Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
So what exactly is the relationship of project reason to this forum?
The spelling is exactly the same.
Who owns this forum?
I thought you did? Me? GAD?
What is the purpose of this forum?
For me? It’s my home away from not-feeling-so-much-like-home-anymore. It’s where my friends hang out.
What is it for you?
Mr. Morley,
I’m fascinated by the fact that you didn’t answer the questions.
So why is that?
if this was a foreign country, and the native who I was speaking to didn’t understand me, like a true american, i would repeat the question in English in a louder voice.
SO
Is there any formal connection between project reason and this forum? If so, what is it? and who financially owns this forum?
Is there any formal connection between project reason and this forum?
If you go to the Project Reason home page, shown below and available HERE, you will see that the Forum appears to be one of the activities of the Project.
jdrnd - 06 December 2010 08:47 AM
If so, what is it? and who financially owns this forum?
Go to GuideStar, send a letter to the Project, or send a request to the IRS on a form designated for that purpose, and request the latest 990 for the Project. I’ve certainly never done that, because I’ve never felt the need to know the financial structure of the Project or the Forum.
Strictly speaking, since the Project is a non-profit, nobody “owns” the Project, although the Project can “own” the Forum.
There is also a link on the home page to “ABOUT” which will link you to the trustees of the Project, which turn out to be a Sam Harris, a Mrs. Harris, and some other guy. It looks like people named Harris have 2/3 of the votes on the board. Go figure.
I’m just curious—are you asking because you want to make an offer—a hostile takeover—or, god forbid, short the Project?
Is there any formal connection between project reason and this forum?
If you go to the Project Reason home page, shown below and available HERE, you will see that the Forum appears to be one of the activities of the Project.
jdrnd - 06 December 2010 08:47 AM
If so, what is it? and who financially owns this forum?
Go to GuideStar, send a letter to the Project, or send a request to the IRS on a form designated for that purpose, and request the latest 990 for the Project. I’ve certainly never done that, because I’ve never felt the need to know the financial structure of the Project or the Forum.
Strictly speaking, since the Project is a non-profit, nobody “owns” the Project, although the Project can “own” the Forum.
There is also a link on the home page to “ABOUT” which will link you to the trustees of the Project, which turn out to be a Sam Harris, a Mrs. Harris, and some other guy. It looks like people named Harris have 2/3 of the votes on the board. Go figure.
I’m just curious—are you asking because you want to make an offer—a hostile takeover—or, god forbid, short the Project?
Hi Teuchter,
Nice to hear from you again.
My reason for asking the questions I ask relate to my observation that this forum does not always act in the best interests of promoting the values of Project Reason.
A few years ago I interacted at a guitar forum called the Hamer fan club, a site whose reason for existence was to discuss Hamer guitars. From the point of view of the Hamer guitar company this forum existed to promote their guitars. When I first bought my hamer guitar the Hamer web site specifically directed new owners to the hamer forum for support and other advice. Now it turns out that the Hamer ffan club (forum) was NOT owned by Hamer, but by a private individual who owed no allegiance to Hamer (I have no idea how this came about, I suspect that the forum was started by an enthusiastic Hamer guitar owner). As time went on, the forum began talking about other brands of guitars, to the point that equal time was given to gibsons, fenders, and other. The Hamer guitar company saw that their interests were not being promoted and cut the link between their web site and the Hamer Fan Club.
Since the discussion at The Project reason forum does not always occur in the spirit of the mission statemtn you just posted, I was wondering if the owners of the forum were paying attention. Or more to the point, if the owners of the forum are in fact John Morley and/or others (and not the Harris’s), the owners would not have any stake in steering the forum towards promoting humanistic values,but rather might merely be interested in keeping it going as a forum of mostly non believing highly opinionated late middle aged people (did you see the picture thread). Although in the absence of money producing advertisements its hard to say what their incentive might be.
I was surprised at John Morley’s answer. If there is nothing to hide Why not just answer: the forum is owned by—-, the relationship is—-, etc
In fact this can all be laid to rest, have harris himself post something…. (my paranoia knows no bounds.. “how would we know its Sam Harris?”)
My reason for asking the questions I ask relate to my observation that this forum does not always act in the best interests of promoting the values of Project Reason.
I share your concerns that there is a rather persistent infection here of xtians and xtian apologists masquerading as “wafflers”.
In fact this can all be laid to rest, have harris himself post something…. (my paranoia knows no bounds.. “how would we know its Sam Harris?”)
Jeff
I am certain I have seen at least one post here from a user purporting to be Sam Harris, using his name for their monkier, and his picture as an avatar.
(Andrew): His name is Nhoj. Rhymes with “dodge”. Honest.
You wouldn’t believe how many times we’ve been down this road, Jeff. Project Reason—and Mr Harris (his name appears occasionally at the bottom of the page as an “Active Member”—meaning he’s logged in)—seem singularly uninterested in the goings-on of this forum. We’ve tried for a number of years to get them to establish some sort of rules for us or, at the least, to give us some indication of the direction they’d like for the forum to take.
Crickets.
Several (maybe many) disgruntled members such as yourself have tried to contact the higher-ups and express their concerns.
Crickets.
Give it a shot with my blessings.
We’re adrift in cyberspace, making stuff up as we go along.
Welcome to the asylum.
(Andrew): You wouldn’t believe how many times we’ve been down this road, Jeff. Project Reason—and Mr Harris (his name appears occasionally at the bottom of the page as an “Active Member”—meaning he’s logged in)—seem singularly uninterested in the goings-on of this forum. We’ve tried for a number of years to get them to establish some sort of rules for us or, at the least, to give us some indication of the direction they’d like for the forum to take.
Crickets.
Several (maybe many) disgruntled members such as yourself have tried to contact the higher-ups and express their concerns.
Crickets.
Give it a shot with my blessings.
We’re adrift in cyberspace, making stuff up as we go along.
Welcome to the asylum.
Andrew and Mr. Morley,
I’m not disgruntled, rather I’m disheartened.
I m worried about the direction our country/world is going. If you look around one sees the absence of rational thinking, the increasing numbers of people who rely on supernatural imaginary beings, and the decrease in reasonable non-partison problem solving discussions. So I was attracted to and then joined the reason project forum. I invisioned that we could reverse the trend of the increasingly less educated populace. I thought I would find like minded people with which to interact. I rationalized that if I (if we) could get other rational people to interact here on the forum, the population of people like ourselves would grow. In the last 6 months I have attempted to have friends and aquantances check this forum out. Most of them are repelled by the street talk that is accepted at this site as normal. They have not come back.
I was wrong. This forum is nothing special, its just another forum attached to (or at least with the same name) as an ideal. We’re going nowhere. The discussions at this forum are no more informative than those I see at other forums with or without restricting profane speech (with the exception of our humanistic tendencies). If anything, the poor manners extended to our visitors is a degree worse than many of the sites I have visited. Its ironic for me to say but the tone of the discussion at Ann Coulters site is always civilized even if the content is not.
The ability to promote this site to educated humanistic people is hampered by the members who insist on spicing their posts with 4-letter words, perhaps in the name of freedom of speech (I won’t confront their motives,) but more likely for their own selfishness.
The supposed creator of the site, as per your post, take no reponsibility for giving direction, setting examples, or even acknowledging the activities of this forum (good or bad).
I have neither the leadership skills (on-line or in person) to influence anyone. You and other moderators/administrators are just going with the flow… i guess it’s a job you don’t want to lose.
so whats going to become of us?
I fully realize that once I hit the “submit” button their will be a barrage of offensive posts aimed at me from many of the forums inhabitants.
I am going to post this reply at the two threads that i started, since they are somewhat intertwined.
I was wrong. This forum is nothing special ... if anything, the poor manners extended to our visitors is a degree worse than many of the sites I have visited ... the ability to promote this site to educated humanistic people is hampered by the members who insist on spicing their posts with 4-letter words, perhaps in the name of freedom of speech (I won’t confront their motives,) but more likely for their own selfishness.
So that thread was really just to tell us how it is rather than to engage in a genuine discussion on the matter.
jdrnd - 06 December 2010 05:16 PM
I fully realize that once I hit the “submit” button their will be a barrage of offensive posts aimed at me from many of the forums inhabitants.
True to some extent, but I’m willing to bet you’ll choose to perceive most of them as offensive rather than recognizing offense as an actual property within them.
And it seems to me you could learn something about presumption and the nature of being arbitrarily judgmental from participating here. Quite frankly you seem more interested in preaching than in genuine discussion. In the “foul” language thread all you ever did was to assert your interpretation of what most of society deems offensive language. You never actually addressed any contrary argumentation, but rather you only reasserted the same assertions using different phraseology. Now you’re acting all bent out of shape because those who offered criticism of those assertions and actual counter arguments didn’t see it your way after a few rephrasings. Does that seem like a genuine or critically-minded attitude to you?
I’ve found this to be an invaluable tool to explain the genuine open-mindedness required for genuine critical thinking. Participants who have been on board here for very long have seen me post it many times. I’d like to hear your impressions, both about the video and any of the criticism I’ve offered regarding this post and/or your views on “foul” language. I don’t think you’ve yet given an actual dialog a chance here as yet. You only seem to have come here to correct us without any interest in opposing viewpoints, as if you have some sort of moral authority over us. That’s not the way skeptics/critical thinkers roll, and it’s certainly not going to go over with many audiences, not just us.
I was wrong. This forum is nothing special, its just another forum attached to (or at least with the same name) as an ideal. We’re going nowhere. The discussions at this forum are no more informative than those I see at other forums with or without restricting profane speech (with the exception of our humanistic tendencies). If anything, the poor manners extended to our visitors is a degree worse than many of the sites I have visited. Its ironic for me to say but the tone of the discussion at Ann Coulters site is always civilized even if the content is not.
So by your own admission banning profane speech won’t make discussions more informative or the content more civilized but it may increase the number of people who come here and stay if we don’t call them fuckwits or do so in a nice way. So banning profane speech would just inundate us with a lot of pussy ass fuckwits who are only here because they think other people are interested in their pussy ass fuckwits views because no one told them to go fuck themselves.
AND SKEPTCX came down from the mountain and said unto Jeff,:
“Bend your head for you have sinned you have spoken against me.”
and jeff was truly fearful for the mighty SkepticX was speaking (after all he never preaches he just tells the truth)
SKEPTICX: “And it seems to me you could learn something about presumption and the nature of being arbitrarily judgmental from participating here. Quite frankly you seem more interested in preaching than in genuine discussion.”
and Jeff hung his head for the great one was not finished with his chastisement
SKEPTICX: “In the “foul” language thread all you ever did was to assert your interpretation of what most of society deems offensive language. You never actually addressed any contrary argumentation, but rather you only reasserted the same assertions using different phraseology.”
Jeff was truly sorry for criticising the great one and excepted his terrible words in penance.
But the great Skeptic X continued: “Now you’re acting all bent out of shape because those who offered soothing criticism of those assertions and actual counter arguments didn’t see it your way after a few rephrasings. Does that seem like a genuine or critically-minded attitude to you? “
jeff was struck by the truthfulness of SKEPTICX’s preaching and was sorry that the great GOD SKEPTIC X became bent out of shape for jeff’s humble (yet accurate) discription of how THE GOD SKEPTIC X sounded when he speaks.
jeff will slink off into the sunset and let SKEPTICX continue to speak his mind at will in any way he likes without ever being confronted by its offensiveness.
AND let this be a lesson to anyone ANYONE on this forum, if they cross SKEPTICX, if they try in any way to correct what he says or how he says it then thou shall be asked to listen to his terrible speech about how that one has a closed mind and cannot take criticism.
Let me end with The Skeptic X prayer
“yea though i walk through the valley of Skeptic X, I will fear SKEPTIC, for he defines not only profanity, but the definition of preaching. “
So Skeptic X let me just speak to you as you speak to me: How dare you try to correct me without any interest in opposing viewpoints, as if you have some sort of moral authority over me. That’s not the way skeptics/critical thinkers roll, and it’s certainly not going to go over with many audiences, not just me.
SkepticX… note that its pretty offensive and I didn’t use any profanity
I was wrong. This forum is nothing special, its just another forum attached to (or at least with the same name) as an ideal. We’re going nowhere. The discussions at this forum are no more informative than those I see at other forums with or without restricting profane speech (with the exception of our humanistic tendencies). If anything, the poor manners extended to our visitors is a degree worse than many of the sites I have visited. Its ironic for me to say but the tone of the discussion at Ann Coulters site is always civilized even if the content is not.
So by your own admission banning profane speech won’t make discussions more informative or the content more civilized but it may increase the number of people who come here and stay if we don’t call them fuckwits or do so in a nice way. So banning profane speech would just inundate us with a lot of pussy ass fuckwits who are only here because they think other people are interested in their pussy ass fuckwits views because no one told them to go fuck themselves.
Not sure why you think that sounds so great…...
Yes and No.
GAD it really depends upon what the point of the forum is. In this thread I’m trying to get a feel for what the forum is all about… but I truly feel that limiting profane language will attract more intellectual people who might be on the cusp of realizing that there is no such thing as supernatural beings. As you can see skepticX feels otherwise. i fear i may have pissed him off. Oh well it won’t be the last time.
I like the banter here, from the picture section, I noted that alot of people are in my age bracket and for the most part we all think a like. I know that I could get alot more people (who would be active posters)to join if we limited the evil words. Large volume posters like yourself and Dennis Campbell need to set an example not only with vocabulary but by helping to save people who are being creamed by the aggressive types.. I hate to sound like a saint (cause I’m not) but stronger people should help weaker people… you know like in a real humanist society. Whether we like it or not To use your phrase most people are “pussy ass fuckwits”.
So by your own admission banning profane speech won’t make discussions more informative or the content more civilized but it may increase the number of people who come here and stay if we don’t call them fuckwits or do so in a nice way. So banning profane speech would just inundate us with a lot of pussy ass fuckwits who are only here because they think other people are interested in their pussy ass fuckwits views because no one told them to go fuck themselves.
Not sure why you think that sounds so great…...
GAD it really depends upon what the point of the forum is. In this thread I’m trying to get a feel for what the forum is all about… but I truly feel that limiting profane language will attract more intellectual people who might be on the cusp of realizing that there is no such thing as supernatural beings.
So intellectual people who believe in supernatural beings but question the complete lack of evidence or even contrary evidence might be convinced it is bullshit as long as they don’t hear the word bullshit otherwise they will go screaming right back to sky daddy?
As you can see skepticX feels otherwise. i fear i may have pissed him off. Oh well it won’t be the last time.
I don’t think he gets pissed, at least that he expresses, that wouldn’t play to his intellectual schtick.
I like the banter here, from the picture section, I noted that alot of people are in my age bracket and for the most part we all think a like.
Think about that for a while
I know that I could get alot more people (who would be active posters)to join if we limited the evil words. Large volume posters like yourself and Dennis Campbell need to set an example not only with vocabulary but by helping to save people who are being creamed by the aggressive types..
Dennis is a moderate and a peace keeper, he won’t like being put in the bucket with me. It’s OK to say it, I’m the bad one.
I hate to sound like a saint (cause I’m not) but stronger people should help weaker people… you know like in a real humanist society. Whether we like it or not To use your phrase most people are “pussy ass fuckwits”.
I’ve been called and labeled every nasty word in the book (expect homophobe) so I tend to stay out of such conflicts because who am I to say and more importantly no one wants to associate themselves with me to closely.
BTW I don’t think I’ve ever attacked you as a person only your views, have I? In fact (at least in my view) it would be the exception for me to fire the first shot in a personal conflict. Most people get pissed at my views and how I express them and pull out their moral cannons and start blasting and I respond in kind. But even there I’m made a great effort in the past year to not escalate such conflicts, at least with nukes anyways.
RSS Feed
