|
Dear SkepChick
Editor,
Please send information reguarding SkepChick magazine subscription.
Thank you,
Heather
We're
flattered that people are already expressing interest in a printed Skepchick.
Right now, we're online-only, but if we continue to grow in popularity,
we'll start to explore the possibility of becoming a real live magazine.
+++
Dear Skepchick:
While reading the Nonsense
article by Matthew Armstrong on using spinning cats to power various
pieces of machinery, with concomitant contamination by cat hair, flying
feces(not mentioned) etc., it came to my attention that an extremely elegant
solution to said problems was right in front of the experimenters faces
all along! While the spinning cats use their own instincts to right themselves,
the falling toast uses a much more powerful law to fall buttered side
down. This law comes from none other than the all-powerful Creator of
the universe. This law also proves the existence of this Creator at the
same time because the law is universally observed and infinitely immutable.
It controls everything. Therefore the Creator, God, must also exist. Simple.
Not only that, the law also tells us the name and ethnicity of the Creator
because we know the name of the law. The Creator is definitely of Irish
descent because his name is Murphy.
Ergo, gluing
two pieces of buttered toast back to back and running the steel rod between
them will solve all of The Spinning Cat problems. Unfortunately my solving
this problem also destroyed my atheism.
Damn . . .
I knew I was having too much guilt free fun.Sigh.
Chris Cox
PS It has not escaped my attention that gluing two pieces of toast back
to back that have been buttered on both sides might generate the necessary
conditions to cause a rift in the fabric of Einsteinian space-time and
make possible travel to other galaxies, in perhaps as little time as it
takes the toast to hit the floor...
Thanks
for the detailed analysis, Chris!
+++
Hi, I'm a
regular reader of James
Randi's newsletter. I just wanted to drop you a quick note to let
you know that I had a similar experience with John Edward. I'd always
considered myself a skeptic about all things spiritual, but John had this
ability to tap into that feeling underneath that there just has to be
more than this, that we are more than our brains. Man, it just felt right.
Part of it was the fact that he talked about things like being skeptical
and not stretching to make things work. In hindsight it's embarrassing
that that was all it took to disarm my previously unbroken skepticism.
But again, it felt so right, and it was so comforting. Ultimately, it
was very instructive because it gave me a sense of what it feels like
to believe. That's helpful in dealing with my frustration with others
who still do.
Just wanted to share that with you. I'll stop in at your site from time
to time.
Rob
+++
Hi Rebecca,
First of all, let me say I love your website and your blog.
I've been urging Brazilian skeptics (specially "skepchicas"
lol) to take a look at your work. Let me just say... today's blog post
may have been a little hard on Paris Hilton, lol... at least she is a
pretty rich girl working as an entertainer, and she does not claim to
be holier than anyone, as far as I know. There is some value there. The
same cannot be said about Madre Teresa... Keep up your great work.
Pedro
|
Dear Skepchicks
editors,
Thank you for
Ben Radford’s piece on the myths of low self esteem! I have
found myself in arguments with male and female friends on this same issue,
trying to explain to them that there is more to self esteem than body
image, and that most teenaged and young adult females are at least fairly
comfortable with themselves.
Part of the problem is that people have been pushing the line for some
time that self esteem for women rests almost entirely on body image, whereas
boys are somehow above such concerns. I for one find this idea insulting.
One can be unsatisfied with ones weight or appearance, but still register
a high level of self esteem. By the same token, a young lady can think
she’s very attractive, but also that she’s not smart or funny,
etc.
As Mr. Radford mentioned, there are other aspects of self image beyond
the physical. It could be said that it is a sexist assumption to think
that girls consider themselves based largely on appearance, since a fair
number of their young male counterparts are encouraged to rank women based
solely on physical criteria. We need to stop underestimating the intelligence
of women and girls. I’m not saying women with eating disorders are
stupid, but most women raised in a healthy household are able to put things
into perspective.
All of that said, I recall being a teenaged girl who liked herself just
fine, and thought I looked pretty damn good, but was concerned about whether
or not others liked me and was frequently afraid that they didn’t.
Most girls I knew felt the same. This is something the studies Mr. Radford
quoted didn’t, I think, adequately address, and is something that
perhaps has a more profound affect on the choices young girls make.
Thanks for the food for thought!
Bethany B. from NYC
+++
All of the
'supportive' letters shown on your web page which I accessed this date
appear to be from males. ARE you reaching/attracting many females, supposedly
your raison d' etre, with your seemingly ribald approach?
AOZ
After
reading your letter, we were spurred to go back and check the genders
in the last issue, and it appears that your point is well-founded. However,
if you'll notice, five of nine contributing writers were female, and in
the previous issue, all six writers were female. It appears that while
the bulk of the "way to go" letters are from males, the bulk
of the "way to go, and how can I help" letters are from females.
Also be sure to check out our forum, where a tremendous percentage of
members (we haven't run a census yet) are female.
+++
What a blast TAM4
sounds like it must have been! I'm hearing "Imagine" in my head
. . . but it keeps transitioning into a speed metal version for some reason.
I remember hearing about TAM back in around '98 or so, I think -- I had
no idea. I've got to round up some of my local skepdude and skepchick
friends and see if we can't contribute at least our share of debauchery
at TAM5 or TAM6! Any inside information about them?
Take
care,
Byron
We
have a ton of insider info on TAM5, but if we leak it here, James Randi
will use his psychic powers to make us have erotic dreams involving John
Edward. You don't want to be responsible for that, Byron, do you?
|
