Q Transmissions

Seance show links

Posted in links by Heather on November 1, 2008

Thanks so much to everyone who donated!

We raised $1,420 on our show and brought the FunDrive grand total to over $100,000! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

Everyone who donated gets a Q Transmissions sticker. Congrats to our two grand prize winners – one gets din-din (Hooters!) w/ Des and I, the other gets to pick a show topic. Whee!!

Here are some of the links, well, all of the links, I used to prep for tonight’s seance show.

The ever helpful Wikipedia

About.com’s How to Conduct a Seance

How to from the New Age Directory

SoYouWanna’s version

The Ideomotor effect

Bible versus condemning contacting the dead

I know, I’m an atheist, so what do I care what the Bible says? Well, I usually don’t. However, there are some smart bits in there, like this one: “Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.” – Leviticus 19:31 (okay, except for the last sentence…)

Chriss Angel does a seance, part one, two, and three.

Derren Brown does a seance (and does a much better job), part one, two, three, four, five, and six.

Again, a HUGE thanks to all who donated. CJSR cannot exist without the support of its listeners. I’d write, “bless you”, but that’s not very becoming of an atheist. Um, how about “thank Science for you”? No, too South Park. I know: thanks. Thanks so very, very much.


13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Angry Robot said, on November 3, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    As someone who donated money, I feel it’s my duty to point out a few things.

    A Wikipedia article does not constitute research. It takes, what, three seconds to find it, and it could say anything. In any other context, using a wiki article would be lazy. For a skeptical program, it’s absurd.

    And since CJSR fell short of it’s FunDrive goal for this year, maybe Heather should put a nickle in jar for every time she starts a sentence with “I saw this thing on YouTube…”


  2. Heather said, on November 3, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    Does it count that I read it? If I find a wiki article doesn’t say anything, I don’t post it.

    As someone who donated money, does that mean you have free reign to post dick-ish comments anonymously? Apparently so…

  3. Angry Robot said, on November 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    “Does it count that I read it?”

    That’s good. You should read things before you post them. As research on your blog, for the skeptical radio program that you host.

    I may be a dick, but I’m not sure you know what skepticism is. It has to do with evidence, not opinion. And your evidence would not meet the standards of a junior high research paper.

    Read this, and figure out whether you’re a skeptic or just a bitch.



  4. Ian said, on November 3, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    “Read this, and figure out whether you’re a skeptic or just a bitch.”

    This seems highly uncalled for.

    Do you have some secret evidence that anything they’ve said on Q Transmissions has been fallacious? If not, you’re just being a libellous pig hiding behind internet anonymity.

  5. Ticklish Robot said, on November 3, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    While “Angry Robot” might actually be better named “Asshole Robot”, he does make a point. Opinion doesn’t count for anything, and I’ve found the number of opinions to be more than I’d like.

  6. Heather said, on November 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Thanks, Ian. Glad you’ve got our back. 🙂 (Seriously. Thanks.)

    Angry Robot, I wonder about your motivations.

    If you want to take us to task for not meeting your standards and thereby seek to help us improve, I guess I’m flattered.

    But why so mean? Seriously – yes, I called you a dick, but you came on our blog and started slagging, well, me. And I’m a bitch ’cause I don’t kneel and say, “Thank you for your firm guidance”?

    Des and I want the show to be the best it can be. I will now only speak for myself – this show is something I enjoy doing. Quite a bit, actually. But it’s something I do as a hobby. I have a job and a burgeoning ukulele career as well. I try to do the research required for each show, but sometimes I guess I’m not going to meet everyone’s standards.

    And when someone is so jackass-y about their criticisms, valid or not, it makes me want to ignore them altogether.

    Which is a shame. Perhaps we should focus less on opinions and more on facts.

    I’m gonna consult Wikipedia and youTube and see what they think.

  7. Heather said, on November 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    Ticklish Robot –

    I’m totally gonna listen you to you. ‘Cause you’re not a dick.

    Which shows in particular are more opiniony and less facty?

    What? I like to type in Buffy-speak.

  8. Lumpy said, on November 3, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    The ability of the Internet to create virtual tough guys (and gals) and its effect of throwing civility out the window never ceases to amaze me. If all the people posting in this thread were face to face, I’d wager that intelligent discourse may break out, and could even result in an open exchange of ideas and constructive criticism. Deity forfend!

    Is Wiki a good place to base your research on? Of course not. But this is not a scientific program, it is a skeptical program that is also meant to entertain. Wiki is a good place to discover more information about a topic in a way that will lead you to ask more questions and do further research. In this context I believe that is the purpose of the show itself, to give a forum in which people can present other research, experience and opinions on what is being discussed. As a part of this research, a guest speaker was invited into the studio. Now it would not have been hard for both hosts (or anyone reading this for that matter) to be on the offensive from the outset, but that would have probably resulted in the guest either leaving or not doing what she was there to do. It seemed this person believed in what they were saying, so cutting her beliefs to pieces at the start would not have resulted in an open discourse, and while briefly entertaining, it would not have made for a very interesting show. It would seem to me that Heather was playing the role of the “mark” so that this lady would do what she was there to do, and Des was holding down the skeptical front. Good cop bad cop, and in this case it worked. The show was entertaining and listeners got some insight into the topic.

    Having said this, if Heather was not in fact acting in character to aid in the flow of the program, then I agree that perhaps more effort should be put into her ukulele career, but I would like to offer her the benefit of the doubt. And to the OP, it is a call in show, so perhaps next time you are interested in the depth of research performed on a topic then you could call in and ask about it, I am sure that would be entertaining too. I certainly hope you weren’t expecting in depth scientific research regarding the paranormal from a Halloween radio show seance.

  9. Ticklish Robot said, on November 3, 2008 at 8:40 pm

    The Death show was more facty. The Seance show was much less facty.

    The less jovial robot was correct about the youtube comment too.

  10. Heather said, on November 3, 2008 at 9:27 pm

    Whoa = I adjust the clock and look what happens – everything’s out of order. Cool!

    Tickly – do I mention youTube a lot? Or are you referring to the links I posted? If the latter, I do quite like Derren Brown and find his demonstrations quite illuminating. I don’t recall mentioning youTube on-air on a regular basis, but I’ll try to watch myself nonetheless.

    Lumpy – Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it.

    You’re right – the internet can bring out the worst in people. I would like people to call if they’re unhappy – it makes the show so much better.

    You’re also right about how tricky it can sometimes be to juggle skepticism and being a respectful host.

    Also, yeah, this was a Hallowe’en FunDrive show – we wanted it to be fun and kinda silly.

  11. Heather said, on November 3, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    Hey, everyone – I adjusted the blog’s clock earlier and it screwed up the order of the comments. I adjusted the times on the postings so they’d be in order, but they don’t necessarily reflect the true time of posting. They are accurate as to the day and order, though.

    Sorry for the editing.

  12. Nathan said, on November 3, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    what then heck, I missed sure missed some wackaloon didn’t I.

    well Heather you know I donated and I don’t have a problem with wiki as long as it is an accurately referenced article, besides you didn’t post only the wiki article either, you used multiple references.

    sounds like angry is in the running against John Edward for Biggest Douche in the Universe

  13. Desiree said, on November 4, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    Whoo. Tensions are high. All this angst about a skeptical talk show. Have I mentioned that I honestly and truly love you people?

    Here are some thoughts about the preceding comments, in no particular order:

    1. I had originally assumed that Angry’s initial comment was coming from frustration about those who think a wiki article is “research”. It sounded to me like he’s had that conversation a few times already, and this was yet another example of what he viewed as people not taking research seriously. I can empathize. I did not think his ire was necessarily aimed at Heather or Q Transmissions. But then again, I cut angry, evidence-oriented people a lot of slack, as I am often one myself. (Note: I say “he” because English has not supplied me with a gender-neutral term.)

    2. Heather falls into more of the liberal arts category, while I deeply dig the sciencey goodness. If we only showcased the spiritual and paranormal stuff, the program would end up “too silly to even bother debunking” (good comment, you know who you are). If we went solely with a show about science and tech, you might as well listen to TED Talks, because they do it better anyway. We’re still trying to find our balance and some shows hit it better than others.

    3. That said, I’ve wanted to talk a bit more about science and research on our show, but I wasn’t sure if there was an audience. The responses to this post have answered my question. 🙂

    4. I am now planning for an entire episode on “skepticism” vs. plain old cynicism. Sweet.

    5. We love comments on the blog. But remember, Q Transmissions is a call in show. Please call in if:

    – you have a question.
    – you have a comment.
    – you have criticisms.
    – you have compliments.
    – you have some combination of the above.

    6. Hey… we’re still all on the same team here, right?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: