabsay run his sad little oppressed
>victim's story in his "Beacon", if he's so put-upon by having
>"discussions in other forums throttled"?  Maybe he doesn't do it
>for the same reason "BASIS" doesn't?  Or could it be that this
>embarrassment to the skeptics movement is embarrassed, himself?
>(Not really likely.)

The most embarrassed skeptics are those members of BAS (and EBSS) who
are looking for a way to cut down the noise volume. One contact offered
me the opinion that this imbroglio is 99.99% personality conflict between
headstrong principals.

>
>Get the facts, guy!  Kindly remove foot from mouth before talking!
>A little more skepticism, ye skeptics!
>
I was careful to gather "the facts" as best I could before I posted my little
essay. I talked to "several" past and present BAS Board members.
Unfortunately,
I'm not at liberty to reveal their names (I plead journalistic source-
protection here), except for the obvious contacts with Rick Moen with whom I
exchanged written correspondence, and Daniel Sabsay, with whom I had a
detailed 90 minute phone conversation.

I've stated my conclusion earlier. There are very few facts in this fiasco.
there are very many unfortunate personality conflicts. One contact told me
outright to discount everything I heard, from all parties, by 80%. I also,
by the way, could not find any villains.




#40  27 Oct 89  23:42:21 [1]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

Vaso (with aid from Ms. Milas) seems determined to air this whole
affair in public, which, as I have already stated, strikes me as
a poor idea.  However, since no one is listening to me, we'll just
have to test my opinion that the public will be bored, offended,
and driven away.  Wonderful.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
writes:

>> He'd never, ever apologise,

> Sabsay has the tape of this incident. He agrees the incident
> gives him no credit, but has said the true problem was that
> Auerbach was one of a BAS Director's friends, and that this
> friend blew the incident out of proportion to win points with
> Auerbach....

This is before I became active with BAS, and long before I was put
on the board.  However, I have heard descriptions (separately) from
several who were there, and all characterised Mr. S.'s actions as
a disgrace.  Further, I attended a SECOND meeting where Auerbach
(the parapsychologist) spoke to us, and AGAIN Mr. S. interrupted
him with rude and hostile remarks.  Up until that point, I had,
like Vaso, half bought Mr. S.'s post-hoc rationalising.  After a
while, it becomes no longer sensible to extend the benefit of the
doubt.

>> Oh, yeah.  The Skeptics asked Sabsay to change the name of his
>> group, about a year ago, because a lot of people have been
>> confusing the groups.  They even supposedly got threatened with
>> a lawsuit by some group that was mad at one of SABSAY's people.
>> Sabsay didn't even reply to the request.  That's because A-1
>> assholes **never** back down.  And you want the SKEPTICS(!) to
>> "come to a friendly accomodation"?   Earth to Vaso!!!

> Asked ?  I've heard it characterized as a threat.

I regret that I must confirm that Ms. Milas's statements are
correct.  BAS was indeed threatened with a lawsuit because of
confusion between the groups.  This raises the matter of BAS's
grievance against Mr. S:  BAS has worked long and hard to establish
and protect its reputation, and Mr. S., by using a name for his
club so very close to ours, is creating widespread confusion
between the groups.  Each group's reputation should rest on the
group's own merits, and neither should have to worry about being
co-defendents in lawsuits against the other.

BAS directors' worries about suits against Mr. S. were part of the
reason why when he nominated himself for the BAS Board (boasting
that he would eject Chairman Loebig), he was rejected by a
unanimous vote.

Accordingly, BAS Chairman Larry Loebig, speaking with the support
of at least seven of the eleven directors, wrote Mr. S. in June
1988 asking that he change his club's name to one not likely to be
confused with ours.

Vaso was misled once again by whoever "characterized [it] as a
threat".  I quote Larry:

> If you change the name of your organization accordingly, we can
> then discuss areas of cooperation.
>
> Furthermore, if you do indeed choose to continue to ride on our
> coat-tails by continuing to use a name that is easily confused
> with and identified with Bay Area Skeptics, we will necessarily
> conclude that it was and is your definite intention to perpetuate
> the confusion and infringement upon our rights, and we will
> accordingly pursue appropriate lawful action.  Such action may
> include, but is not limited to, contacting CSICOP, the press,
> and such other parties as we deem appropriate for the protection
> of our goodwill and reputation.

Readers may choose to see this as a threat if they wish, but at
least they no longer need rely on "characterizations".

> I've been told that EBSS makes peace overtures every couple of
> months, and is willing to grant BAS "primus inter pares" status.
> I've been told BAS deliberately ignores these overtures....

I've seen lots of lobbying, and some libel, but not one peace
overture.  I HAVE asked Daniel repeatedly why he has never replied
to Larry's request.  No reply to my requests, either.  That's it
in a nutshell:  We ask him to address our one grievance, and he
ignores us, demands concessions, and talks about how oppressed he
is.

> Was there an incident where a BAS director got up in front of a
> national CSICOP conference, and thoroughly embarrassed himself
> by delivering a harangue against EBSS ?  Did CSICOP nevertheless
> decide to list EBSS (perhaps in reaction to the harangue) in
> Skeptical Inquirer as a "cooperating organization" ?  Have I been
> given the story straight ?

Vaso has, once again, NOT been given the story straight.  It was
not at the CSICOP conference itself, but rather during discussion
at the local groups' session.  Bob Steiner spoke out against CSICOP
cooperation with EBSS =>under its present name<=.  It was NOT
a harangue against EBBS.  Afterwards, Steiner had the overwhelming
support of the local-group representatives present.

CSICOP decided to list EBSS in "Skeptical Inquirer" without name
change (against the advice of all but one of the CSICOP Fellows in
our area) not because of any "harangue", but because of a pressure
tactic I cannot discuss because of embarrassment I might cause
CSICOP and others.

[continued]

Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics



#41  27 Oct 89  23:43:48 [1]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

[continued]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
writes:

> Finally, I've been told the BAS Board came within a vote of
> deciding to cooperate with EBSS, but did not because certain
> members threatened to quit if such a thing happened. Was I given
> these stories correctly ?

No (surprise), Vaso was NOT given this story correctly.  No vote,
no threat.  If a vote were held on giving in to ANY of Mr. S.'s
demands, the vote would be eight to three against.

> There has never been any discussion of the issues (and I believe
> there are substantive issues that Sabsay wanted to put forward).
> The broad supporting subscribership has never been consulted
> about any BAS policies. At the very least, it is presumptuous to
> assume the readership would be turned off, though you may be
> right.

Sabsay has aired his views in several places:  On the Skeptics' SIG
that BAS operated in 1987 on a San Francisco BBS, at a BAS
volunteers' meeting (where he shouted for three hours, driving away
many volunteers permanently), and in a leaflet passed around inside
one of our meetings.  He has never submitted them in an article to
"BASIS".

Ms. Milas makes an excellent point:  If what Mr. S. so badly needs
is a forum for his dispute, why has he never aired it in his
"Beacon"?  The fact that he limits himself to disrupting OUR events
suggests he may fear his own readers being "bored, offended, and
driven away".

> The most embarrassed skeptics are those members of BAS (and EBSS)
> who are looking for a way to cut down the noise volume. One
> contact offered me the opinion that this imbroglio is 99.99%
> personality conflict between headstrong principals.
> ...
> I've stated my conclusion earlier. There are very few facts in
> this fiasco. there are very many unfortunate personality
> conflicts. One contact told me outright to discount everything
> I heard, from all parties, by 80%. I also, by the way, could not
> find any villains.

It is very convenient for Mr. S. to paint this as a "personality
conflict" (which he just happens to have with about a dozen or so
BAS activists).  It makes it easier to gloss over his pattern of
behaviour.  The only genuine personality conflict is between Mr.
S. and Bob Steiner, who has not been really active with BAS for
many years (he's been too busy).

I was very sympathetic to Mr. S. for several years, probably the
Board member best disposed to him, and he saw me as a friend and
ally.  Even now, I get along fine with him personally:  What I
object to are his ACTIONS.  When I began to disagree with him, he
began to tell me I was being manipulated.  When I continued to
disagree, I became a "tool of Larry Loebig's", then a "tool of Bob
Steiner's".  Now, I gather that I've been promoted to full
oppressor rank.

Once we get past the "personality conflict" straw man, perhaps Mr.
S. will finally be willing try a REAL "peace overture", and face
the request in Larry's letter, now unanswered for eighteen months.
Then Mr. S. and his club will get full cooperation.  The only
disadvantage is that he will be fresh out of oppressors.  What a
shame.

Sincerely,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics





#16  28 Oct 89  11:26:35 [1]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

Is it possible that the 80% that Vaso discounts consists of all
the occasions on which I've told him he's way off-base?  Consider
the following statement in article <[e-mail]>, by
[e-mail] (Vaso Bovan):

> ... apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay Skeptics" or
> EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.)

As system operator and owner of The Skeptic's Board, I have
already expressed strong exception to this false aspersion on my
reputation, and asked Vaso to retract it.  (Silence so far.)
Only one person has ever had access to my BBS denied or curtailed
for any reason -- and not one for "mentioning EBSS".

This particular libel (whose motivation should be clear) has been
making the rounds for some time, most recently in a letter to the
entire BAS Board, from (nominally, at least) Jim Miller, Mr.
Sabsay's friend whom he made secretary of his club.  This was one
of the "peace overtures" Vaso speaks of.

I should not have to rebut this libel, or even deny it:  Vaso
should have verified it before repeating it.  Nonetheless, I will
do so.

Ironically, about the same time Mr. Miller was writing (or at
least signing) his letter, he (or at least a caller to my board
using his name) left an ad for one of Sabsay's club's meetings in
the international FidoNet Science echo-conference.  Local-
interest messages are against the echo rules, and the wrath of
the echo moderator (and various enforcement measures) gets
expressed against the local system operator (me) in such cases.
Nonetheless, far from being "thrown off", Mr. Miller has suffered
zero consequences.

There are other examples, but I have already given one more
than is needed.  The pattern should be clear:  X makes a big
commotion on Mr. S.'s behalf, BAS ignores X, then both X and Mr.
S. complain loudly and bitterly of being oppressed by BAS and
start spreading untruths about BAS.  In the absence of rebuttals
from us (until Vaso forced the issue in public), the untruths get
believed, and our silence is interpreted as "aloofness",
"cronyism", and "a certain smugness".

I ask again, is something wrong with this picture?

Rick Moen,
Oligarch




#8   29 Oct 89  14:27:13 [0]
From: Vaso Bovan
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Rick Moen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
>writes as follows:
>
>> Apparently, the BAS Board came within one vote of recognizing
>> EBSS at the last BAS board meeting (I'm told this second-hand),
>> but backed off when some board members threatened to quit BAS if
>> EBSS was recognized.
>
>In my rush to correct other statements in Vaso's posting, I
>overlooked this one.  I was present for the entire meeting, and
>took down the minutes.  There was NO such vote, and NO ONE
>threatened to resign.
>
>After all this, there aren't very many statements about BAS left
>in Vaso's posting that were not clearly either flat-out wrong or
>distortive.  So, I would venture that Vaso's "second-hand"
>sources have served him very poorly.
>

I have not noted any refutations of my statements in Rick's or other postings.
I have noted many mere "alternate interpretations."


>This does raise another point, which I meant to address
>earlier, but was occupied with the immediate task of correcting
>the many mistaken statements about BAS.  That is, I see,
>continually, this pattern of people accepting and repeating
>derogatory statements about BAS's alleged actions at face value
>without contacting BAS about them, or otherwise making any
>serious attempt to verify them.  At a minimum, this is reckless
>and unconstructive -- and this from supposed rationalists!
>

As I've stated earlier, I've spent over four hours now on the phone with
"several" past and present BAS board members discussing this affair. I've
been careful to state things parentithically when there is disagreement among
my sources, and I've been careful to be fair and evenhanded. I think a
dispassionate reading of my original posting will bear this out. I've been
warned to "discount all statements, but all parties [to this snit], by 80%."


Rick doth protest too much. I've received seven pages of commentary from him
recently, (two letters and a postcard), much of it describing Daniel Sabsay
as
something just short of an ax murderer. Rick describes these private comments
(publically) as "well substantiated." They are not. In each case where I've
tried to establish what really happened, I've concluded that that the problem
is personality conflict, and that in each case, the facts, such as there are
in
this hazy environment, support the interpretation that EVERYONE has behaved
badly.

One small example: Rick, and another net poster, have described how BAS
"asked" EBSS (Sabsay, in particular), to change its name. The impression given
is that BAS made a polite request, and that EBSS/Sabsay was rude in response.
I've had the BAS letter read to me (in full, I was told) over the phone.
The BAS letter is downright ugly, essentially giving EBSS/Sabsay ten days
to knuckle under, with the threat that otherwise Sabsay would face legal
action and public humiliation. If I were the recepient of that letter, I would
have referred it to my attorney. I've also had Sabsay's responding letter read
to me (again in full, I'm told). It sounds eminently reasonable and
conciliatory, more so that I would have written, given the tone of the threat.


Regarding the facts of whether a vote was taken, this is what was reported to
me: Apparently, one board member suffered an accident on the way to the
meeting. He was apparently the swing vote that would have led to BAS
recognition of EBSS. As Rick can probably produce the meeting minutes, I
believe his statement that a formal vote was not taken. It has been reported
to me that Rick Moen would quit the Board if BAS were to recognise
EBSS/Sabsay.
Perhaps Rick can clarify this point.


>So these sorts of derogatory allegations about BAS can be fairly
>described as unchecked hearsay from unstated (but doubtful)
>sources.  Afterwards, we get statements such as Vaso's "If I have
>got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal." Am I
>missing something, or is something wrong with this picture?
>

I stand by my statements. I have checked all allegations, to the best of
my ability, against second sources who are past and present members of the
BAS Board. The dominant impression I have received about this fiasco is that
it is a case of egos and personalities run amuck, on both sides.

One other point of clarification: I referred to another "Board member" of BAS
who has been equally abrasive, in my view, as (everyone agrees) Sabsay can be.
I wish to state I was NOT referring to Rick Moen, but rather to another
prominent BAS member, who is no longer on the board.

-Vaso Bovan
 (All the usual disclaimers apply. I do not speak for MIPS Computer Systems).




#2   30 Oct 89  01:31:10 [5]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
writes as follows:

> I have not noted any refutations of my statements in Rick's or
> other postings.  I have noted many mere "alternate
> interpretations."

One clear refutation was just posted (10/28/89) of a defamatory
statement Vaso made about me, and accordingly, I trust that
Vaso's belated apology is now on its way.

> ...I've concluded that that the problem is personality
> conflict, and that in each case, the facts, such as there are in
> this hazy environment, support the interpretation that EVERYONE
> has behaved badly.

I've had to put up with public vilification and personal
defamation from the Sabsay camp for a couple of years, without
public comment until Vaso forced the issue with his recent
postings here.  I still think this public debate is a very poor
idea, but I will no longer bear this in silence.  In light of my
(and other BAS activists') long silence, this accusation is
highly ironic.

I have stood by in silence even as I found rumours being bruited
about characterising the BAS board (and me personally) as anti-
semitic (in spite of my having been a volunteer kibbutznik and my
fiancee being an Israeli Jew) and male-chauvanistic (in spite of
my being a feminist from age 10 and a N.O.W. member since age
18).  I cannot prove who is responsible, but I can make a very
good guess.

As previously noted, I still, after all this, get along fine with
Mr. Sabsay personally.  I find his ACTIONS objectionable.

> Rick doth protest too much. I've received seven pages of
> commentary from him recently, (two letters and a postcard), much
> of it describing Daniel Sabsay as something just short of an ax
> murderer. Rick describes these private comments (publically) as
> "well substantiated."  They are not.

If Vaso would care to write me asking for documentation for
specific factual allegations in my private communications with
him, I will be glad to send it to him (privately).  I am very
careful not to make such allegations without solid evidence.  He
has NO business concluding that my remarks are not "well-
substantiated" having made NO effort to determine what evidence I
in fact have.  This is especially ironic in view of his own wild
remarks about BAS in this public forum.  His "ax murderer" char-
acterization, however, will have to remain his own.

> One small example: Rick, and another net poster, have described
> how BAS "asked" EBSS (Sabsay, in particular), to change its name.
> The impression given is that BAS made a polite request, and that
> EBSS/Sabsay was rude in response. I've had the BAS letter read to
> me (in full, I was told) over the phone. The BAS letter is
> downright ugly, essentially giving EBSS/Sabsay ten days to
> knuckle under, with the threat that otherwise Sabsay would face
> legal action and public humiliation.

I have recently posted the salient paragraphs in this forum.
Nowhere there or anywhere else is anything whatsoever about
"legal action and public humiliation".  I refer readers to my
earlier posting.  Larry's letter ends as follows (the part that
Vaso chooses to paint as "ten days to knuckle under"):

     "Since my attempts at telephone communication resulted in
     your verbal hostility and verbal abuse, I suggest you
     respond via post.

     Copies will be sent to no one outside the Board and Advisors
     of Bay Area Skeptics for ten days.  If the problem is
     resolved by then, then no one else need or will receive a
     copy of this letter.  If it is not resolved, then we will
     make decisions as to who should receive a copy without
     consultation with you.

     In the fond hope that this can be resolved amicably,

     Larry Loebig"

In characterizing this letter, asserting our legal right not to
have his group bear a name likely to be confused with ours (which
it in fact has widely been), as "ugly", giving Sabsay "ten days
to knuckle under", and threatening "legal action and public
humiliation", I think Vaso is showing an active imagination.

Contrary to Vaso's remarks about a "responding letter", Mr.
Sabsay has NEVER responded to, or even mentioned, our request (or
"threat", as Vaso would have it), despite numerous reminders.

[continued]

Sincerely,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics




#3   30 Oct 89  01:48:21 [2]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

[continued]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
writes as follows:

> Regarding the facts of whether a vote was taken, this is what was
> reported to me:  Apparently, one board member suffered an
> accident on the way to the meeting.  He was apparently the swing
> vote that would have led to BAS recognition of EBSS.

There is a split on these issues on the BAS Board, and it stands
at eight to three.  By the way, Kent Harker, editor of "BASIS",
who suffered the crash in Palo Alto, is still tremendously
irritated at Mr. Sabsay's dig at him in Sabsay's "Beacon".

> As Rick can probably produce the meeting minutes, I believe his
> statement that a formal vote was not taken. It has been reported
> It has been reported to me that Rick Moen would quit the Board if
> BAS were to recognise EBSS/Sabsay.

During discussion of a proposed board resolution from John
Lattanzio, which aimed to compel the "BASIS" editor and the sysop
of The Skeptic's Board (me) to advertise Mr. S.'s club's
meetings, I pointed out that 1) Kent's complete editorial freedom
(guaranteed by the By-Laws) should not be infringed, and 2)
although at work I am paid to deal with objectionable people, I
am not paid to do so in my volunteer work, and might just decide
to leave, like the many others who have been driven away from BAS
by encounters with Sabsay.  Shawn Carlson asked me if I meant
that I would quit if the resolution passed.  I said that that was
not what I meant, but that I would consider it.

The minority of three had counted on light attendence at the
Board meeting, and on being joined in their vote by new member
Genie Scott.  When, instead, she suggested that the motion be
withdrawn, John did so, and the matter was hastily dropped.  A
"formal vote" was never taken, nor was an informal one.

I wonder if Vaso counts this as a "refutation" or as an
"alternative interpretation", but it really matters little.
Vaso apparently feels it is perfectly legitimate to tell wild and
derogatory anecdotes about BAS, without meaningful verification,
as long as he prefaces them with "I've been told that...."  I do
not agree.

>> So these sorts of derogatory allegations about BAS can be fairly
>> described as unchecked hearsay from unstated (but doubtful)
>> sources.  Afterwards, we get statements such as Vaso's "If I
>> have got any facts wrong in the above, I invite rebuttal." Am I
>> missing something, or is something wrong with this picture?

> I stand by my statements. I have checked all allegations, to the
> best of my ability, against second sources who are past and
> present members of the BAS Board. The dominant impression I have
> received about this fiasco is that it is a case of egos and
> personalities run amuck, on both sides.

Perhaps Vaso's abilities are not up to the job.  As previously
noted, at least one of Vaso's statements about me (for which I
have twice requested an apology) was libellous, whether he is
foolish enough to "stand by" it or not, and whoever his nameless
second sources may be.

There have been other stalking horses, prior to Vaso, who were
also fed dubious information by Mr. S. and his apologists and
also saw fit to vilify in public forums the majority of the BAS
Board. The former remain in the background ("journalistic source-
protection").  Vaso's forebears then claimed unfair treatment
when BAS responded by ignoring them.  At least, after all this, I
hope Vaso will not claim to have been silenced.

If Vaso wishes to do a more thorough job, I would suggest he
contact the following people, all of whom, with good reason,
regard Mr. S.'s pattern of behaviour with even greater disdain
than I do:

Robert Sheaffer (says "A clear case of resentment against
achievement"), former "BASIS" editors Diane Moser and Ray
Spangenburg (quit primarily because of harrassment by Mr. S.),
former "BASIS" editor Michael McCarthy, BAS Advisor Earl Hautala
(who at one point asked to have his name removed as Advisor out
of fear that Mr. S. would get us into lawsuits), former CSICOP
executive director Mark Plummer, BAS Vice-Chairman Yves Barbero
(says "a True Believer" and "an ideologist"), BAS Director and
Astronomical Society of the Pacific president Andrew Fraknoi
(adamant about shunning Sabsay), BAS Director Lawrence Jerome,
and BAS Chairman Larry Loebig.  That will suffice to start.

Sincerely,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics





#5   30 Oct 89  10:17:55 [0]
From: Vaso Bovan
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Rick Moen) writes:
>Is it possible that the 80% that Vaso discounts consists of all
>the occasions on which I've told him he's way off-base?  Consider
>the following statement in article <[e-mail]>, by
>[e-mail] (Vaso Bovan):
>
No. I've specifically been told to discount Rick Moen's statements, by
one of his own colleagues.

>> ... apparently, mentioning the three words "East Bay Skeptics" or
>> EBSS is enough to get you thrown off the Skeptic's Board BBS.)
>
>As system operator and owner of The Skeptic's Board, I have
>already expressed strong exception to this false aspersion on my
>reputation, and asked Vaso to retract it.  (Silence so far.)
>Only one person has ever had access to my BBS denied or curtailed
>for any reason -- and not one for "mentioning EBSS".
>
>This particular libel (whose motivation should be clear) has been
>making the rounds for some time, most recently in a letter to the
>entire BAS Board, from (nominally, at least) Jim Miller, Mr.
>Sabsay's friend whom he made secretary of his club.  This was one
>of the "peace overtures" Vaso speaks of.
>
>I should not have to rebut this libel, or even deny it:  Vaso
>should have verified it before repeating it.  Nonetheless, I will
>do so.
>

Excellent !  I'm glad to hear I'm mistaken on this point. I will
post a schedule of EBSS events, on the Skeptic's Board BBS. I'll also
send a copy of the EBSS event schedule to the Editor of the BAS
newsletter, BASIS. I look forward to seeing this listing in next month's
BASIS. Actually, it is very difficult to prove (or disprove) the existence
of an unwritten rule (one of the reasons it is unwritten, I suppose). One
has to look at the evidence; for instance the total lack of mention in BASIS
of EBSS events, or even mention of the existence of EBSS. This, in a
newsletter that normally does cover events of interest to skeptics in the Bay
Area. I'm happy Rick has clarified this point.

> [more about BAS good will]

>I ask again, is something wrong with this picture?
>

Well, yes. I note Rick has ignored the substantive issues I've raised, and
has latched onto minor clubhouse legalisms.




#12  30 Oct 89  18:42:47 [0]
From: Rich Drewes
To:   All
Subj: About EBSS

This message is placed on the net on behalf of James Miller, PhD (Princeton
1972), a founder of EBSS and currently secretary of its board of directors:
----
Several recent messages about the East Bay Skeptics Society, a California
non-profit corporation, have mentioned its members, board of directors and
its president, Daniel Sabsay.

Membership in our society is open to all for modest annual dues.  More
than 100 people have joined in the last 18 months.  In accordance with our
bylaws, our society is run by nine elected directors, our members are
notified in advance of every board meeting, and all members are invited
to attend.  EBSS is not affiliated with the Bay Area Skeptics.

EBSS produces a monthly series of public lectures on the U.C Berkeley
campus and publishes a bimonthly newsletter, The Beacon.  Attendance at
our lecture/discussions is usually in the 75 to 125 range.  Members also
get together socially for general discussions at frequent potluck dinners.

We have limited access to this net and our board of directors has decided
not to engage in debate with Mr. Rick Moen.


Rich Drewes, [e-mail]
I have respect for ideas, contempt for politics.  Leave me out of the latter.




#13  30 Oct 89  18:42:50 [0]
From: mike.siemon
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

Would the participants in this California pissing match *please*
see that the stream is directed downwind, so that the rest of the
nation need not suffer from your bladder distress?  thanks.
--
Michael L. Siemon                               I cannot grow;
...!cucard!dasys1!mls                           I have no shadow
...!att!sfbat!mls                               To run away from,
standard disclaimer                             I only play.




#1   Tue 31 Oct 89 15:33 [4]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Is Reply To #11
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vaso Bovan)
writes as follows:

> Excellent !  I'm glad to hear I'm mistaken on this point. I
> will post a schedule of EBSS events, on the Skeptic's Board BBS.

All such material should go in the message area on my board
entitled "EBSS", if you please.

I'm glad Vaso is glad.  Most people in my experience do not have
to rely upon defamation to give them pleasure, but to each his
own.

The use of libel as an instrument of diplomacy may seem at first
glance incongruous, but there are precedents in this matter.  Dr.
James Miller, Ph.D. Princeton 1972 (oh, my poor alma mater!) used
it in his "peace overture" to the BAS Board.  Dan Dugan was more
ambitious, and libelled me in the main message area of my BBS,
then repeated his performance in his EBSS-ad flyer passed out at
the January BAS meeting, just for optimal peace-making effect.
Vaso, though, has surpassed them both, by casting his aspersions
internationally.  I'm impressed!

> Actually, it is very difficult to prove (or disprove) the
> existence of an unwritten rule (one of the reasons it is
> unwritten, I suppose). One has to look at the evidence; for
> instance the total lack of mention in BASIS of EBSS events, or
> even mention of the existence of EBSS. This, in a newsletter that
> normally does cover events of interest to skeptics in the Bay
> Area.

As previously stated, it has been very difficult to establish a
reasonable basis for cooperation with Mr. Sabsay.  He has refused
to address BAS's grievance for eighteen months straight.
Cooperation can start right there.

> I've specifically been told to discount Rick Moen's statements,
> by one of his own colleagues.

Vaso has succeeded in documenting the eight-to-three split on the
BAS Board of Directors, in his allusions to these anonymous
sources.  If he or others are interested in verifying my
statements, they need only contact any of the long list of
persons listed in my prior posting (article <1576.254C2A49
@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>).  In addition, they might be interested
in an article in the Feb. 1986 Berkeley, CA "Monthly", which
describes Mr. Sabsay's destruction of a BAS volunteer's meeting
by yelling for three hours.

> I'll also send a copy of the EBSS event schedule to the Editor of
> the BAS newsletter, "BASIS". I look forward to seeing this
> listing in next month's "BASIS".

See fourth paragraph preceding.  Mr. Sabsay and his associates,
if they want anything from BAS, should start by finally facing
Larry's letter.  That would be a "peace overture" worthy of the
name.

Sincerely,
Rick Moen




#5   03 Nov 89  07:01:44 [0]
From: Dale C. Cook
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

[[e-mail] (Vaso Bovan) recently posted that:
|
|This topic has generated sufficient personal E-mail, from around the world,
|that it appears to be of general interest, especially to CSICOP supporters.
|(One person described it as a morbid fascination).  If people don't want to
|hear it, they can hit the "k" key.

I find this assertion a bit hard to fathom.  How can the feud between
two San Francisco groups be of much interest to people in the far
corners of USEnet?  If you really need an audience for your prattling,
at least limit the distribution to CA please.  Thanks.

        - Dale (N1US)   Encore Computer Corporation, Marlborough, Mass.

INTERNET:  [e-mail]      "The most evident characteristic of God
UUCP: buita \                    is an inordinent fondness for beetles."
    talcott  } !encore!cook             - J.B.S. Haldane
   bellcore /




#9   03 Nov 89  10:57:54 [5]
From: Rick Moen
To:   All
Subj: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]>, cook@pinocchio.
Encore.COM (Dale C. Cook) quotes Vaso as saying

> This topic has generated sufficient personal E-mail, from around
> the world, that it appears to be of general interest, especially
> to CSICOP supporters. (One person described it as a morbid
> fascination).  If people don't want to hear it, they can hit the
> "k" key.

In an article posted 27 Oct 1989, I said

> Vaso (with aid from Ms. Milas) seems determined to air this whole
> affair in public, which, as I have already stated, strikes me as
> a poor idea.  However, since no one is listening to me, we'll
> just have to test my opinion that the public will be bored,
> offended, and driven away.  Wonderful.

In an earlier article, posted 23 Oct 1989, I also said

> I certainly profoundly disagree with Vaso's assessment of the
> general interest of this matter.  On the basis of long and bitter
> experience, I know for a fact that, on the contrary, it bores and
> drives away the public, activists, and potential activists.

My opinion has been, if anything, strengthened by this sorry
spectacle.  (And Vaso professes to indignation and perplexity over
why it hasn't been aired in "BASIS"!)

I apologise to other posters for having risen to Vaso's bait.  I
and other BAS activists have been putting up with this sort of
public calumny without making any kind of public response for
years, and I finally succumbed to temptation upon seeing it in
*international e-mail* (!)  Even if I did not wish my responses
to go farther than the S.F. Bay Area, however, I did not have that
routing option at my limited access point into USEnet.

Far from "feuding" with Mr. Sabsay and his club, much less
"competing" (God forbid!), we have been silently awaiting his
response to our expressed grievance (arrival expected around the
first snowfall in Hades), or failing that, upon being ignored,
his eventual tiring and ceasing to trouble BAS.  Neither has so
far come to pass.

I have not been seeing Vaso's recent postings (articles at my
node are often erased before I can get to them), and will gladly
seize the opportunity to cut off this apparently pointless and
lamentable discussion.  Participants having sufficient "morbid
fascination" with this matter are welcome to write to me for
copies of all the (damning) correspondence with Mr. Sabsay.
Please write Rick Moen, 4030 Moraga, San Francisco, CA 94122,
U.S.A., and please enclose US $1.35 for postage within the USA,
or enough for 6 oz., in the case of international mail.

Thanks to all for your considerable forbearance.

Yours Truly,
Rick Moen, Secretary
Bay Area Skeptics





#12  03 Nov 89  19:28:24 [0]
From: Jim Bradford
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

> Vaso writes:
>
> This topic has generated sufficient personal E-mail, from around the world,
> that it appears to be of general interest, especially to CSICOP supporters.
> (One person described it as a morbid fascination).  If people don't want to
> hear it, they can hit the "k" key.

Oh Good God!  So your getting personal messages expressing interest
in this vulgar display of nitwitism?  Bully for you!  Then get
back in email and tell everyone that the whole sordid mess has
been moved to alt.flame and STOP WASTING OUR TIME!  Telling the
rest of us to use the 'k' key doesn't stop the two of you from
making fools of yourself and it only adds to the (somewhat justified)
criticism of the lack of serious content in this group.

[e-mail]




#7   04 Nov 89  15:34:00 [0]
From: Mary Shafer
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dale C. Cook)
writes:

[Regarding the appropriateness of the Bay Area rivalry:]

   I find this assertion a bit hard to fathom.  How can the feud between
   two San Francisco groups be of much interest to people in the far
   corners of USEnet?  If you really need an audience for your prattling,
   at least limit the distribution to CA please.  Thanks.

There's no need to inflict this on the entire state--please limit the
distribution to ba (bay area).

This whole issue does prove that schism is not a purely religious (in the
organized sense) issue.  And that it's dealt with in the same ways.

Thank you for your consideration.



--
Mary Shafer   [e-mail]  ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                    Of course I don't speak for NASA




#8   04 Nov 89  17:58:10 [0]
From: George William Herbert
To:   All
Subj: Re: Skeptics in the Bay Area

        I for one am tired of hearing about these two groups acting
impolitic towards each other.  I _was_ interested in looking into
attending meetings of one or the other of your groups.
        Both groups have turned me off now.

Takt it to and keep in in net-mail.  PLEASE!

-george william herbert
[e-mail]


[Following is the text of my third and final letter on the topic to
Vaso, at the end of this misbegotten exchange:]


                                   Rick Moen, Secretary
                                   Bay Area Skeptics
                                   4030 Moraga
                                   San Francisco, CA 94122-3928
                                   November 7, 1989


Vaso Bovan
[address omitted]

Dear Vaso:

I have just received your recent e-mail message, in which you state

     "You've shown an extraordinary enthusiasm to continue and
     escalate the ugliness, for someone who professes
     distaste."

I would like to note the following points:

1.   At this time, I do not have ready access to outgoing personal
     e-mail.
2.   You ignored my repeated strong warnings against airing this
     matter in public, and the good reasons I cited for not doing
     so.
3.   You made defamatory statements about me in an international
     public forum, starting with your very first message on the
     subject.
4.   You repeatedly and directly attacked my credibility, citing
     anonymous sources.
5.   You invoke "journalistic source-protection" for those
     anonymous sources.  (Protection against WHAT?  Letter bombs?
     Mafia contracts?  ACCOUNTABILITY?)
6.   You state that "discussion in other forums has been
     throttled", yet you complain when I respond in order to refute
     your wild, careless, and public allegations.
7.   You made false representations about proceedings of the BAS
     Board.
8.   Until your recent postings, there has been zero public BAS
     response to the many outrageous actions by Sabsay and the
     various people acting on his behalf.  In particular, I have
     not previously responded to libellous public attacks.
9.   Your postings show an almost complete absence of any effort
     to get to the facts before making your pronouncements.  You
     have allowed yourself to serve as a conduit for propaganda,
     your professed "fairness and even-handedness" notwithstanding.
10.  You stated, with zero basis in fact, that "BAS has been
     needlessly vicious in its attempts to isolate, defame, and
     squash EBSS, (in both local and national arenas)."  Right up
     through the beginning of your ill-considered campaign, BAS
     people have done NOTHING except try to maintain our distance
     and get Daniel to change the name of his group.
11.  You attempted to gloss over BAS's substantive objections to
     Mr. Sabsay's actions by painting this as a personality
     conflict.  See point #4.  You state that "there are very many
     unfortunate personality conflicts."  I named ONE, and pointed
     out that it was irrelevant.  You named NO others; they don't
     exist.
12.  You repeated publicly a tremendous variety of nonsense with
     the disclaimer "I've been told...", including "I've been told
     that EBSS makes peace overtures every couple of months...."
     You produce no evidence; there is none to produce.
13.  In a similar vein, you groundlessly accused "a BAS director"
     of "delivering a harangue against EBSS" in front of a CSICOP
     conference, glossing over the fact that the issue was EBSS's
     NAME.
14.  You glossed over the fact that Sabsay attacked Loyd Auerbach
     at BAS meetings not once but TWICE.
15.  You stated in a public forum that my private comments to you
     are NOT well-substantiated, without making ANY effort to find
     out what support I have for them.
16.  You dismissed my objections to your messages as "minor
     clubhouse legalisms".  Well, Vaso, it's a good thing we're on
     the same side, or you could have been facing a big lawsuit
     right now.

After all this, after unapologetically defaming me and recklessly
spreading hearsay about BAS, both in an international public forum
and possibly via private e-mail (where I cannot refute you), you
have the gall to make the statement I quoted above?  What nerve!
First I am criticised for being silent, then for being vocal!

How about us trading places?  I'll try spreading derogatory
untruths about you, and you get to be the villain for trying to set
the record straight.  Deal?

You also write as follows, regarding my offer to provide the
correspondence record to interested parties:

     "This is truly tacky, and illustrates my point
     beautifully, that members of BAS (and it seems, you in
     particular) have lost all perspective."

Whatever happened to "discussion in other forums has been
throttled"?  Now that I offer to supply the facts that you allege
do not exist, and furnish solid refutation of the numerous claims
you have spread far and wide, this suddenly becomes a "loss of
perspective"?

     "You need to disengage."

I need to disengage with YOU, sir, and I am doing so.  As to Mr.
Sabsay and his OTHER apologists, I refer you to points #8 and 10
above.

     "If you can't, you need to consider whether you should
     resign from the board of BAS."

Your opinion is noted, and will be weighed in light of the record
(of which you are clearly monumentally ignorant) and your residual
credibility with me.

     "You've escalated the poison pen stuff so rapidly with
     me...."

Each and every posting of mine has been an attempt to counter your
base tactics of defamation, innuendo, citing of anonymous sources,
phony "objectivity", and reckless, tendentious rumour-mongering.
Vaso, if you cannot see that, then you have a problem.

     "...I can understand how irretrievably entangled you must
     have got with Sabsay."

See points #8 and 10 above.  I plead guilty to thinking that
Sabsay's tactics, like yours, should not be rewarded with success.
However, all Sabsay has to do is back off and finally deal with our
expressed grievance.  Then he'd get all the stuff he says we're too
mean and vindictive to give him.  He'll never DO that, however.
Try suggesting it to him, and just listen to the evasions that
follow.

Other than your message, I've received a few other personal e-mail
messages on this subject.  ( I am not able to reply, though.)  The
one I am about to quote from I regard as over-optimistic, given
that the whole discussion (which I did not AT ALL want) has been
a disaster.  Nonetheless, let me quote from it:

     "Ok, so it's none of my business, but I just have to
     express my admiration for the amount of energy you've
     been expending in refuting old Vaso.  If I were judging
     this bout, giving points for rationality, forbearance,
     civility, and goodness-and-light, it'd be a knockout in
     your column.  Vaso sounds like a Moonie to me."

     "You've accomplished something here, though, however
     insignificant it may be -- you've interested me in what
     your group does.  I figure that anybody who can stand
     his ground against lunatics without resorting to
     descending to their level of emotionalism, threats, and
     unsubstantiated charges, has his act together."

I do NOT agree that you sound like a Moonie, are a lunatic, or have
made threats, but the rest I do appreciate.

You state

     "I have not responded to your last posting."

I deeply and sincerely thank you for that.



Yours Truly,



Rick Moen