An Interesting Exchange

Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!

Login Form

An Interesting Exchange

Swift

Written by Jeff Wagg

Friday, 23 October 2009 00:00

Updated at the bottom - MaryEllen posts a response

The JREF forum, found at forums.randi.org, has a long history of... well... everything. It's the busiest board on the Internet for skeptics, and at times things get heated. In an attempt to keep things on an approximately even keel, we have a set of rules which are listed here. Every member must read these rules before joining the forum. Some folks can't seem to do this. Most of the times these things are handled matter-of-factly, however I've decided to share this particular series of communications with you, as it illustrates a common mindset that we deal with frequently.

I was at the JREF headquarters in Ft. Lauderdale, FL when I received a call from one Eddie Benitez. He informed that he had been banned from the forum, and that he'd like an explanation. I had never heard of Mr. Benitez, and when I informed him of this fact, he seemed amazed as he apparently considered himself to be famous. He told me that his Google presence was far superior to mine, and though that's likely true, I didn't see the relevance. After a couple of minutes of me asking the same questions over and over again, I finally got out of him that it wasn't his account, but his publicist's that had been banned. At this point, there was nothing more to say as we do not discuss accounts with third parties. I invited his publicist to get in touch with me so that I might research the matter.

Once I learned the account's name, it was able to see what happened. Benitez's publicist, MaryEllen O'Brien, had been allowing Eddie Benitez to use her account. While this may seem a trivial matter, it is an important rule of the forum that there is to be exactly one account per person. Our volunteers can't properly moderate the forum any other way, and we are very strict in that we know who is using the forum.

You can read the thread for yourself here.

What follows is the e-mail exchange between MaryEllen and myself. I've deleted e-mail addresses as well as footer and miscellaneous administrative information, but the text of these e-mails is unaltered:

MaryEllen O'Brien

Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM

To: jeff@randi.org

Dear Jeff,

I am writing to you to appeal the banning of my posting privileges on the JREF site in the thread discussing an article that I wrote, concerning the $50K Psychic Challenge that musician and spiritualist Eddie Benitez has issued.

Eddie spoke with you himself yesterday, and I am sending you the link to the thread and the ban notice I receive when I log in. In the the ban I notice I get, it says "no reason specified."

Those posting to the page, however, are claiming it was for "multiple users on one account." That was not communicated to me. I posted statements from Mr. Benitez on his behalf - when he requested that I issue those statments. They were put in quotes and posted by me as his spokesperson. On one occasion Eddie posted himself, with my permission. Why should that be a problem. I am fully identified and a well known writer and broadcaster. Eddie is fully identified and is a world renowned musician and quite famous as a spiritualist as well.

I am Eddie's writer - I am collaborating with him on his biographical book, Angels on My Stage, as his co-author. I also do some publicist work for him, and when he'd like something in writing, such as a post - he frequently dictates to me what he wants to say and I write it up. I have had two books published previously, and many articles. I'm a veteran radio broadcaster with U.S. and European credentials. And I hold two masters degrees in theology. In other words, I'm no schmuck - as they are trying to paint me. I'm also a member of American MENSA. Meaning, I'm a whole lot smarter than most of them. And I am appealing this prejudicial banning.

Since virtually all entertainers make use of spokespeople, I am not sure why this would be a problem in this forum. Everything was clearly stated, as to who was speaking. Neither Eddie nor myself are posting anonymously on JREF, while everyone else is. So we are banned for being out in the open with our comments?

Mr. Benitez feels that the real reason for the ban were his statements of belief, of faith. He feels that when he spoke of Jesus and faith, that resulted in this ban. It certainly appeared that there was no room for civil discussion on the thread. There was a decided lack of civility, bullying, ridicule and personal attacks. That kind of behavior is aided and abetted by the anonymity. And it seems as if the thread is only going to welcome people who are in agreement with them, which has to make for pretty dull conversation.

We feel the ban was unfair and meant to punish free speech and make us look bad. We are both professionals and the attacks on our professional and personal lives and beliefs were outrageous, and then further posting from my account was prohibited.

Mr. Benitez wonders if the ban came from Mr. Randi, if he doesn't want any non-atheists or non-skeptics to have a voice, or if it is because of perceived competition - even though Mr. Benitez's psychic challenge is of a totally different nature than Mr. Randi's. In the forum, posters seem to think there is only one way to have a challenge, which is not the case.

I would like to have the ban lifted after your review, because it's clear it was out of prejudice and discrimination. So much so, I was not even given a reason.

There cannot be much debate in a forum if only one side is allowed to post.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Below is a copy of the ban notice I receive on logging in.

Sincerely,

MaryEllen O'Brien

Your account has either been suspended or banned.

You have been banned/suspended for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date the ban/suspension will be lifted: Never

If you have any questions regarding this you can use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page to contact the administrators.

Jeff Wagg, James Randi Educational Foundation <jeff@randi.org>

Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Reply-To: jeff@randi.org To: MaryEllen O'Brien

It is clearly stated in the member agreement that you may not have other people use your account, which you plainly admit to here. This is why your account was banned.

Jeff Wagg

jeff@randi.org

Communication and Outreach Manager

James Randi Educational Foundation

http://www.randi.org

MaryEllen O'Brien

Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:05 PM

To: jeff@randi.org

Jeff,

I am forwarding a message from Mr. Benitez regarding your ban on my account.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Eddie Benitez Date: October 21, 2009 7:05:13 PM MSTTo: MaryEllenSubject: Forward.

I am saddened by your ban on MaryEllen. It seems to me you banned her more for the Quotes from me and the belief in Jesus Christ, since Randi is a non believer. It's ok. Randi is a Fraud and fears that I will expose his 1 million challenge to be a hoax. Read about it. Did you know I have fame also? I hope Randi keeps getting donations on his site. I will take Randi's challenge as long as he does it in public so all may see the truth and not some paperwork from a hidden, artificial "challenge." We can do it on LIVE tv. Again, I believe you banned my writer because she mentioned my thoughts on Jesus and God and all of you are atheist. The rules of your forum are very one sided and designed to justify uncivil and hateful behavior while banning someone who is civil and courteous - but who mentions faith and belief. You tolerate hate and unbelief while finding belief and faith to be intolerable, something you must ban. The ban shows your prejudice and fear, which I take to be Randi's fear of a challenge and of exposure.

Eddie Benitez

To: Eddie Benitez

From: MaryEllen

Subject: Fwd: JREF thread/ban - Eddie Benitez $50K challenge

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:46:41 -0700

idiots

I made it clear it was ME, with statements from you, always in quotes, always attributed to you. And the one time you posted, with my permission to use. They must have been waiting for that to swoop in. m.e.

Jeff Wagg, James Randi Educational Foundation <jeff@randi.org>

Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Reply-To: jeff@randi.org To: MaryEllen O'Brien

I've given you the truth. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. I believe you're paranoid.

Jeff Wagg

MaryEllen O'Brien

Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:43 PM

To: jeff@randi.org

Jeff,

You may think what you want. We, in turn, think all of your subscribers are paranoid about Jesus and God.

We will advise Sylvia Browne on the disbelief of the Randi Foundation in any kind of God as well.

You can now be assured that there will be a chapter in our book, Angels on My Stage, entitled: "The Amazing Randi?"Thank you for all the material.

There is a prophecy from the angels, for your organization. December 26 is a pivotal, turning point for the foundation.

And Jeff, based on your emails in response to my appeal over the banning of my account, we are both left wondering what the qualifications could possibly be for one to achieve the position of

Communication and Outreach ManagerJames Randi Educational Foundation

Because it most certainly is not attributable to your communication skills - which are stunted and virtually non-existent.Nor can it be "outreach," since we are left wondering exactly to whom you direct your "outreach" efforts, a term which usually means an effort to foster relationships in a broad manner, with courtesy and generosity of spirit. That is outreach. What you demonstrate is the absence of any of that.

Your emails were terse, defensive statements. No salutation as in normal professional correspondence - from a communications manager. No explanation. No respect. No courtesy. What was demonstrated was the same lack of courtesy and civility that dominates your Forum. And the same instant need to insult the people you are communicating with.

You did just send me an email saying our beliefs were essentially meaningless, and that Eddie, or myself, or both - are "paranoid" because we have the chutzpah to disagree with you and challenge you.

You should make sure you keep this job, though, Jeff, because with the incomprehensible lack of communication skills you have displayed, you certainly won't be getting hired by any real company any time soon.

Sincerely,

MaryEllen O'Brien

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential

and also may be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, or have

otherwise received this communication in error, please delete it from your

inbox, notify the sender immediately, and do not disclose its contents to

any other person, use them for any purpose, or store or copy them in any
medium. Thank you for your cooperation.

Jeff Wagg, James Randi Educational Foundation <jeff@randi.org>

Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM

Reply-To: jeff@randi.org To: MaryEllen O'Brien

Dear MaryEllen,

Thank you for giving me implicit permission to publish your correspondence. I'm not sure if your comment about Sylvia Browne was meant to be entertaining, but I assure you that our entire staff found it quite amusing. If you do talk to Sylvia, please remind her that we're still waiting for her to take the challenge she agreed to on Larry King Live over eight years ago. You would think she'd be eager to take the $1,000,000 from us.

Quite sincerely,

Jeff Wagg

P. S. I hope you approve of my use of a salutation and closing. You'll notice that I didn't use the word "idiot" as your employer did.

And that, so far, is that. I've decided not to add commentary to this, though I will answer questions in the comments should they arise. And yes, I realize that I did confuse who made the "idiot" comment, though I find the truth deliciously ironic.

UPDATE 1:

Eddie Benitez sent me this e-mail this morning:

FROM: Eddie Bennitez TO: Jeff Wagg

I did'nt think you would publish emails on the Randi site. It comfirms that Randi and his staff have no integrity. Its sad to see a grown man like you would act that way. With your boss very sick I would have thought you would be more focus on his health. I see you along with the staff of the Randi foundation have no compassion for even your boss. I hope that oneday you can be touched by God and see your mistakes in life. My prayers go out to you and Randi.

Eddie Benitez

At 11:10am, he called the JREF, and after demanding that I not record the phone call (which I wasn't), and he asked me to take all this material down. He claimed I was starting a war, and that his people could "put up more websites" than we could, etc. When I refused and explained that challenging the paranormal is actually our business, he expressed a bit of profanity and proclaimed "You're nothing but a bunch of atheist trolls" and hung up the phone. This was quite a different tone than he expressed in his earlier e-mail.

It's interesting that he wants the e-mails taken down. Why would that be?

Some of you may think it's meaningless or even petty to put this exchange on the site, but the truth is that we deal with kind of thing daily and ocassionally it's good to let the light of day shine down. You'll notice that I still haven't commented on Eddie's claims.

UPDATE 2:

MaryEllen has posted an article at www.examiner.com comparing the JREF to Sylvia Browne's organization, among other things. I left a comment to correct some factual errors on her behalf. She said that she'd be deleting comments from JREF folks, so I don't know if she'll leave it. I guess this is what Eddie meant when he angrily said "You're starting a war."

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (68) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Permanent bans
written by Adrian Lopez, October 22, 2009

Banning a person for life for having multiple people share a single account seems rather excessive. If it were being used to deceive or gain an advantage (sock puppets) then I might understand, but a permanent suspension after a single strike seems overly strict. I don't envy moderators their job, but it seems to me that "zero tolerance" policies are rarely a good idea. A permanent ban should require a much more serious offense than this.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +29

@Adrian Lopez
written by JeffWagg, October 22, 2009

You have a point, in fact that topic is under consideration by our moderation team. However, when you consider that MaryEllen stated several times that she was finished with the forum, it hardly seems like an issue in this particular case.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +13

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

...
written by pakeha, October 22, 2009

I remember the thread well.
I actually went around to experience at first hand one of mr Benitez' videos and visited the lady's website.
Out of compassion, I'd prefer not to comment on the video.
The website, however was spooky. It's what you would expect from a teenager who's a fan of both "Buffy" and "Left Behind" and has made a random mix of their elements.
Anyway. Once it became clear the lady was 'channeling' her employer in her posts, I assumed the inevitable ban would provide an end to the thread and life would go on.
Wrong, I was.

I've read through the e-mail exchange and am still reeling under the impact of seeing the words "Mensa", "Sylvia Browne", "televised challenge" and "message from the angels" in such close proximity to each another.

Too harsh, the moderaters' decision?
No. Forum members posted instructions of how to apply for posted links, showed interest in the challenge itself. When it was clear the whole thing with spam and worse than spam, even to the point of the lady vowing to dedicate space in her book on us, well, it didn't need any message from the angels to know what would happen.
And when it was clear the lady was 'channeling' her client, it seemed to me the ban was more like the merciful vet's injection to a suffering animal than anything else.
It will be intersting to see how this plays out, if at all.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +21

...
written by wardenclyffe, October 22, 2009

I also think that perhaps the ban was a bit too harsh. Of course they should have read the user agreement before they began posting. But really, who does? I certainly did not. But I was not coming to the forum to cause trouble.

I am a poster in the thread in question. While I find it frustrating that none of my questions were even addressed by the banned poster(s), I was still finding the thread educational, and I was saddened to see them go.

I see no problem if MaryEllen O'Brien is quoting Mr. Benitez in her posts as long as that is clearly deliniated, which it was with the possible exception of one case. But even that case made it clear who was writing. If they do it again, they should be banned. If they don't, I suspect that they will find another way to get themselves banned eventually.

It just seemed a little harsh to ban a new member for messing up in (what appears to be) a non-malicious way.

I know that they were NOT banned for anything they believed in, and their accusation that they were banned for their beliefs is ridiculous. There are many others in the JREF Forum who share their beliefs and play nice. There are others in the Forum who share their beliefs and DON'T play nice. They are sometimes suspended or banned. They were playing nice, and I honestly think this was a newbie mistake that they will not make again.

If they are serious about taking the Million Dollar Challenge (and I doubt they are), then it would be unfortunate if they could not participate in the Forum.

I understand "rules is rules," but if I had a vote, I'd bring them back on probation.

Ward

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +13

I agree that banning is a bit extreme
written by MarkEMarkEMark, October 22, 2009

It's a bit like getting Al Capone on tax evasion. I'd not read the thread before, but found it quite entertaining. Seems a shame to ban for life.

humour:
Free homeopathy for life, everyone!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

...
written by Marsh_MSS, October 22, 2009

Interesting indeed - I wrote a little about Mr Benitez's challenge for our website (http://www.merseysideskeptics....ging-lies/) and spoke about it on the Righteous Indignation podcast, but couldn't figure out his angle on the challenge - either he was a guy who genuinely believed other psychics were frauds and wanted to expose them, or he was setting up a lame-duck challenge which someone like Sylvia would then be able to pass and thus claim legitimacy. With his appeal to the power of Sylvia in your email exchange, and his libelling of Randi a fraud, I think I have my answer.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +11

...
written by pervel, October 22, 2009

We will advise Sylvia Browne on the disbelief of the Randi Foundation in any kind of God as well.

No no no! Please don't! Not that! smilies/grin.gif

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +22

...
written by pakeha, October 23, 2009

Well done, Marsh_MSS!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by Ausduck, October 23, 2009

At the end of the day, rules is rules. He who runs the blog, controls the blog, and has the final say on the memebership - the great frisbee knows I've been bumped off blogs where my only transgression has been rational discourse and certainly not a outright breaking of the terms and conditions. I actually think that some of the skeptical blogs are a heck of a lot more tolerant than they need to be, in the interest of free and open discourse and debate.

And I'm with pervel... oh noes, ppppllleasse don't tell on us to Sylvia, pppllllease!!!

smilies/cheesy.gif

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +8

...
written by Rrose Selavy, October 23, 2009

Sorry. Jeff, whatever the issues involved, did the sender of those emails give you permission/consent to publish confidential correspondence?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -2

...
written by MadScientist, October 23, 2009

Hmm ... I'm sure I inadvertently break the rules now and then. :}

Since Mr. Benitez is famous, can I be famous too? Is he world-famous like the Bronskys (To Be or Not To Be, Mel Brooks) - limited to some area?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by AndyD, October 23, 2009

I agree that banning for a single indiscretion seems harsh. I assumed at first that it was for apparent advertising with repeated suggestions to go and listen to Benitez's music. Like others here, I'd never heard of him before reading that thread so JREF might be a useful place to market a product, if only for a bit of Google juice.

The apparent delusions of grandeur from O'Brien and Benitez are just dumbfounding. Why would I care if someone pays the necessary fee to be a member of MENSA? From what I understand, the IQ bar isn't that high. What's far more telling, for me, is the apparent inability of either of them to just skim through the forum sub-sections and see countless discussions with believers, some lasting for years without those believers being banned.

The thread appeared to be largely a civil question and answer format, without the answer component and lots of bizarre stuff about angels and Jesus - none of which amounted to answers. But what do I know, I don't even post under a full name?

Do I need to supply a photo for the book?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +8

...
written by sailor, October 23, 2009

"Sorry. Jeff, whatever the issues involved, did the sender of those emails give you permission/consent to publish confidential correspondence?"

Prose, read the black type carefully

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

...
written by BMN, October 23, 2009

I don't really see a good reason to ban people using the same account. Though obviously they would have to take joint responsibility if one of them does something that warrants banning; because it's not a moderator's duty to determine whether "someone" has a virtual split personality disorder.
On the other hands rules are rules, and a man's forum is his castle. However, it would have been appropriate to at least specify the reason for banning in the ban-notice.

On another note, I can scarcely believe the arrogance dripping from that first letter. Not to mention the paranoia in the later ones.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by Rrose Selavy, October 23, 2009

I have.
I also note the first line.

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential

Even if the statrement wasn't there, I also don't see where your reply addresses my question.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -5

...
written by latsot, October 23, 2009

Rrose:
"CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential "

Yeah, and perhaps the religious should declare their nonsense as sacrosanct. Oh, wait, they do. And we don't take the slightest notice of that either. The similarity is bluster. Are there any differences?

Permission is not required.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -3

copyright approval
written by AndyD, October 23, 2009

@Rrose

" If you are not the named recipient, or have otherwise received this communication in error, ... do not disclose its contents to any other person,..."

As Jeff was the named recipient, the notification doesn't apply which, I assume, is why he responded "Thank you for giving me implicit permission to publish your correspondence."

I think that if MaryEllen is gonna tell Sylvia Browne about our atheism, we should tell Richard Saunders about her belief in clairvoyance and angels. That'll show her. Go get her Richard.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +11

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

@Rrose Selavy
written by JeffWagg, October 23, 2009

MaryEllen's notice only applies to people receiving the mail accidentally. As I was the correct recipient, I'm free to do what I will with it. I was never asked not to publish this. MaryEllen announced that she would be publishing all of this in a book, so any confidence she may have assumed was lost.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +15

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Contract after the fact
written by Karl_Withakay, October 23, 2009

Rose,
Perhaps you don't realize that although such disclaimers are widely used, they are also widely regarded as useless an unenforceable, even if the recipient of the email is not the intended recipient. It's the job of the sender and recipient to make sure it doesn't end up in the wrong hands. You can't impose terms and conditions on someone after the fact. That's why you have to break a license seal on software before you open it and agree to a license before you are allowed to install the software.

"Just because Jeff assumed permission was granted doesn't make it so. "
Even if we were to consider the disclaimer enforceable in some way, by specifically enumerating the terms she did in her disclaimer, she gave implied consent to any use not specifically prohibited by the disclaimer. The disclaimer contained very specific conditions that restrict the use of the email by anyone other than the intended recipient, but contained absolutely no restrictions on any use by the intended recipient. If the sender had wanted to restrict use by the intended recipient, the disclaimer should have saidenumerated those conditions, though it still would have been unenforceable.

Your contention that the tag "CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and also may be privileged. " applies to all recipients is irrelevant (and the second part implies otherwise anyway) since it does not enumerated what is acceptable use of said confidential information. The part about it possibly being privileged actually weakens the entire disclaimer somewhat as no legal relationship exists under which privileged communication can exist, making the disclaimer generic in nature, and thereby not specifically applicable to this particular email.

Of her own free will, she sent an email to Jeff without getting prior agreement on terms and conditions related to the use of that email. I don't believe that the JREF has any published policy to keep any correspondence confidential. There is no law that prevents publishing of emails. Jeff was free to do with that email whatever he wanted.

An actual lawyer may disagree and chime in, but understand that there is no universal agreement on the enforceability of email disclaimers. I'm not a lawyer, but I work at a law firm, and run the email system. I've worked with lawyers on disclaimers quite a bit.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +21

copyright
written by stag, October 23, 2009

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Regards

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Rrose Selavy, October 23, 2009

"They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."

To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.

From the above link.

Jeff could have paraphrased and reported what was in the email , or even possibly quoted small parts, if he really wanted to . Even if the disclaimer wasn't even there - It's the mass cut & paste that I object to, and the assumption that it's all right to do so.
While it may not the enforceable it doesn't make it right or good practice.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -7

@Rrose Selavy
written by JeffWagg, October 23, 2009

Rrose, I actually agree with you. We don't publish e-mail without permission in normal circumstances. But as MaryEllen was already going to publish the letters (without express permission), she had granted me implicit permission to do the same. I do wonder why you're not concerned with that.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +10

Not relevant to the disclaimer
written by Karl_Withakay, October 23, 2009

We've shifted the goalposts a little on the complaint about posting the email. Copyright issues are a different story, but the original complaint was in regards to posting an email that contained a confidentiality disclaimer, not that an email was was posted. The copyright issues are completely independent of whether there was a disclaimer or not.

Jeff's use of the entire email still can be considered to fall under fair use, though it was not good internet etiquette. However, MaryEllen fired the first shot across the bow when she announced that she would be publishing all of this in a book

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Chief Honcho
written by randi, October 23, 2009

I assure Eddie Benitez and Ms. O'Brien that I had nothing to do with this matter; it was all handled as stated. In fact, I wasn't even aware of it until now. I trust Jeff and others to monitor and manage the Forum without my input.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +19

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Is this benetiz fellow the same one
written by Xiphos, October 23, 2009

who trolls all the skeptic websites with death threats for Wagg and Randi? Also why would this nut be considered "famous"?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

Not Fair To Pick On Those That Just Got The internet.
written by Sadhatter, October 23, 2009

While i am a huge fan of the jref. I find Picking on Mary Ellen , and boy wonder downright mean. I mean it is obvious from their posting and expectations , that their first experience with the internet was hours before they started posting here.

I mean while most of us are aware that forums use screen names, they were not. They seem completely unaware of the ease someone could post their information to any number of websites devoted to screwing with people. Which leads to the obvious conclusion, they have no internet experience and are therefore, in their innocence not fair game for ridicule.

But in all seriousness i find their tone, and expectations insane at best. This is the internet, stated accurately as a whirling vortex of hatred and foul language , with the odd island of civil discourse. It is a place where genuinely copywrighted material is posted within hours of its release, if not before, and that ones achievements are assured to be mocked by some segment of the population.

I notice this in a good portion of believers though, when it is their beliefs that are being questioned, suddenly it is an attack, and anything that could possibly be twisted to be considered rude is suddenly an outright hate filled diatribe on par with a white power speech. But on the flipside it is perfectly o.k. to announce that science is ruining the world, does not know what it is talking about, etc.

As advice, if Mary is still reading. This is the internet , you need to have a thicker skin especially if your planning to reference art of yours ( whether musical or paranormal). Take it from someone who from time to time will pop into forums for a film he was in ( that is admittedly so bad it almost qualifies for the mdc. But still bought by lionsgate) if your going to take offense at every little jab, you might as well just not even bother. While your psychic meanderings may fly on your website full of believers, if you post them here, what do you expect?

Though this is getting a bit long i would like to say, beyond the believer, getting easily offended garbage, what insane ego's! Reality check, you are a musician that most of us have not heard of, ( though admittedly my tastes lean a lot more toward heavy metal that pop. ) and his obsessed manager. No one should be giving you special treatment, hell if David Brockie himself came to me stating he had psychic powers, even my obsession with him would not budge me on my stance.

And finally, rules is rules. The rules state clearly one account per person, if they read these they could easily have made 2 accounts. And if they bend the rules for these people, then it is not fair to the next people. But take this with a grain of salt, because i am one of the few who actually read every software agreement, etc. that comes his way which i understand not many people do.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +7

@Xiphos
written by JeffWagg, October 23, 2009

No, that person, if it's who I think you're referring to, is someone completely different. MaryEllen and Eddie bear no similarities.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

The mention of the disclaimer was not explicit...
written by Karl_Withakay, October 23, 2009

did the sender of those emails give you permission/consent to publish confidential correspondence?

but your terming the email "confidential" implies (perhaps unintentionally) that you were complaining about publishing an email that contained a confidentiality disclaimer. You reinforced that with your subsequent comments where you specifically brought up the disclaimer.

"Fair use" rarely involves posting whole masses of correspondence

Rarely, but not never.
In this case, the entity of the email served to illustrate a more complete picture of the nature of the exchange. Since there's really no commercial interest value in the email itself, copyright isn't really a major concern here.

Common courtesy and etiquette are really at issue here, and it is generally common courtesy to not publish emails without prior consent unless you have an explicitly stated policy that states you may choose to publish any emails sent, as PZ Meyers does.

I will concede to Jeff, that by adding the disclaimer, the sender unintentionally implied Jeff had whatever rights were not specifically prohibited by the disclaimer. Perhaps Jeff should have not taken advantage of this, and perhaps he would have published anyway, but it illustrates some of the pitfalls of using disclaimers in the first place. They imply that all other terms, conditions and considerations are waived in lieu of the terms specifically enumerated in the disclaimer.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

A silly aside
written by Sadhatter, October 23, 2009

You know one of the greatest poets of our time (mars) accurately summed up the disclaimer with a very deep and intellectual song entitled. " F*&k Them".

Which really sums up my opinion on their right to complain about publicity they obviously want anyway.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

@ Karl_Withakay,
written by Rrose Selavy, October 23, 2009

The first implcit mention of the disclaimer was "sailor"'s post directed to me as "read the black type carefully "

which is why I then responded to it but my initial reply to sailor was:

"Even if the statrement (sic) (ie the disclaimer) wasn't there, I also don't see where your reply addresses my question"

the word "confidential " was picked up on but to be honest I would still be concerned if the disclaimer wasn't there It just reiteratd what I felt was happening- "private" emails being published.

yes, it's an issue of etiquette and courtesy but that went out the window when things got nasty.

oh well. Time to move on I guess.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -5

Ah, another one!
written by Michieux, October 23, 2009

I't hackneyed and much overused, especially my me, but it's just so apt in regard to Mr. Benitez: He's a legend in his own lunchtime!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by gabriel, October 23, 2009

Confidentiallity agreements can't be forced onto a party against that parties will. Someone (Maryellen) can call her email confidential all she likes but they aren't. If she sends it to someone or to an organization that hasn't agreed to keep it confidential then she has no reasonable expectation of confidentiallity. You can't enforce prior restraint. If you want something to be condfidential you have to have an agreement to that effect before you pass that something along.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +7

Ah, and yet another one, as well, too!
written by Michieux, October 23, 2009

I was a little hasty with my previous post. It seems that not only is Mr. Benitez a board-certified legend in his own lunchtime, but his publicist, MaryEllen O'Brien, is too! Two legends! Two lunchtimes! Will the world ever be the same? Can there be enough caffè latte for two such powerful IQs?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

Reprieve, please
written by Michieux, October 23, 2009

When all is said and done, I'd like to add mine to the voices pleading mercy on these two. I'm certain it was an innocent mistake on the part of a new member of the forum, and as such should have merited a warning, rather than immediate termination.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

+1 to very limited application of zero tolerance
written by Karl_Withakay, October 23, 2009

Back to the point, I understand the policy exists, but other than gross violations, I think AT LEAST 1 warning before permanent banning should be considered for most policies.

I would also hope that any policies are as uniformly enforced as possible. It would not be fair if the policies were enforced more often on people we disagree with or even don't like to hear from as a convenient way to silence those voices.

We must hold ourselves to a higher standard than other, more close minded forums and blogs have. Besides, discussions are usually more interesting when they are not held in an echo chamber; we should go out of our way to retain dissenting voices.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

As an example...
written by Karl_Withakay, October 23, 2009

It takes a lot of effort to get yourself permanently banned from Respectful Insolence and Science Based Medicine. Only a small handful have ever earned the honor.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Yes and No
written by Ted Powell, October 23, 2009

I'm also a member of American MENSA. Meaning, I'm a whole lot smarter than most of them.
Yes, you are (I checked).
No, it means you're good at writing IQ tests. That is the only criterion for admission.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Bravo! Another Quota Met!, Lowly rated comment [Show]

More Christian than the Christians
written by GODOFPIE, October 23, 2009

This is what is great about the JREF. When treated badly by believers, we turn the other cheek. When talked to disparagingly, Jeff answers politely and succinctly. And when members suggest that the banning, while technically correct, might have been to harsh, Jeff and the mod team are willing to take a 2nd look. To paraphrase Rob Zombie "More christian than the christians."

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +9

...
written by Skeptigirl, October 23, 2009

The threats are hilarious.

The ban for other people using the account is something I don't understand the reason behind. It would appear to be an excessive action against a minor issue. Is there something about multiple users that is a big deal? I would think it was the account owner's problem if someone posted something they were embarrassed by.

Perhaps reconsideration of the rule would be a useful exercise?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by outsorcerer, October 23, 2009

What bothers me on this is that it seems Jeff "baited the hook" on civility during the email exchange. Calling O'Brien "paranoid" was the first "personal" stone thrown. Moderators and administrators should be emotionless when levying punishment and administratively responding to them...Jeff should have had thicker skin than to stoop to slinging small rocks.

That said, I believe the ban should stick. Rules are rules. Sure it sucks when you're banned for something minor (as I consider this to be), but ignorance is no excuse...at least not in the US court system, anyway. next time read those Terms and Conditions, before clicking "I agree."

Or print them out for reference....

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by AndyD, October 23, 2009

@ outsorcerer

Not quite. Eddie called Randi a fraud before Jeff called them paranoid. Comments from both MEO and EB were insulting of the JREF and its members from the start, with conspiratorial accusations of prejudice, malice and stupidity.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

@AndyD
written by outsorcerer, October 23, 2009

True, though with the exception of the "fraud" comment, the rest of the insulting language was either by proxy, or simply contained in an email from O'Brien to Benitez that we happen to be forwarded when Benitez replied to Jeff.

Either way it is my belief that moderators and administrators should remain impersonal (an admittedly tough thing to do) when dealing with these type things, and calling someone paranoid is a bit on the unprofessional side.

Let's not lose the moral high ground on these christians (yes I appreciate the irony there) by letting the dialouge devolve into petty name calling.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by ianmacm, October 23, 2009

I'm also a member of American MENSA. Meaning, I'm a whole lot smarter than most of them.

Quote from James Randi:

People who are smart get into Mensa. People who are really smart look around and leave.

http://ponyurl.com/fyp7qd

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

...
written by Alan3354, October 24, 2009

Being barred for life is traumatic. It takes several minutes to think of another Username and password.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +12

...
written by GeekGoddess, October 24, 2009

Why are people so arrogant as to assume they have a RIGHT to post on the JREF forum? Or that they are being censored if they are banned? I have the right of free speech, guaranteed by the Constitution, but that right does not obligate any newspaper to give me a voice.

The fact that they are upset about being *silenced* from a forum thread that likely had maybe a hundred or so viewers is indeed narcissistic.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

...
written by Alareth, October 24, 2009

Only Ms. O'Brien has been banned, I see no reason why Mr. Benitez cannot open his own account if he wishes to continue use of the forums.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by bookitty, October 24, 2009

My initial reaction to the ban was that it was a bit harsh for a first offense. In addition, the forums need a dissenting opinion so that it isn't just mutual admiration and arguing semantics.

However, it would have been the matter of a simple civil email to get the ban lifted. "I was not aware of the multi-party clause. Now that I am, two accounts will be opened and the rules will be respected. I ask that you reconsider."

The forum has a full quota of arrogant woo-peddlers who feel that their special insight exempts them from common decency. It certainly won't miss these two.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

Hooo, boy....
written by Roadtoad, October 24, 2009

First, it's agreed upon at the start, You Will Not Allow Anyone Else To Use Your Account. Period. It's called "integrity."

It's also called "accountability." So, yes, the banning was appropriate. I may or may not like it, but them's the rules, and they were agreed upon at the start. Don't like 'em? Don't join.

Second, Eddie Benitez has demonstrated why such a rule exists. Sure, he can start more websites, but the reality remains, most of us want the one we can trust.

Sorry, Dumba... I mean, Boz... I mean... Oh, hell. You get the idea.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Steel Rat, October 24, 2009

If you tell me something and say "Shh, don't tell anyone else!" I'm not obligated to comply. Nor is it illegal to disclose said statement. Unless, of course, Jeff had signed a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. Email is the same thing. There's no copyright infringement here, nor even a breach of internet etiquette. Anyone who's not a total moron knows that emails aren't private. The sender or the recipient can do anything they want with the text. Attachments might be a different story.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -1

...
written by Jim Lippard, October 24, 2009

Steel Rat: You're correct with respect to confidentiality--there is no obligation to comply with that statement and keep the information in the emails confidential. That, however, doesn't mean there is no copyright infringement from republication. I suspect that a DMCA notice could be effective with JREF's upstream provider, and all bets are off about the success of an actual lawsuit given the current state of copyright law. I don't see any implicit permission for republication, either. They suggested that they would write about the incident in a book, they didn't say that they would republish the emails, and even if they did, a threat to infringe copyright doesn't grant a license for republication.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by ianmacm, October 24, 2009

In the age of the Internet, adding legal blather about confidentiality to a communication means very little. Some websites specifically ask people not to do this, eg here http://opentracker.blog.h3q.com/about/. There is a theoretical risk of a copyright lawsuit for republishing the material, so perhaps JREF could make clear that all communications to the site will be considered public domain.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

"I'm also a member of American MENSA. Meaning, I'm a whole lot smarter than most of them."
written by Brookston John, October 25, 2009

Please tell me that people who are *REALLY* members of MENSA don't think this way?

"I'm SMARTER then YOU, I belong to MENSA!" is how I understood that statement.
Ludicrous.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by ianmacm, October 25, 2009

Members of MENSA are some of the biggest imaginable believers in Woo. This is why Randi left the organization, although he had an IQ of 168 at the age of 12.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by AndyD, October 25, 2009

I still don't understand why Eddie's angels didn't whisper in his ear and warn him that this (either the forum issue or subsequent email exchange) might not end well. Something like "Err, Eddie, if you use MaryEllen's account, it will be deemed to be naughty and you WILL be banned" could have saved him so much apparent anguish.

Why do angels and spirits never seem to be able to perform the simplest and most useful tasks for those people who received the "God-given gift" of being able to communicate with them? Is God just a practical joker?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Steel Rat, October 25, 2009

Please tell me that people who are *REALLY* members of MENSA don't think this way?

"I'm SMARTER then YOU, I belong to MENSA!" is how I understood that statement.
Ludicrous.

Don't be silly. They would say "I'm smarter than you..." not "then you..."

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

Yes, Steel Rat...
written by Brookston John, October 25, 2009

And they're better keyboardists than I, too.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Update
written by JeffWagg, October 26, 2009

MaryEllen posted a response at http://www.examiner.com/x-8611...orted-here

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Roo, October 26, 2009

Apologies if this has been mentioned above.

In the final tossing of the toys from his pram, Benitez states "FROM: Eddie Bennitez TO: Jeff Wagg
I did'nt think you would publish emails on the Randi site. It comfirms that Randi and his staff have no integrity."(sic)

Yet - prior to this he/Mary-Ellen states:

"You can now be assured that there will be a chapter in our book, Angels on My Stage, entitled: "The Amazing Randi?"Thank you for all the material."

So what point are they(?) trying to make here?

I wonder what will happen on 26 December? If previous years are anything to go by, the turning point will occur when all rotten Xmas gifts are re"turn"ed to the shops by their unlucky recipients. Nothing mystical about THAT prediction...

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Roo, October 26, 2009

Also - what point are they trying to make with their MENSA statement? Although not a member of Mensa, I have a recorded IQ of 159. Yet I would NEVER, EVER assume that this meant that I was in any way better, or more worthy, than any other person.

It strikes me that this person is merely trying to "justify" a bullying swipe at the JREF forum members. Just plain nasty.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by dlorde, October 26, 2009

I'm disappointed that MaryEllen got banned for a first offence - it was clear to all that she was totally ignorant of internet forums and had no idea she was breaking the rules. A warning would have been much more reasonable. Not only have we lost an entertaining thread, but JRef has given them valuable evidence of skeptics' apparent refusal to tolerate ~~woo~~ differing views. When I consider some of the gibberish threads that have wittered on here for years, this does seem somewhat harsh treatment.

But, whatever...

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

Dec 26
written by The Central Scrutinizer, October 31, 2009

They made it sound like something bad was going to happen to Randi and/or the JREF on Dec 26th. Dammit Jeff, swallow your pride and apologize NOW! Before it's too late!!!!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

Last Updated on Monday, 26 October 2009 06:26