<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Staring at Men Who Stare at Goats</title>
	<atom:link href="http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/</link>
	<description>The official blog of the Skeptologists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:17:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14975</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:05:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14975</guid>
		<description>It seems simple enough - he just needs to provide a documented case of it&#039;s success where both the subject and the control know nothing of the target.  But I would have to admit - that&#039;s a pretty hard one to prove unless they kept it very simple - like a simple series of colors or textures.

I would love to see unequivocal proof of remote viewing.  It&#039;s just that I have not seen any yet either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems simple enough &#8211; he just needs to provide a documented case of it&#8217;s success where both the subject and the control know nothing of the target.  But I would have to admit &#8211; that&#8217;s a pretty hard one to prove unless they kept it very simple &#8211; like a simple series of colors or textures.</p>
<p>I would love to see unequivocal proof of remote viewing.  It&#8217;s just that I have not seen any yet either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14810</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14810</guid>
		<description>2012&#039;er.  Wow.  Go Shermer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>2012&#8242;er.  Wow.  Go Shermer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14809</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14809</guid>
		<description>DIVORCE COURT!  lol, that was the funniest thing I&#039;ve seen in some time.  Wow!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DIVORCE COURT!  lol, that was the funniest thing I&#8217;ve seen in some time.  Wow!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric Erickson</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14805</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Erickson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14805</guid>
		<description>*Spoiler Alert*

I think the movie could not decide weather it wanted to be hollywood or not.  I agree with Micheal that most of the funny bits were in the trailer.  Tonaly the film was not balanced.  The transition from dramatic moments to comic was disjointed.  

I was disappointed because I was expecting a much more skeptical, or at least to leave it up in the air.  It is the same pricipal as not showing the monster too much in a horror film.  I think the movie did a diservice to the narative by presenting the flash backs as fact and not mearly as Clooney&#039;s character remembers them.  The ending bugged me to, not because he ran through a wall (we know that is impossible) but because it undermines the message they were building up to.  

Bridges&#039; and Clooney&#039;s characters may have failed to reach the Army in building a more &quot;wonderful&quot; army.  But that is OK.  We should have lofty goals and strive to make the world a better place, even if you fail or are doomed from the start.

I was suprised then that McGreggor&#039;s caracter ran towards the wall and rather than bumping into it and give a wry smile he made it through.

In the end they decided that they were going to make the movie very &quot;Hollywood&quot; and feel good, rather than to give people pause and have a thought provoking experience.

Then again, it did get me thinking, and isn&#039;t that what art is supposed to do?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>*Spoiler Alert*</p>
<p>I think the movie could not decide weather it wanted to be hollywood or not.  I agree with Micheal that most of the funny bits were in the trailer.  Tonaly the film was not balanced.  The transition from dramatic moments to comic was disjointed.  </p>
<p>I was disappointed because I was expecting a much more skeptical, or at least to leave it up in the air.  It is the same pricipal as not showing the monster too much in a horror film.  I think the movie did a diservice to the narative by presenting the flash backs as fact and not mearly as Clooney&#8217;s character remembers them.  The ending bugged me to, not because he ran through a wall (we know that is impossible) but because it undermines the message they were building up to.  </p>
<p>Bridges&#8217; and Clooney&#8217;s characters may have failed to reach the Army in building a more &#8220;wonderful&#8221; army.  But that is OK.  We should have lofty goals and strive to make the world a better place, even if you fail or are doomed from the start.</p>
<p>I was suprised then that McGreggor&#8217;s caracter ran towards the wall and rather than bumping into it and give a wry smile he made it through.</p>
<p>In the end they decided that they were going to make the movie very &#8220;Hollywood&#8221; and feel good, rather than to give people pause and have a thought provoking experience.</p>
<p>Then again, it did get me thinking, and isn&#8217;t that what art is supposed to do?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jen</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14782</link>
		<dc:creator>Jen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14782</guid>
		<description>Its ok to be afraid.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Its ok to be afraid.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh W.</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14781</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14781</guid>
		<description>Are you saying that you have credible evidence to the contrary? By all means site your sources.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you saying that you have credible evidence to the contrary? By all means site your sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marv</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14772</link>
		<dc:creator>Marv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14772</guid>
		<description>Shermer says:

&quot;When both the experimenter and the remote viewer are blinded to the target, all psychic powers vanish.&quot;

What utter, absolute tosh. I can say no more; Skep-Dicks like this wind me up something rotten...go do some proper research Michael.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shermer says:</p>
<p>&#8220;When both the experimenter and the remote viewer are blinded to the target, all psychic powers vanish.&#8221;</p>
<p>What utter, absolute tosh. I can say no more; Skep-Dicks like this wind me up something rotten&#8230;go do some proper research Michael.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Max</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14748</link>
		<dc:creator>Max</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14748</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately, Michael didn&#039;t find it funny either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, Michael didn&#8217;t find it funny either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tmac57</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14745</link>
		<dc:creator>tmac57</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14745</guid>
		<description>From the Official Jon Ronson Forum: &quot;Universal Pictures has acquired rights to the Jon Ronson book &quot;Them,&quot; which will be used as the basis for a Mike White script to be directed by Edgar Wright (&quot;Shaun of the Dead&quot;).
Jack Black and White will produce under their U-based Black and White banner along with Wright and Nira Park. &quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From the Official Jon Ronson Forum: &#8220;Universal Pictures has acquired rights to the Jon Ronson book &#8220;Them,&#8221; which will be used as the basis for a Mike White script to be directed by Edgar Wright (&#8220;Shaun of the Dead&#8221;).<br />
Jack Black and White will produce under their U-based Black and White banner along with Wright and Nira Park. &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Shaver</title>
		<link>http://skepticblog.org/2009/11/10/staring-at-men-who-stare-at-goats/#comment-14744</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Shaver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=5056#comment-14744</guid>
		<description>Or perhaps, Bernie, Michael Shermer writes about things about which he &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; know and for which he &lt;em&gt;does&lt;/em&gt; research the available literature.  One of you seems to do good science and good writing, and one of you seems credulous and lazy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or perhaps, Bernie, Michael Shermer writes about things about which he <em>does</em> know and for which he <em>does</em> research the available literature.  One of you seems to do good science and good writing, and one of you seems credulous and lazy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
