Preciesely.
“I like the cut of that man’s gibberish!” – The Tick
Stranger
What frickin board are you reading?
BTW, How is that Randi Challenge coming along? Win the million bucks yet?
Oh, so that’s what it’s about. Talk about obsessed. You just can’t leave it alone, can you.
Was somebody else using your account without your knowledge when the above quote was posted?
That quote is not the words of somebody who realized the “moon guy” challenge was meant as parody.
Try
and
un…der…stand
I
was
joking.
Now, give it a rest. Please.
Lamest.
Wiggle.
I.
Have.
EVER!
Seen.
I’m done talking to you. Get over it.
Most stubborn skeptics have an agenda. Doesn’t change the fact that they believe the holocaust (at least as commonly conceived) never happened. Something similar happens with stubborn believers, i.e., those who believe without evidence and/or in the face of evidence.
Bugger! Fixed the wrong pronoun, then the edit window expired. Worse, now the quote is inaccurate. Let’s try this again.
Most stubborn skeptics have an agenda. Doesn’t change the fact that these believe the holocaust (at least as commonly conceived) never happened. Something similar happens with stubborn believers, i.e., those who believe without evidence and/or in the face of evidence.
I am NOT obsessive. Am not, am not, am not!
I agree that Holocaust Deniers are not skeptics.
Skeptics, IMHO, do not accept common knowledge, or secondary sources; they hunt down and evaluate primary data. They also do not create a large body of secondary sources of dubious worth that might be cited by others.
The only agenda most skeptics have is to be cranky old farts or angry young men.
Has this thread gotten to this point yet? If not, somebody call me when it does.
We? We landed on the moon? You, maybe, landed on the moon. I never did. I’m pretty sure some other guys did, but We did not. I have never flown farther than Los Angeles. I don’t even have a damn passport. Surely, you need one to leave the planet. 
Hey J666, welcome to the Board. I am using skeptic and skepticism in the ordinary sense (from Merriam-Webster) of “an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.” Skeptics come in many shapes, flavors and spins. See, e.g., R.T. Carroll’s Introduction to the Skeptic’s Dictionary. In any event, I don’t think the position can be sustained that only someone approaching the problem with an epistemology of which you approve is entitled to the label.
BTW, great cartoon, Cosmic Relief. And, AskNot, it’s to get back that you need the passport.
TWEEEEET!!!
James Randi is neither a topic nor a participant in this thread.
Jabbing at other posters regarding ancient battles, while possibly acceptable when done in good humor for very brief periods, becomes both boring and jerkish if carried on for more than a couple of posts.
That topic and related jabs will now cease in this thread.
[ Moderating ]
Well, it was before 9/11. Things were more relaxed.
I am surprised at that definition. I don’t think skepticism is an “attitude”. (I really like “disposition to incredulity” though.)
*… runs over to Merriam-Webster … * hmm, that is the complete quote
*… runs over to Bartleby’s … checks the American Heritage … * ah, yes, this is the usage with which I am familar:
“One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.” No attitude about it.
But, how can I approve of epistemology?
*… back to Merriam-Webster … * Oh, MW says “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity” [emphasis mine]
And which problem are we approaching here? The moon landing or HD? I’m losing track.
Anyhow, my original point was that most HDers don’t just doubt, they actively misrepresent, and disseminate those misrepresentations.
No you don’t! You just need a tab off this here blotter! 
Are we feeling a little overly literal today?
For our purposes, I assume we are talking about HDers. That was context of the statement to which askeptic objected, with which you joined.
Still, I’m afraid I don’t understand your point. I’ll agree that HDers misrepresent facts and are, patently, bad historians. I’ll further agree that their misrepresentations are agenda driven. The question, I think, is whether they may fairly be described as skeptics. And, here’s where it gets interesting, whether anyone with agenda-driven doubts (refusals to accept) may be called a skeptic. I think the answer is "yes’ and “yes.” If you think otherwise, why? Further, are we talking about substance or semantics?
No true Sceptsman would lie, or accept lies from others.