>> ^laura:
Read his book The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell.
I think Bill O'Reily should stick to interviewing people within the reality realm of his understanding.
MM handles these things soooooooo well. I am not such a huge fan of his music, but I am a huge fan of him.



Sure but I thought both parties handled the interview well and it was at it's core, an entertaining interview and is that not what it's all about?

Win/Win

I love that book. A friend loaned it to me one day and I just casually opened it up to check out how it was written. It sucked me in instantly and it just got better.

In reply to this comment by laura:
Read his book The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell.
I think Bill O'Reily should stick to interviewing people within the reality realm of his understanding.
MM handles these things soooooooo well. I am not such a huge fan of his music, but I am a huge fan of him.

Yawn. When are people going to realise that music, films, whatever does NOT cause people to do anything?! If that was the case, every single person who was into Marilyn Manson or the like would be running around, blowing shit up, joining cults and self harming til they drip to death with an ironic smile on their face. Get over it

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^BillOreilly:
MM is a no-talent piece of trash, and Bill should've been way harder on him.
lies


Bill'O - thanks for being someone we can boo and hiss at.

Boo!

Hiss!

Dagnabbit. I knew I should have just sifted this after making a comment about it in the Bill O'Reilly video. Would have been just that wee bit closer to losing my "P". Live and learn.

I never really liked the music (except for 'beautiful people') but I was sold on Marilyn Manson the instant I saw his interview in "Bowling for Columbine." There was nothing I could take away from that but the truth. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him.
If you didn't see his brief interview in Michael Moore's movie I'll summarize it for you. All he said there was what nobody was thinking: we should shut up start listening to kids and to people in general. Hardcore listening-if there is such a thing. By the way, I am RKBA all the way. That doesn't stop me from listening, though.

>> ^laura:
Read his book The Long Hard Road Out Of Hell.
I think Bill O'Reily should stick to interviewing people within the reality realm of his understanding.
MM handles these things soooooooo well. I am not such a huge fan of his music, but I am a huge fan of him.



That was pretty much word for word what i would have said.

This and his appearance in Bowling for Columbine should be all anyone needs to understand he isn't the psychopath he appears to be in videos and such. A highly intelligent, well-spoken, rational man.

He should become a regularly-appearing pundit, though perhaps that's a bit too evil for him.

[edit - added link to BfC vid. Thanks for the comment upvotes everyone! ]

Although ASL is unique to America (is Canadian sign language more similar to ASL or British sign lanuage?) - interesting how adjectives are similar everywhere.

In sign lanuage, typically you use facial experessions or gestures to describe things in more detail.

ALso. he signed really well to the music - best way to watch all marilyn manson songs IMO.

Would be great to see him sign on stage with marilyn

As an interpreter who works in entertainment interpreting, I have to say this was a phenomenal job. While I don't like Marilyn Manson's style of music myself the interpreting of it matched affect and spirit of the music. Keep up the good work. I would love to see other interpreted songs as well. :-)

Lots of borrowed footage compiled by someone far less cynical about the song than Marilyn Manson.

Marilyn Vos Savant was able to recreate similar results with random people - still I love the coincidences.

I like this video, but it reminded me of a "story" I read

Marilyn Manson Now Going Door-To-Door Trying To Shock People
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28771
LOL

Up vote for you sir

The title indeed comes from a painting. The original artist was Edward Hopper and his painting "Nighthawks," was of a diner in Greenwich village:

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/hopper/street/hopper.nighthawks.jpg

That painting was adapted into "Boulevard of Broken Dreams," by Gottfried Helnwein and featured Marilyn Monroe, Humphrey Bogart, Elvis Presley and James Dean.

Here:

http://angel.enredados.com/images/bbd.jpg

MINK, This vid touches so many different organizations that an individual debunk of each is not really relevant to the central issue.

The question is have these organizations produced extraordinary evidence through replicable experiments to back up their extraordinary claims, and the answer is still no.

You may notice that they tend to say "the probability is X to 1 against random chance", but these are statistical weasel words. For instance if I flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 50 times, the chance of me getting the exact order of H-T I got is 1.00891345*10^29 to 1 against, it also so happens to be an exactly statistically average result.

here they are one at a time, just to show you where my BS meter goes off:

Monagle: pure cold reading, draws a bus stop, and talks about being near trains - his subject is in Europe and attempting to be somewhere interesting, he probably took a bus or train, that's just good stage magic. Draws what looks like a bike wheel, which the show decides “looks like a jet engine” - of course it looks like many things, that is why he drew it. “a chapel, maybe” - religious institutions are pretty common, safe bet there. “lots of glass” - my study has lots of glass, almost all public buildings have lots of glass, this is another no brainer. He uses a lot of “maybe”, and of course we don't get to see all the blatantly wrong guesses, that would not be good television.

PEAR: http://skepdic.com/pear.html nuff said

Marilyn Schlitz: http://skepdic.com/ganzfeld.html http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n2_v60/ai_18960809

while there does appear to be something statistically significant going on with the ganzfeld experiments, we don't have any reason to believe this is “psi” related. We only know that something is going on. To assume, without basis, that the cause is supernatural, rather then psychological, or experimental design failure, is groundless.

We also have the problem that some studies, such as those of Carl Sargent, have “regular” ganzfeld results, but the experimenters have been caught cheating (see second link) while preforming the experiment, this implies a problem with replicability.

Please remember, if we are talking about science, the burden of proof lies with the extraordinary claims, you should instead be asking for a sound, demonstrable, falsifiable, scientific hypothesis. Debunking is a hobby for stage magicians, not a scientific endeavor.