Indicted in 2010, and yet here in 2014 is the first time I have heard about this:
“…sentencing calculator indicated that Brian is facing a sentence of 70 to 87 months in prison, or between 5.8 years and 7.25 years.”
Did I miss mention of this in SI, Skeptic or any skeptical podcast?
Sad.
Indicted in 2010, and yet here in 2014 is the first time I have heard about this: http://www.skepticalabyss.com/?p=291 "...sentencing calculator indicated that Brian is facing a sentence of 70 to 87 months in prison, or between 5.8 years and 7.25 years." Did I miss mention of this in SI, Skeptic or any skeptical podcast? Sad.Yes, it has to do with his activities with Ebay. He proclaims his innocence, despite the plea deal. He has mentioned this on his podcasts. He attended Brigham Young University. Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know if he was raised a Mormon. His Skeptoid podcasts remain popular. Lois
He is a smart guy. Sadly, I’m disappointed, but he still gets credit for a lot of my own skepticism and for that I thank him. I’m a little peeved at how he asked for donations for skeptoid as thought it was financially challenging effort for him to keep it going.
The skeptic community has been largely silent about this. People said they were waiting for the facts before rendering judgment. Dunning pleading guilty pretty well settles the factual part of the charges. Look for weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth after he gets sentenced to prison: not from Dunning, from his fans.
I used to subscribe to Skeptoid but unsubscribed a few years ago when I noticed how cleverly Dunning spun situations and cherry picked data to back his claims. He also spent too much time arguing against things which were obviously false and needed no debunking, as well as building straw man arguments to make his points seem stronger than they were.
He has mentioned this on his podcasts.I thought I heard most of them and don't recall this being mentioned, but am well aware that I could have missed it. I checked out some of his archived episodes and the closest possibility of one of them that could have mentioned this situation is no longer there. So I'm assuming that was it and it was probably removed at the advice of his lawyer.
He attended Brigham Young University. Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know if he was raised a Mormon.Perhaps raised*, but I doubt he is still one, since I know a couple of his episodes debunked some Mormon woo and pseudo history. *UPDATE: A couple of sites claim he is a former Mormon.
The skeptic community has been largely silent about this.Has SGU mentioned anything? I have missed some of their podcasts and don't have time to go back and listen to every back episode so I don't know. I try to keep up on all issues of Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic, and I don't recall seeing anything mentioned in either of them.
He also spent too much time arguing agains things which were obviously false and needed no debunking...Isn't that most of skepticism? :-) I mean aren't things like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ESP and UFOs-are-alien-spacecraft obviously false already? But that's what we do! :-)
That’s unfortunate. Though he wasn’t a mover and shaker, I thought he was an asset to the freethought community. Maybe he could redeem himself by contributing the money he received by illegal means to a freethought group.
Lois
. Maybe he could redeem himself by contributing the money he received by illegal means to a freethought group.By what legal right does any freethought group have to such money? Any money received by illegal means needs to go back to the rightful owner.
. Maybe he could redeem himself by contributing the money he received by illegal means to a freethought group.By what legal right does any freethought group have to such money? Any money received by illegal means needs to go back to the rightful owner. I did not say that the money should go to a freethought group INSTEAD of to its legal owner nor did I say that a freethought group has a right to such money. I meant that an equal amount could be given to a freethought group as a form of redemption. Lois
I meant that an equal amount could be given to a freethought group as a form of redemption.I don't know. I think the damage is done and money can't fix it. While you, I and most people on these boards realize that what he has pled guilty to does not affect the logical arguments of skepticism, there are many people out there (people we skeptics need to reach the most) who will use his guilty plea as a bludgeon to beat down skepticism. Even otherwise rational skeptics do the same thing. How many times do skeptics gleefully report that Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion? Hovind's criminal record plays no role in the debate between creationism and evolution. The facts speak for themselves. Yet mentioning Hovind's jail time is still used in an attempt to help in winning hearts and minds for evolution. Dunning's activities will harm skepticism in that regard. Each one of his podcasts should stand or fall on the facts alone presented in them. But True Believers will now gleefully and snidely comment on Dunning the way we have all done on Hovind. And any money donated will seem to the True Believers like an attempt at buying forgiveness, always with the unspoken question of where that money came from.
I meant that an equal amount could be given to a freethought group as a form of redemption.I don't know. I think the damage is done and money can't fix it. While you, I and most people on these boards realize that what he has pled guilty to does not affect the logical arguments of skepticism, there are many people out there (people we skeptics need to reach the most) who will use his guilty plea as a bludgeon to beat down skepticism. Even otherwise rational skeptics do the same thing. How many times do skeptics gleefully report that Kent Hovind is in prison for tax evasion? Hovind's criminal record plays no role in the debate between creationism and evolution. The facts speak for themselves. Yet mentioning Hovind's jail time is still used in an attempt to help in winning hearts and minds for evolution. Dunning's activities will harm skepticism in that regard. Each one of his podcasts should stand or fall on the facts alone presented in them. But True Believers will now gleefully and snidely comment on Dunning the way we have all done on Hovind. And any money donated will seem to the True Believers like an attempt at buying forgiveness, always with the unspoken question of where that money came from. I'm afraid you're right, but we shouldn't give up. Lois
I used to subscribe to Skeptoid but unsubscribed a few years ago when I noticed how cleverly Dunning spun situations and cherry picked data to back his claims. He also spent too much time arguing agains things which were obviously false and needed no debunking, as well as building straw man arguments to make his points seem stronger than they were.I would guess that I cancelled at the same time. I can't remember the episode, but it was about a subject I was very familiar with, and he completely spun it to come to the conclusion he wanted. I was pretty incensed. A lot of people try to inform him, and asked for a correction, and he not only refused to address their proof, he doubled down. I cancelled at that point.