text:
- New York, NY
- United States
This conversation is closed.
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Please use this space to comment on the debate around Graham Hancock's TEDx talk, as described here:
Closing Statement from TED
Thanks to all who participated in this conversation on TED's decision to move Graham Hancock's talk from YouTube to TED.com. It was scheduled as a 2-week conversation, and has now closed. But the archive will remain visible here.
We'd like to respond here to some of the questions raised in the course of the discussion.
Some asked whether this was "censorship." Now, it's pretty clear that it isn't censorship, since the talk itself is literally a click away on this very site, and easily findable on Google. But it raises an interesting question about curation. Should TED play *any* curatorial role in the content it allows its TEDx organizers to promote? We believe we should. And once you accept a role for curatorial limits, you have to accept there will be times when disputes arise.
A number of questions were raised about TED's science board: How it works and why the member list isn't public. Our science board has 5 members -- all working scientists or distinguished science journalists. When we encounter a scientific talk that raises questions, they advise us on their position. I and my team here at TED make the final decisions. We keep the names of the science board private. This is a common practice for science review boards in the academic world, which preserves the objectivity of the recommendations and also protects the participants from retribution or harassment.
Finally, let me say that TED is 100% committed to open enquiry, including challenges to orthodox thinking. But we're also firm believers in appropriate skepticism, or critical thinking. Those two instincts will sometimes conflict, as they did in this case. That's why we invited this debate. The process hasn't been perfect. But it has been undertaken in passionate pursuit of these core values.
The talk, and this conversation, will remain here, and all are invited to make their own reasoned judgement.
Thanks for listening.
Chris Anderson, TED Curator
Graham Hancock
Mar 21 2013: I previously commented that I would not post further on this Blog page because it is so clearly designed to distract public attention from the disastrous way TED have handled their attempt to censor my "War on Consciousness" talk and Rupert Sheldrake's "Science Delusion" talk. That in my view is the important point, for it bears on the future of TED itself as a viable platform for "ideas worth spreading". I am heartened that so many of the 400-plus concerned people who have now posted here (and the 1000-plus who posted on the original Blog page) have refused to fall for TED's sleight of hand and continued to press the organization to rethink its policy.
- +73
Since TED have retracted and struck out all their justifications for the original deletion of my talk from the TEDx Youtube channel (http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ ) and since they have published my rebuttal, and done the same re Rupert Sheldrake's talk, I agree with Rupert on a new post he has made on this page (http://www.ted.com/conversations/17189/the_debate_about_rupert_sheldr.html). There are no more specific points surrounding TED's misguided decision that he and I need to answer. Nor is it possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like "Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?"
But I now make this one further post, simply to add my voice to Rupert's and to put on record that I, too, would be happy to take part in a public debate with a scientist who disagrees with the issues I raise in my talk. My only condition is that it be conducted fairly, with equal time for both sides to present their arguments, and with an impartial moderator, agreed by both parties.
Therefore I join Rupert in asking Chris Anderson to invite a scientist from TED's Scientific Board or TED's Brain Trust to have a real debate with me about my talk, or if none will agree to take part, to do so himself.
Lewis Smart
Mar 21 2013: Looking forward to watching the debate!Mar 21 2013: Would love to see this debate!
- +12
Russ Witte
Mar 21 2013: Can't wait for the debate. I hope this also leads to fair and open dialogue for a variety of other "controversial" topics that mainstream science has long dismissed or ridiculed because it challenges common core scientific beliefs (dogmas?). A fair, respectful and open debate is a great format.
- +7
Comment deleted
Mar 22 2013: Jerry Coyne and PZ Meyers seem to me more fitting given the circumstances of this whole issue.Mar 22 2013: Lime Crime,
Sam Harris will not take on Graham Hancock because they are on the same side on the War on Consciousness.
Graham Hancock's "War on Consciousness" presentation boils down to a similar, if not exactly the same, conclusion as what Sam Harris argued on his blog regarding psychedelics. here's how Sam Harris eloquently put it.
"The "war on drugs" has been well lost, and should never have been waged. While it isn't explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, I can think of no political right more fundamental than the right to peacefully steward the contents of one's own consciousness." ~ Sam Harris on Drugs and the Meaning of Life - http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-life
you're welcome.Mar 24 2013: Lime Crime,
I specifically said that Harris and Hancock are on the same side on the War on Consciousness (aka War on Drugs)
anyone who reads Sam Harris' post on psychedelics and watched Hancock's TEDx talk will draw a similar conclusion.Mar 22 2013: Mr. Hancock,
please invite Chris Anderson to your next ayahuasca journey and see what gives.Mar 24 2013: Graham... maybe you should just make a better talk instead of posting sour jabs at TED for moving your talk. You can't win that fight anyway. What, did you expect them to break down crying and beg for your forgiveness just because you call them censors? (*) That will not happen and you know it.
If you want to claim a moral highground here, make a better talk and show them that you are right, instead of just throwing names at them for not recognizing your supposed genius.
(*) By the way... censoring is the act of prescreening an expression and stopping it before it was even conveyed to anyone else. That is not what is happening here... they are framing it in caution but it is STILL viewable.
Scott Bryson
Mar 27 2013: Michael you seem to be the one making the sour jabs. Hancock seems to have supporters in the thousands backing his claims, how many have given your statement a thumbs up even though it is anchored under the most popular comment (Graham's)?
- +4
In a rough count I'd say they are 95% positive. Considering TED has fans in the millions those are pretty telling percentages.Mar 27 2013: Yes, we'd like a debate, but even more we'd like TED to refuse to enter into a rational dialogue here, further proving that actually, in the case of drugs, there is no such thing as science, that we all of us are fallible, dogma-prone cowards.Mar 27 2013: I fully support Graham Hancock's talk. It's controversial but the scientific world should pay more attention
too his ideas.What a shame to put a censorship on his talk.Science can be great but science can be dogmatic.
Graham Hancock
Apr 2 2013: Thanks to all who have posted in my defence here. It means a lot to me.
- +52
Big ideas are at stake, much larger than the individuals involved. But the knowledge that a community of good-hearted, open-minded people are out there, ready to fight for the freedom of ideas is the best thing to come out of this.
Warmest wishes and deep appreciation
Apr 2 2013: If you ever make it to Taos, New Mexico you would be more than welcome. Keep up the work,
steve young
Mar 19 2013: I've taken Ayahuasca many times, and I was also educated to PhD level in theoretical quantum physics. For me, the Ayahuasca experience obliterated the dogmatic, materialistic worldview I had been indoctrinated with over 10 years of physics education. It helped me to see how utterly small and incomplete science is in comparison to the mystery of creation. Rupert Sheldrake is right to call it a 'delusion' - this widely held belief that science has explained everything, and dis-proven even the existence of a creator. I was there, that was me for many years.
- +50
Ultimately, I came to Ayahuasca searching for purpose in my life. Science taught me that the universe is fundamentally random, made up of dumb particles of matter floating around aimlessly, and this existence is just a happy cosmic coincidence, witnessed by an illusory consciousness in my brain. That worldview never felt right to me, i could sense a depth within myself which I had barely explored, as I had spent my life so focused on the outside world. Ayahuasca promised to help me dive within, and boy did it deliver.
I can only describe it as an infinitely intelligent, infinitely creative, infinitely loving field of consciousness. It has the unique property that when it is witnessed, when it is felt, it is able to transform our understanding of reality in ways we could never have previously imagined. It REMINDS us of our eternal nature, by showing us our truest essence. And it's important to note that this is not like LEARNING - like reading a textbook, or doing an experiment - it's a KNOWING, a REMEMBERING. It is shown to you.
Once you've been there and seen this thing, you MUST adjust your worldview to accommodate its existence. This is what Hancock is going through now. I applaud him for his profound honesty and bravery, and I KNOW that he speaks the truth. It's a shame so many other people (incl TED) can't yet see that, but it's not surprising. The truth will only reveal itself to those who seek it.
Mar 19 2013: Thank-you Steve for sharing your insight. Much needed here. People have little room to judge without any psychedelic experience. Graham was so right to call his video a War on Conciousness and this is what is happening in the NOW with this suppresion. It's actually beautiful to watch and perhaps will all this fuss it is maybe reaching out to those who are seeking some deeper meaning to life.
Mar 21 2013: Steve, beautiful message and full of wisdom--though no doubt materialist types will suppose you've lost your mind--the very thing they fear the most with their "death grip" on "reality."
Eventually they will lose their grip as happens to mortals.
There are original petitions on these matters that are still relevant since the issue is hardly resolved and the fact that after close to 200k views and many comments, there's no word if the YouTube videos will be restored.
Also find links to some of the principle parties and a timeline of events:
Mar 19 2013: Thanks for sharing, Steve! After prominent Canadian psychiatrist Richard M Bucke (who had been a logical positivist at the time) had such an experience, he remarked:
- +5
"The person who passes through this experience will learn in the few minutes, or even moments, of its continuance more than in months or years of study, and he will learn much that no study ever taught or can teach. Especially does he obtain such a conception of the whole, or at least of an immense whole, as dwarfs all conception, imagination or speculation, springing from and belonging to ordinary Self Consciousness, such a conception as makes the old attempts to mentally grasp the universe and its meaning petty and even ridiculous."
Now, his was of the "spontaneous" variety, but the point remains. You might also be interested in this account, from a scientist who appeared to be feeling similar to how you felt (his, like Bucke's, was a spontaneous happening):
Turn-Around at Delphi
And this is one more stunning spontaneous account - from a scientist and (at the time) self-identified "atheistic materialist" - who hadn't been considering such matters at all ("I was not interested in nor was I searching for any sort of transcendent or supernatural experience. I had no idea of what a mystical experience was."):
My Experience of Cosmic Consciousness
From the account:
"Perhaps the most significant element of Cosmic Consciousness was the absolute knowingness that it involves. This knowingness is a deep understanding that occurs without words. I was certain that the universe was one whole and that it was benign and loving at its ground."
That site is filled with accounts worth reading (not all dealing with those "peak experiences", though):
The Archives of Scientists' Transcendent Experiences
http://www.issc-taste.org/arc/dbo.cgi?set=arc&ss=1Mar 20 2013: Steve, thanks so much for sharing your experience. I had brilliant, insightful experiences with Ayahuasca and San Pedro. They are called entheogens and sacred teacher plants for a reason.
We humans are multi-dimensional beings. To explore beyond the materialistic-mechanistic paradigm is the quest of our times, at least for the ones with open minds and hearts.Mar 25 2013: Even PhDs can fall victim to the feelies. Guess what: your feelings aren't evidence for anything!
steve young
Mar 25 2013: LOL! Spoken like a true lumbering robot :)
- +2
Mar 25 2013: Do you have an argument?
Graham Hancock
Mar 19 2013: On the related Blog page (http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/) Tedstaff write: "TED and TEDx are brands that are trusted in schools and in homes. We don't want to hear from a parent whose kid went off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK."
- +34
This is given amongst the justifications for the removal of my presentation, "The War on Consciousness" from the TEDx Youtube channel where it had received in excess of 132,000 views before it was axed.
How therefore does TED explain its complete acceptance and endorsement of the content of Tim Brown's 2008 presentation "Tales of Creativity and Play", a presentation that has now received in excess of 842,000 views on the main TED Talks website (http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html) when this talk contains a clear endorsement (between 11 mins 57 secs and 14 mins 22 secs) of the psychedelic drug mescaline as a means to boost creativity by shocking people "out of their normal way of thinking and getting them to forget the adult behaviours that were getting in the way of their ideas"
If you construe my presentation as dangerous because it might send a kid "off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK", shouldn't you also construe Tim Brown's talk as equally dangerous because (since TED has said it was OK) it might send a kid off to consume mescaline in order to boost his creativity and perhaps even to benefit from the same sort of "great start with innovation" that Silicon Valley did. This is a serious question and I suggest it implies a deep double standard on the part of TED. If you don't think it represents a double standard please explain to me why not.
Atticus Lee
Mar 19 2013: If TED wishes to take down a video based on the fact that it were to fully endorse drug use, then that would be within their right as a community of like minded scientific individuals to do so. I think that the debate has led you astray from the original message which you try to convey through your talk, Mr. Hancock. I do believe that this talk was far from a simple endorsement of ayahuasca, as you said it is not a recreational experience and it truly is the sort of thing that requires purposeful examination of your own psyche, and analyzation of views you hold from perhaps a perspective not quite the same as the "alert, problem solving state of consciousness" we become accustomed to through our daily lives. In reality, you have more focus placed on a shamanistic view of the world, rather that a prescription to guided psychedelic experiences. This view is more of a psychological intervention for the world, a shock to wake us from our zombie like existence that can come in a variety of ways, ayahuasca being one of them. Perhaps if you were to back me up, that you don't believe that ayahuasca is a necessity for every single human being (I surely doubt you do, think of the toll that would take on the rainforest!), then a necessary discussion about the nature of consciousness within the scientific community could ensue.
- +1
Gail .
Mar 20 2013: Ah, the irony.... A talk about "The War on Consciousness" being attacked virulently because TED doesn't like the message. (And a fine message it was, thank you)Mar 23 2013: Mr. Hancock... it comes down to the same basic principle that governs anyone that wishes for the rest of us to follow his advise/lead/suggestion/wish/demand: give us the proof.
- +3
And you're going to have to do it the old fashined way: using the scientific method. You can't cheat that... you can't try to circumvent it by saying you don't have to because that method is flawed, because that is simply your opinion, not fact.
Give us the PROOF so that we may see it, review it and make up our minds on our own. And no... asking us to dope ourselves won't cut it. Your personal experience is valid for you, and you alone.
Your task is to prove that this experience will universal and safe. I wish you good luck.
And until you return with some results, this talk should not be on TED because what it boils down to is claiming - rather hollowly - "My drug is better than everyone elses drugs... because I - and the shamans - that use it say so".
Not good enough.
Amrita Bhohi
Mar 22 2013: As such, we request and urge you to re-upload the talks not only to the TEDx youtube channel, but also on the official TED.com site, including links to the discussions taking place on the TED blog. We also see this as a vital opportunity for TED to enhance their reputation as a forum for the free flow and sharing of ideas and open debate and an opportunity to win back the trust which may have been lost.
- +25
We think the controversy over these talks is a wonderful opportunity for TED to clarify and strengthen it's commitment to free thought, especially in the face of pressure from highly committed ideological interests from the blogosphere. Otherwise, we fear that TED will take a lot of criticism for censorship. Several of the other speakers, even if they don't fully agree with Sheldrake's and Hancock's positions, are quite upset that their videos were removed. At our urging, they have been holding back from going public, waiting to see how this plays out. It would be a shame if this ends up causing negative publicity.
We hope that you will consider this as an opportunity to become a resilient and remarkable organisation: one that has the capacity to be self-reflective, self-critical, adapt to change, evolve and grow with its communities and the challenges it faces. Most of all, that you can stay true to your values as a democratic and open platform for ideas worth spreading.
It seems to us that enhancing Radical Openness by accepting our invitation to reinstate the talks publicly online, is an outcome that can benefit all parties involved.
We appreciate your time to consider our message.
With hope for a positive outcome for all
Amrita, Stefana, Jennifer
Steve Stark
Mar 22 2013: Perfectly put Amrita, Stefana and Jennifer!
- +4
In response I would urge TED to look closely at the tone and content of your letter and compare it with that of the criticisms that sparked this controversy. I can only add, if the current paradigm isn't robust enough to handle the content of these two 18 minute talks then it isn't robust enough to be a paradigm, let alone the current one.
Mar 22 2013: The current paradigm has handled the content of those talks, and shown them to be false.
Mar 22 2013: If this were true, it might be a fair statement. It is NOT true. I have never seen ANY evidece that has convinced me that consciousness is false!Mar 22 2013: I can only assume that the current paradigm you're referring to is some variant of physicalism or materialism, in which case it is not scientific -- it is a philosophy. That you fully expect the talks to be scientifically debunked by a philosophy is a pretty ironic reveal of your belief bias.Mar 23 2013: The current paradigm has not shown the content of the two talks to be false, it hasn't even engaged it a proper debate but suppressed it.Mar 22 2013: Aimee, nobody denies that consciousness is false.
Mar 23 2013: You confuse me?? I just did. And I am not alone.
Lewis Smart
Mar 22 2013: Thankyou!!
- +1
Brian Brandt
Mar 22 2013: *Bravo!*Mar 23 2013: Kudos the TEDx Whitechaple team. Your letter is spot on, maybe main TED can learn from you. How if they'd let you organize a global TED on this paradigm challenging topic?
- +1
Kristen Jones
Mar 19 2013: The theme for the Tedx event held in January this year at which both talks occurred was:
- +23
"Visions for Transition: Challenging Existing Paradigms and Redefining Values (for a beautiful world)"
That's exactly what Sheldrake and Hancock did.
Both talks received extensive hits and were extremely popular before they were removed from their original platform.
Hancock's talk is an exposition about his (and others) personal experiences exploring human consciousness. He has never claimed to be a scientist.
Sheldrake, who IS a well known scientist, has successfully addressed the reasons put forward by Ted for removing his video. No pseudo science has yet been proven that I can see from reading this blog.
Putting aside the censorship debate and also outrage expressed over an anonymous science board deciding what can and can't be viewed by the public on the main Ted platform…it's really just not fair of Ted to play with Sheldrake and Hancocks reputations this way. So, Ted, please re-instate these videos to their original platform and let's move forward.
Mar 20 2013: Yep, bottom line, that's what's up. Restore the talks to their previous forms and let the debate continue there. TED is continuing to step in it, who do they have for PR over there? Time for some new PR blood TED.Mar 20 2013: It's completely irrelevant what the theme of the TEDx event was, or whether the talks fit into the theme. TED is a media company that makes curatorial decisions about what content it wishes to share under its brand. It has been this way from day 1 - this is nothing new. There are probably hundreds of talks from the TED Conferences that never make it onto TED.com.
You also forgot to mention that Sheldrake opened his talk by promoting his book -- a clear violation of the TED rules that he should have read before taking the TEDx stage...
Mar 20 2013: Seriously? It is quite convenient that this "small" point got ignored. If Sheldrake did, in fact, open his talk by promoting his book, then the talk should have never been uploaded because it is ABSOLUTELY a violation of the TEDx rules. That puts the TEDx organizer in a difficult spot - if they had seen an advance copy of his slides and this was an "ad lib" addition by Sheldrake, then that is pretty sleezy but as an organizer, nothing you can do about it.
Mar 20 2013: It probably should have been edited out. It wasn't an overt "buy my book" but he opens (1:30 in) with "What I do in my book, which is called..." and then goes on to name its two different titles, depending on where you'd be buying it.
It's a tough spot. Obviously someone like Elizabeth Gilbert will reference her book in her story about becoming an author. But Sheldrake essentially just says "this is the argument I made in my book, which I'm going to repeat to you today."
Steve Stark
Mar 20 2013: So now you're accusing Sheldrake of being sleazy. You people have no shame.Mar 20 2013: Al Meyers, FYI I have flagged your post for calling Sheldrake's behavior "sleezy".Mar 20 2013: I think that given the limitations of an 18-minute presentation, it is not "sleazy" for Sheldrake to make an offhanded comment to the effect that he has laid out this case in far greater detail elsewhere -- especially given the tendency of some to nitpick an obviously limited argument to death. While the point of Sheldrake's book reference is legitimately debatable, it is far from a shameless plug.
- +7
If TED wants to keep these talks civil, its representatives should refrain from levying further inflammatory insinuations at its speakers.Mar 21 2013: If your point, Mr Meyers, is that it's reasonable for TED to enforce their self-promotion rule, then I am in agreement with you. If TED had said, "We have a rule not to allow talks where speakers refer to their own books; Sheldrake referred to his book, so we're not posting his talk", I would have found that perfectly reasonable and fine (and I think most people here would have).
However, the reality of the situation is very different.
What happened is this:
TED posted the talk. It was up for two weeks before a rude atheist blogger complained about it. TED invited the community to discuss the talk. The community was about 70% in favour of keeping it up. TED took it down, citing complaints from their community and making a rake of demonstrably bogus allegations about the talk.
That's why they're losing all their credibility, not because of the self-promotion rule.Mar 20 2013: Define "promoting."
Sheldrake says at 1:32:
"What I do in my book The Science Delusion, which is called Science Set Free in the United States, is take the ten dogmas or assumptions of science and turn them into questions, seeing how well they stand up if you look at them..." This is the only mention of his book.
If using one of his (very relevant) works as a platform to begin talking about the topic is promoting the work, then yeah I guess he's guilty of promotion. I see the book's relevance though.
Kristen Jones
Mar 20 2013: No one is disputing Ted's legal right to decide the content of its site. However the problems here are:
- +16
1. In this case the talks were put on the site, they proved extremely popular and then were removed.
2. They were removed because a "science team" which is anonymous therefore very hard to challenge, decided the talks were "unscientific".
3. Hancock, as already mentioned is not a scientist, was not speaking at a scientific conference and was discussing a topic (consciousness) that mainstream science has generally chosen to steer well clear of other than a few people like Sheldrake.
4. The Conference's express purpose was to challenge and explore "existing paradigms" which is exactly what happened.
No one is saying Ted should not have certain standards. Several posts in the earlier discussions go into this in depth. What people are saying is that in this instance, Ted's behavior has been unfair notwithstanding its legal rights. Perhaps the problem here is we've made the mistake of seeing Ted as an open information sharing forum instead of a media company policing its content with a science board, even when the issues under discussion are better vetted in some other way. After all science describes consciousness as "the hard question", meaning traditional scientific tools don't work well here.
Mar 20 2013: But don't you see the conundrum you are creating? It's not about legality, it's about TED being a media company that decides what content it is comfortable sharing. In this case, it decided after the talk was posted (due to the open nature of the TEDx YouTube channel that requires no approval), and facilitated discussion about the talks. It was also very open and transparent about the decision it made.
If the main reason for attacking TED is that the talk went up and was then removed, TED will be forced to start reviewing talks in advance to make sure it is comfortable sharing them under its brand. And instead of a talk like Graham's being moved to a separate venue and a discussion happening, the talk will simply never be shared - just like hundreds of talks from TED Conferences that never make it to TED.com for various reasons. How is that better than what happened today?Mar 20 2013: Part 1 of 2:
@Nate Mook Thank you for providing us with a better understanding of the internal workings within TED. I understand you are trying to make the best out of a messy situation. However, the messy situation appears to be partly due to procedural issues on your end, such as TED not reviewing TEDx talks in advance to make sure they concur with TEDs editorial viewpoints. Removing them AFTER they have been posted and gained tens of thousands of viewers, supporters and comments, as this case well illustrates is an extremely awkward, painful, and ultimately damaging way of asserting editorial control over your content.
The analogy of the New York Times brought up in this thread is a perfect one. I would argue TED is very similar to the opinion page of the New York Times – in-depth news analysis with a powerful editorial bent. For the opinion page the New York Times vets their authors, approves their content and then publishes their piece. If the piece proves to be controversial its a win-win situation for both author and media outlet. It draws in many more readers to the opinion page and results in long comment sections, letters to the editor, an increased potential for advertising, links to other blogs, etc. That is the role of a media outlet – to present both news and allow a public debate.
The crucial point is that no matter how heated the discussion becomes, no matter how many influential or powerful voices weigh in pro or con, once the New York Times publishes the piece they STAND BY THEIR AUTHOR. The opinion piece always stays on the opinion page forever. They do not remove or sequester the opinion piece online AFTER they have published it. It remains on the opinion page where it continues to inform and inspire debate for years and years to come.Mar 20 2013: Part 2 of 2:
@Nate Mook If TED had decided to keep these videos on the official TEDx channel and simply added a disclaimer that these videos were controversial they would be respecting and honoring their TEDx event coordinators, the presenters who were invited in good faith, and perhaps most importantly the general intelligence of their viewers. The debate would have continued, however heated it may be, but it would foster discussion and debate, and like the New York Times opinion page be a win-win for all parties involved.
However, as we all know that is not what happened. This PR debacle is the direct result of ignoring standard media protocol and heavy-handedly editorializing content after official publication rather than vetting it beforehand. It's been a frustrating exercise I'm sure for many of you, and I'm quite confident you are reviewing your procedures. But one thing is very clear - this messy affair has resulted in a dramatic tarnishing of TEDs reputation on many levels, the exact opposite of what was originally intended.
I do hope you reconsider this move and restore the videos to their rightful place.
Steve Stark
Mar 20 2013: It's relevant inasmuch as that if TED has a massive bee in it's bonnet about certain paradigms not being questioned then it should have refused to allow a conference about challenging them, or at least asked for further details, instead of waiting until some people complained and then seeing if they can abuse the offending speakers sufficiently to get back in the good books of the complainants. No?Mar 20 2013: Nate, several times you write TED is a "media company"... but TED's website states "TED is a nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading".
- +4
Chris/TED should come clear about it. You are either a profit-seeking company with all your sponsors etc., or you are a non-profit? Is your aim private profit or advancing the public good?Mar 20 2013: you have a point here. i was wondering what was going on on that tedx event. probably the entire thing does not deserve the ted logo, and it was given a go ahead by mistake. ted did not research the organizers and the speakers thoroughly enough, and only realized what kind of stuff they gave their name to after it happened. this "conversation" is an attempt to reduce the harm done, and at the same time neutralize the fanatic army of religious newage antiscience zealots.
Mar 20 2013: "Better a fanatical member of an army of religious newage anti-science zealots than a Hungarian who can't seem to grow a proper mustache", as Napoleon famously quipped.
Mar 20 2013: and you are not even ashamed of yourself. we have a long way to go.Mar 25 2013: What tickles one's ears is not necessarily true.
Graham Hancock
Mar 19 2013: My last post on TED
- +23
I am weary and disillusioned by the way the folks at Ted.com have behaved. Yes they have retracted and struck out the inaccurate and misleading comments they originally made about my "War on Consciousness" presentation, and yes they have published my rebuttal of those comments: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/
But their latest tactic (see here: http://www.facebook.com/Author.GrahamHancock/posts/10151560463442354 ) is so underhand and devious that I have decided I will no longer play their game by participating any further in their ever-receding Blog pages of "discussions", all of which are designed to distract public attention from the disastrous way they've handled this matter. I see now that even if the public remains engaged and continues to express outrage on this new Blog page they've created, TED has prepared an exit strategy. As they state here they intend to shut the conversation down completely in less than two weeks.
It remains my hope that free thinking people everywhere who have found any merit in my "War on Consciousness" presentation will upload it wherever they are able to on the net. I guarantee that I for one will not pursue them for copyright violation and that they will have my thanks.
Now onwards to brighter and better things!
Gail .
Mar 20 2013: Thank you Graham. And now that I've ranted for about 3 hours, I too will EXIT stage left. I will grieve. Then I will find a new gathering of intellectually curious people, and I will find brighter and better.
- +2
This behavior by TED speaks darkly.
Steve Stark
Mar 19 2013: It is extraordinary to see TED drop everything it previously said about Hancock's talk and now produce two new complaints which themselves withstand no scrutiny.
- +23
The first complaint is that Hancock's report of the phenomenology (ie, how it seems to the user) of ayahuasca includes contact with "seemingly intelligent entities which communicate with us telepathically." These phenomenological facts are well documented. See, for example, the work of the University of New Mexico's Rick Strassman (DMT: The Spirit Molecule) and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Benny Shanon (The Antipodes of the Mind). That's the end of that.
The second complaint involves Hancock's suggestion that such visionary contact/experience "can teach and heal us" and TED suggests that these are "claims that are well outside orthodox scientific thinking". On the contrary, ever since science became aware of the existence of hallucinogens, their use in a healing capacity has been at the forefront of research. There is interesting research on their effectiveness for "curing " addiction, for example, and here (in a TED talk no less! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKm_mnbN9JY) is Roland Griffiths from The Johns Hopkins University, talking about, among other things, the way psilocybin can be used to treat the anxiety of terminal cancer patents. Moreover, he also discusses the powerful "teaching" value of such experiences, as regards the human condition, which was rated by many of his subjects as amongst the most powerful and profound experiences of their lives - akin to, eg, the birth of a first child.
So, in summary, TED issued a whole load of complaints against Hancock which, in every case, turned out to be at best false, and at worse not even wrong. It has now come up with two further grievances which likewise evaporate under the mildest scrutiny. At what point will you accept that you are not well informed on this subject. Spread his ideas - not least to the TED science board.
Agent Smith
Mar 19 2013: TED, you drag these talks from one debate to the other, still focussing on whether they are "pseudoscience", which distracts from the real problem. Your science board has enough data (the talks themselves and additional responses provided) to make a clear case for or against the talks being pseudoscience. Check the statements in questions, check the facts, follow them where they lead, and stand by whatever you find. This is not the real problem here.
- +23
It's this: If you were able to make a clear case for taking these talks down because they're PS, you would have done so by now. But instead of doing the only logical thing, leaving/putting them back with the other talks and supporting them with clear arguments against allegations made by Myers, Coyne etc. - you refuse to make a stand and delegate the decision to the public. But what more do you want to hear ? You have multiple comment threads, exceeding in total far more than 1000 comments on the matter, you have detailled and in case of Sheldrake exceptional replies by the speakers - it's up to you to make a decision, and deal with the consequences.
You can't please eberybody, so what's it going to be ? Please man up and make a decision, instead of inviting us to state the same points we already made over and over, until everybody runs out of steam and this whole things blows over.
Comment deleted
Mar 20 2013: Thanks Debbie ;)
watching these two new debates for a day, they are further testimony for what TED is really doing, which is evading the real problem - taking a stand. And to clarify, this is not going to be a stand just for or against these talks, but about the topic that lies at the heart of the debate since its beginning: materialism and science. The debate started with two talks that questioned the materialist interpretation of scientific findings, and were taken down after some undeniably staunch and dogmatic proponents of this interpretation complained about these talks. TED is afraid to become part of the struggle between those holding on to materialism and trying to establish it further as the only real answer, and those refusing to just shut up and believe, who point out it's too early to accept any one particular interpretation. Instead TED fragments this debate to the breaking point...an initial debate, a blog post followed by a long debate in the comments, now two new, separate debates, one for each talk, ever to postpone addressing the real issue of materialism and modern science. Gladly welcoming, it seems, the further fragmentation of these debates into sub-topics revolving around curation or censorship, pseudoscience, drugs, anecdotal talks vs. talks discussing hard evidence...
CENSORSHIP - you made clear your position about this not being censorship, so you surely need no debate on this.
PSEUDOSCIENCE - you have two talks, responses by the speakers and a massive amount of debate/opinion - it's not that fuzzy, tricky a decision to make. Besides, a talk still hosted by TED (Elaine Morgan about the Aquatic Ape theory) gives stage not just on a TEDx YT-channel, but on the main TED page, to a theory widely discussed as pseudoscience on the web (for example by Jerry Coyne) - but not challenging materialism. No debate needed on your pseudoscience stance it seems.
cont'd. below
Agent Smith
Mar 20 2013: DRUGS (and their dangers) - Tim Brown, mescaline. Roland Griffiths, psilocybin. Just two examples of two TED talks mentioning positive aspects of drug use - but not questioning materialism. As long as they don't call people to recklessly use drugs (which Hancock clearly never did), no problem in my opinion. Ken Robinson's talks come to mind - they're not about drugs, but do you feel the need to take them down, because his portrayal of a stifling education system and highlighting of a free, less controlled development of our personally dominant faculties might inspire kids to drop out of school ? Since he sure didn't make being in school look very attractive. Your stance on drugs seems pretty clear-defined as well.
- +3
ANECDOTAL - For example, the talks I just mentioned, by Ken Robinson, are highly anecdotal in nature, and so is the evidence he gives for his OPINION. He surely didn't swamp the audience with data supporting his stance. Neither did he...question materialism.
All this goes to show, you don't need a community debating these sub-topics. You need these drawn-out debates to pacify those who want to see the two talks in question back up, while all the while pacifying the other side by not having them back up anywhere but a corner of the blog, where in a few weeks noone will really find them any more unless specifically looking. If you were interested in anything but this, in a real debate about the central issue - you, the visionary TED, would host public debates on this, to really give it publicity. Between outright proponents of materialism, and more moderate voices (Thomas Nagel comes to mind these days). But you're afraid of the mine field.
cont'd. belowMar 20 2013: Not to be a cynic, but eventually this whole controversy will run out of steam, without you having had to really come out on the core of it all, or at least having a full-blown, TED conference-hosted debate on this - is this materialism, that obviously runs pervasively through mainstream science and 'consensus reality' really the answer ? That's what started this, and so far, your silence on this will end it. TED - evasive diplomacy worth studying.
Larry Dossey
Apr 2 2013: I can add my name to those of Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock as speakers who find themselves in TEDx's crosshairs.
- +22
I was scheduled to speak at the West Hollywood event. But my scientific credibility was questioned by TED's science advisory board in their decision to withdraw support and revoke the license of TEDxWestHollywood.
I've lectured at dozens of top-tier medical schools and hospitals all over the U.S. for two decades. Although my colleagues don't always agree with my points of view, this is the first time my scientific credibility has ever been questioned.
My TEDx talk would have dealt with the correlations between spirituality, health, and longevity, for which there is immense evidence; and recent experimental findings that point toward a nonlocal view of consciousness for which, again, there is strong and abundant support. In view of our lack of understanding of the origins and destiny of consciousness, and considering the demographics of the TEDx followers, I thought this information would have been of considerable interest.
As a board-certified physician of internal medicine, former chief of staff of a major hospital, author of twelve books and scores of papers on these subjects published in peer-reviewed journals, a recipient of many awards, a frequent lecturer at medical schools and hospitals, and executive editor of the peer-reviewed journal, Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, I'd be interested in knowing from TED where I came up short.
"A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, it is an opportunity," Whitehead said. It should not be a reason for censorship.
Apr 2 2013: THANK YOU, Mr. Dossey for your succinct and kick-ass response!
I've taken the liberty of posting your response on this thread too.
Discuss the note to the TED community on the withdrawal of the TEDxWestHollywood license. | A conversation on TED.com ~ http://www.ted.com/conversations/17348/discuss_the_note_to_the_ted_co.html
too bad the TED Science Board is comprised of anonymous members. in any case, I'd be interested to see an official response from TED. if the Sheldrake/Hancock threads are an indication, I doubt that TED would be capable of providing a sound and reasonable justification for explicitly pointing to Russell Targ, Larry Dossey, and Marilyn Schlitz in their decision to revoke TEDxWestHollywood's license.Apr 2 2013: Thank you very much, Dr. Dossey! I hope this as well as other responses will bring TED organizers and Chris Anderson to re-examining their assumptions and questioning their own allegiances.
Geoff Fitch
Apr 2 2013: Great reply, Larry. It is wonderful to have your voice here.
- +3
Amrita Bhohi
Mar 22 2013: We want to begin by sharing what TED means to us.
- +22
We have been genuinely transformed through many of the inspiring TEDTalks; they have profoundly challenged our perceptions of and assumptions about the world, opening us up to new perspectives outside of the established mainstream thinking. Moreover, we really believe TED to be an ingenious medium to spread ideas across the globe. As such, TED represents the free and open flow and exchange of ideas globally, enriching and empowering an increasingly connected global community.
And it is with this passion that we decided to host a TEDx event with the theme "Visions for Transition: Challenging Existing Paradigms and Redefining Values (for a more beautiful world)'. We believe that in order to deal with the diverse and complex crises converging on our planet, we need to challenge the dominant thought paradigms and radically reassess the values which govern our world. In line with Einsteins wisdom "problems cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that created them" we saw TED as a truly special platform.
You can understand therefore, how shocked and saddened we were when we were alerted to the news that you had decided to remove Graham and Rupert's talk from the TEDx Youtube channel and furthermore the disrespectful way in which they were treated publicly on the TED blog where you moved them.
Kathy Havens
Mar 19 2013: As a Buddhist priest, I am naturally opposed to any kind of mind-altering drug BUT I am MORE opposed to discrimination and censorship!
- +22
I feel deeply disappointed to discover that TED seems to have started censoring talks that do not match up to the "scientific dogma" of the "scientific advisors". Shame on you! There is no need to open separate spaces for discussions of controversial issues - let it all hang out in the open!
No need for "fresh takes" and "separate discussions" - let the debate go on!
"Science" does not need to be treated as a religion, and TED does not have to excommunicate "heritics" just because they don't follow the ruling dogma of the present age. With all the falsified studies funded by commercial interests, can we truly trust this ruling dogma any more than we can trust the "superstitions" of past ages?
Ideas worth spreading should also be ideas that instigate, provoke and lead to deeper questionings!
Open debate on the regular pages - no tricky censorship-style antics, please.
Gail .
Mar 20 2013: May I repeat your well-spoken sentence? It deserves it. "Science" does not need to be treated as a religion, and TED does not have to excommunicate "heritics" just because they don't follow the ruling dogma of the present age."Mar 25 2013: You clearly are not opposed to nonsense. How is movement of videos "censorship"? Graham&Rupert's ideas are not worth spreading. Religions all have differing conclusions; science converges on single conclusions.
- +2
Time Walker
Mar 20 2013: I think it's the height of hypocrisy for TED to accuse Hancock or Sheldrake or anybody else of "pseudoscience" when they, themselves, refuse to show their work. Chris Anderson's original stated reasons for removing these talks were so demonstrably ridiculous he crossed them all out. But what has replaced them? Only allusions to a super-secret Science Board and a lot of defamation. TED can't even articulate a clear reason to remove these talks, except that some people they won't name said they're bad science. Considering that one lecture was actually on philosophy of science and the other was on shamanism, that whole lotta nothing really doesn't add up to a justification for TED's actions, now does it. Show your work, TED, and prove your case, or apologize and put the lectures back.
- +21
Mar 21 2013: exactly. IMHO, the only thing that will settle this once and for all is for TED to restore Sheldrake and Hancock's videos in their rightful TEDx distribution channel and to apologize for its mistake of soft censoring them in the first place.
Lewis Smart
Mar 19 2013: Recent studies undertaken at Johns Hopkins University demonstrated that "When administered under supportive conditions, psilocybin occasioned experiences similar to spontaneously occurring mystical experiences that, at 14-month follow-up, were considered by volunteers to be among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant of their lives."
- +19
Psilocybin is a tryptamine closely related to DMT, the active component in Ayahuasca. Psilocybin is found in magic mushrooms. The experiences of these different substances and others are at once very different and very similar. Their 'healing' effects are widely recognised by those experienced in using them. This understanding is necessarily an underground one. The substances are illegal, so mainstream understanding of them has long suffered. Things are beginning to change on that front.
As has been mentioned, it is difficult for a researcher to be taken seriously in the traditional scientific community if they themselves are taking the substance they're researching. This is a problem. I think we can only get so far with questionnaires and brain scans. For this reason I support Hancock's work to describe the experience in the first person. If the language he uses in doing so seems slightly crude, it is only because he is coming from a place that has been oppressed for so long that it has grown distant.
Dave Troy
Mar 19 2013: I believe you're talking about Roland Griffiths' work at Johns Hopkins, which he presented at TEDxMidAtlantic in 2009. Note the nature of Griffiths' talk, and his claims. (Note that this talk was not distributed on TED.com, despite being thoroughly rooted in science — and no one is claiming "censorship.")
- +1
Steve Stark
Mar 19 2013: And note that it IS on the TEDx YT channel. And note that the person you were responding to didn't say anything about censorship.
- +2
Lewis Smart
Mar 19 2013: I'm confused about your response to my post. Yes I am talking about the work of Roland Griffiths, and I linked his study. I didn't say anything about censorship of Griffiths' work.
- +2
Mar 20 2013: My response was to Dave Troy's response to your post.
Swati T
Mar 20 2013: Why (Dave Troy) are you unable to formulate a relevant response to Lewis's post?
- +2
You missed the point.
I am not sure if your brain processed the text in the same way, but I suggest you go back and read it...carefully.Mar 20 2013: I was pointing out, for other readers of this thread, that Griffiths talk which was fundamentally on the same topic as Hankcock's didn't generate any controversy because it was framed in a scientific context. There is a place for subjective descriptions of first-hand experiences, it just may not be TED's YouTube channel.
Lewis' points are well made; I was merely expanding on them so that folks understand that TED is not inherently opposed to discussion of this topic, but there is a difference between a scientific talk and one which is more subjective and speculative. That difference seems to be at the core of this debate.
Lewis Smart
Mar 20 2013: I don't see anything wrong with a subjective account of first hand experience, and there are many examples of such on a range of topics hosted by TED.
- +1
Daniel Tucker
Mar 26 2013: Dear TED,
- +18
I love TED Talks. I have watched more than 200 TED videos, which have introduced me to many amazing ideas. I have converted friends and family to being TED Talk watchers and sharers, and routinely have lively conversations beginning with "I saw this great TED Talk…". My wife and I look forward to attending a TED event live in the future.
Also, I had a "psychedelic phase" some years ago, which profoundly impacted my understanding of myself, the significance of life, the boundless potential of the human instrument, and the extraordinary blindingly beautiful source from which we and all our ideas worth spreading emerge. I no longer use psychedelics. My life path took a pivot and brought me to a line of work that now taps my passion for spirit and creativity.
In watching, sharing, and conversing about TED Talks, I feel part of a community of innovators, truth-seekers, researchers and pioneers who are willing to pursue the greatest of their potential, and willing to spur humanity onward as it slumbers and stumbles.
In these TED Talks I have met artists, adventurers, visionaries, geeks, engineers, scientists, authors, musicians and teachers. I imagine your audience is similarly diverse. I am not a professional scientist. I also do not read any pro or pop scientific journals, and find many scientists' intellectual defenses against the profundity of consciousness/spirit unfortunate, misguided, and uninspiring.
In short, as your viewer, I am excited to see top scientists present on your stage, but would be quickly turned off if a nameless panel of conventional scientists were curating (or censoring) your speakers.
I watched the Graham Hancock video with interest. Actually, I'd be fascinated to see more trailblazing theories and experiments in psychedelics. I'm not sure whose benefit you are censoring him for, but a quick poll of the comments below indicates it isn't for your audience.
p.s. Thanks for the introduction to Mr. Hancock.
Mar 26 2013: Beautifully put! :)
Amrita Bhohi
Mar 22 2013: Naturally, we don't expect TED to agree with the content of the talks, nor are we suggesting that they represent the 'truth'. We think science offers us a kind of lens with which to view an unfathomably complex world. These speakers challenge the mainstream scientifically accepted viewpoints and this is exactly where their value lies. TED is a platform where these different points of view can be shared, debated and challenged so that we can collectively keep evolving and developing in our understanding.
- +18
In fact, in light of this situation, we are now even stronger in our conviction that these are valuable ideas that need to be discussed and debated widely. The massive response from the TED community and the conversations which this has sparked, tells us that there is much interest in these ideas and therefore that they are highly valuable to the science debate. Indeed, if they were so totally radical and ridiculous as you suggest they are, it leads us to wonder why they have they been worthy of so much attention? Both talks have simultaneously been supported and challenged, which for us reflects a model of how the progression of scientific understanding develops and flows.
Therefore, we do not support your actions to put the talks on separate blogs where they are hidden from the TED community, cannot be shared, and where the conversation is limited. We also oppose the lack of integrity with which they have been treated. In particular, It is obvious that the content of many of the other existing TEDtalks would not hold up to scrutiny were the same criteria applied to them. Furthermore, we hope that you would grant your community the respect to use their own faculties of discretion and reasoning with regard to the ideas and content of the talks.
Michael Austin
Mar 22 2013: I don't know Hancock's work. I do know TED's reputation and now its perspective. After listening to this just this one of Hancock's talks, it has *nothing* to with good science or bad science. TED's suggestion - "Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation? Good science or bad science? What's the evidence for either position?" - is nearly meaningless to me in this case.
- +18
Hancock's talk crosses interdisciplinary boundaries into impassioned spirituality. I wouldn't necessarily call it science. I might call it philosophy. So, TED, when will you remove Billy Graham's talk from rotation? He might have been OK with people listening to big pharma who constantly recommend their especially damaging, especially dangerous, over-prescribed, off-schedule psychiatric drugs, or even alcohol from a daily glass of wine. I'm not.
TED, your sponsors from their untouchable, virtual corporate states, and your anonymous scientistic board who don't have the courage of their reputations at stake have spoken. You have done their bidding. Aside from the many references to ayahuasca which seem like a polite sales talk, I'd rather put my faith in people with courage, like Hancock, to notice what's happening to the only planet capable of supporting life.
And now, in some respects, TED is simply doing what any other big business does. It's protecting its sponsors and the party line. It doesn't make any difference that TED is a 501(c)(3). You're now acting like a corporation in which the primary mission is to perpetuate the dominant paradigm. All you have to do to find out how that's worked out for us is to look around you, and see a planet in peril from our ecocidal behaviors. Science hasn't solved what Hancock talked about, and it won't. Our values, or lack of them, are what power us.
Mar 22 2013: " So, TED, when will you remove Billy Graham's talk from rotation? "
That would be a good idea.
Jeff Heeney
Mar 21 2013: I work in a university library, and we have titles like "The journal of psychedelic drugs"...which was later renamed "The journal of psychoactive drugs". I bet when it first came out in the 60's...that it was thought of as a bad thing by many mainstream academics. However it is a reputable source of information and has opened many doors due to its promotion.
- +18
My university library is also open to the public. Should we also worry about people looking at this information, doing various drugs that are discussed...and then getting sued? Of course not.
TED needs to think of itself as a library of information. Not a corporation that lives in fear of being sued, or is made to bend to the will of their owners and their personal bias.
Comment deleted
Lewis Smart
Mar 22 2013: I suppose you think that TED should behave as an ideological mouthpiece for whoever invests money in it?
- +5
Ain't nobody got time for that.
Michael Austin
Mar 22 2013: A few things about your observations are worth noting, Lime.
- +10
You submit short, slap and run sentences which don't provide any real support about what you mention, other than to register a simple opinion. Next, most of your comments are flippant, and seem to rely strictly on the emotion of a claim phrased as an incomplete sound bite. Third, you're clearly hiding behind a pseudonym so you feel the privilege of writing whatever you want without having to be responsible for how you treat other people or even facts. And finally, most of your comments seem to lack compassion. So, are you only your comments, or are you more than that?
And, your current understanding of what platforms are private, and what platforms are public, social trusts, needs updating. TED is a nonprofit, public, social trust, with only limited private rights. Under the law, TED *can't* do whatever it wants, but instead must conform to all the laws which govern public trusts. And part of its stated public trust contract is to serve as impartial venue for ideas which are different than what one finds in the usual media like the fact-free environments of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and sometimes MSNBC.
Stuart Moulder
Mar 20 2013: Honestly, the sort of entities that Graham describes could be easily understood to be creations of our subconscious. That makes the experience of them no less powerful nor their "revelations" less potent. I've long been convinced that the origin of our various gods are probably rooted in experiences like this. One person's "hallucination" is another's "encounter with the divine".
- +18
The more important question is whether these encounters can be truly therapeutic or enlightening. Or the first step towards madness and addiction. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a one size fits all answer to that question.
To those scientists who want to "frame" the talks now (after unsuccessfully trying to ban them) - why are you not out in front of this presenting alternative explanations for these experiences? The realm of human perception is well known to be subjective in its interpretation. Graham's interpretation might not be yours, so fine, present yours! And by that I mean, present a logical, believable alternative, not a shout down of Graham's interpretation (any kid can do that, you're supposed to be learned adults now!).
Graham Hancock
Mar 19 2013: New and deeply disappointing TED tactic
- +18
Just when I thought TED had seen the error of their ways and were trying to fix things I receive an email from TED Curator Chris Anderson telling me that yet another of their famous Blog pages – this one! -- has now been set up, apparently as a special standalone ghetto for discussion of my "War on Consciousness" presentation. This tactic helps to distance TED from the PR debacle they created for themselves by axing my talk from their Youtube channel in the first place (where it had attracted hundreds of comments and 132,000 views). Now not only is the presentation cut off from the discussion initiated by all those original commentators (and their ability to share it) but it is also cut off from the new discussion that followed exposure of TED's censorship and shoddy methods – HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ AND HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/ . So far there is no link back or forward between the two previous blog pages and this one. I have asked TED to provide such links as a matter of urgency and to make them prominent but this will only slightly reduce the problem, not solve it.
I'm left reeling by this continual slicing down of my presentation and its context which is nonetheless cleverly done so that TED can say, effectively, "we're not censoring the presentation because it is on our website." Well yes, but in such an obscure place that pretty soon no-one will be able to find it, the whole debate and furor will be forgotten and TED will be able to move forward as though this never happened. And just in case TED aren't allowed to pull off that disappearing act they have imposed a time-limit on this new "conversation" which they will close in less than two weeks from now.
Wow! Way to go TED.
Steve Stark
Mar 19 2013: Graham
- +11
I don't know if you've seen this particular TEDx talk by Roland Griffiths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKm_mnbN9JY), but it is astonishing to see the extent to which he argues for one of the central messages of your talk. His concluding words on what is to be learned from the study of psilocybin mediated mystical states is that it may provide:
"knowledge which I believe may ultimately be critical to the survival of the human species".
It seems that by via some circuitous route (or some Grand Plan) you have found yourself on the cutting edge of mainstream science!
Gail .
Mar 20 2013: Too late. Link now freezes up my computer, as did the other removed videos. Good old TED. Hide the evidence. Cover up the lies. Keep those brains locked up in those tiny prisons so that we can be controlled.
- 0
Barnard Voorhees
Mar 24 2013: Graham is absolutely spot on,and I applaud his courage. Notes: The Egyptian icon of the Blue Lotus is one of, if not the most common icons in classical Egyptian iconology. It's psychotropic properties are, however, best utilized within a short while of harvesting because of the decay rate. The Soma of the Vedas refers both to a studied ritual and ingesting a number of plants in a mix that very probably included the Blue Lotus as well as the Suf reed., one of the few plants in the world that has both a DMT and an MAOI component. Other ingredients were added depending on the level and needs of the initiate. Eleusis was similar, though the plants were different and the ritual more appropriately designed for the prevailing Greek society, particularly with its Play of the Demeter myth. I am unsure If agree with the South American shamans attitude that Ayahuasca is the answer for the world at large. I've a strong hunch reconnection (remembering really) must come from local ground - and all that implies. This said, of course it's obvious (and unfortunately to be expected) TED is engaging both in deflection and sophistry here. Science itself has become something of a religion. In its pure form science is a very effective, but limited investigative tool that depends on the three pillars of skepticism (an open mind) , repeatable experiments and observable facts. How do the so-called sciences of psychology, economics, archaeology, sociology and so forth. stand up? And as one blogger stated, who the hell said Graham was talking science anyway?
- +17
Mar 24 2013: Good show, Mr Voohees. Well written and honest.
Amrita Bhohi
Mar 22 2013: We would like to offer our insights to you, as to why we chose to invite these speakers. We were guided by the advice that TED gives for identifying great speakers, which was as follows.
- +17
To build a powerful speaker program, seek out extraordinary voices in your local community who have a unique story or an unusual perspective -- and who can convey it in a dynamic way.
Local voices that few have heard before
People who can present their field in a new light
Perspectives that the global TED community may not have access to
Speakers whose work fits your event theme
Furthermore, tips for speakers include:
Dream big. Strive to create the best talk you have ever given. Reveal something never seen before. Do something the audience will remember forever. Share an idea that could change the world.
Controversy energizes!
We find that Rupert and Graham meet this criteria extremely well. Please also note that Rupert Sheldrake addressed his concerns to us that in the 18 minute format, he would not be able to give a comprehensive explanation of the complex and extensive research and ideas explored in his book. To quote from our response to him, "TED is not supposed to be a source of knowledge, but one of ideas and creativity, which inspire and stimulate to further engage with them."
Mar 22 2013: Good show, Amrita. Thank you for helping provide the opportunity to hear Sheldrake's and Hancock's talks. You've all catalyzed positive changes.
Steve Stark
Mar 21 2013: Might I suggest that Chris Anderson post the following, and then we can all be about our business:
- +17
Graham, I'm sorry. due to the lack of a coherent internal policy, some TEDx organisers mistook our advertising blurb for the actual aims of our organisation and invited you to speak. And while I think your talk was passionate and compelling, there are some high profile bloggers and others who don't like you(r message) and who will make trouble for TED if we allow it to stay. TED is a global brand and as such we have to play things safe. We are therefore taking the rather embarrassing decision to remove your talk from our YT channel. I am very sorry we were not able to be upfront about this in the first place, and that we tried to so publicly spin it as being about the veracity of the content of your talk. It is not. I am also sorry that the first set of complaints we concocted were false, and that they included some comments of a personal nature that should never have been made. Please accept my sincerest apologies for any distress and/or damage to your reputation this may have caused. And while I know you will be disappointed, I am sure you can take comfort from the fact that in the discussions your talk generated, many articulate and well-educated people took time out to support you and your message. Sincerely wishing you all the best for the future.
Mar 21 2013: Brilliant Steve.
Why does this discussion board have strange restrictions? I'd like to give you a thumbs up but it says "You have reached the weekly maximum number of ratings for this user". I am an active commentator in these debates and want to express my support.
Mar 21 2013: I guess it's so that the voting is not skewed by one or two people upvoting everything that supports their view, thus making them more selective in what they can visibly choose to support . Nothing very sinister in my view. Thanks for your support.


text:
Tamora Pierce's White Tiger Collection Arrives
From the pages of the Eisner award-winning Daredevil, comes White Tiger: A Hero's Compulsion TPB, written by New York Times best-selling fantasy author Tamora Pierce! Featuring the stunning penciling of Phil Briones, and covers by superstar David Mack, this acclaimed collection follows FBI agent Angela del Toro's journey into the depths of the Yakuza and her own soul, as she must avenge the loss of her partner while not losing herself to darkness! Armed with the mystical amulet of the White Tiger, Angela seeks answers to her questions...but she may not survive long enough to understand the true nature of her quest!
"Pierce transfuses he

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home > Kitchen & Dining > Dining Room > Dining Buffets & Sideboards > Home Styles Bordeaux Wood & Metal Server
Home Styles Bordeaux Wood & Metal Server
Versatile styling and classic finish
Home Styles Means highly functional, innovatively designed furniture that is easily assembled.
Transitional design characteristics are highlighted in the Bordeaux Server. Finished in a Brushed Antiqued Pewter finish, the slightly flared legs and wine storage rack compliment the deep tones of the rich finish over poplar solids and birch veneers. Much needed storage space is provided within the two storage drawers and five-bottle, wine rack. The open shelf can be used for additional storage or can be used for decorative display space.
Accessories Not Included.
Dimensions: 36"W x 18"D x 30"H; 65 lbs
Home Styles Bordeaux Wood & Metal Server
Home Styles Bordeaux Wood & Metal Server
Our innovative products will provide you and your family with years of enjoyment. And with the Brookstone Protection Plus service and replacement plans, you'll have the added peace of mind knowing that if the unexpected does happen, we will simply repair or replace your covered product. Our enhanced coverage goes above and beyond the manufacturer's warranty, saving you time and money.
You May Also Like
Shopping Cart


text:
Zoilo is a newly opened Argentinian restaurant situated just off of Wigmore Street in London. It is the latest venture of Alberto Abbate who runs a number of popular London restaurants and chef Diego Jacquet.
Stepping in to Zoilo through a heavy grey door and a thick, dark curtain you are instantly transported into a slick and modern Argentinian haven which is very atmospherically lit and really comes into its own in the evening. With two levels, you can sit upstairs near the bar or downstairs and watch the chefs work their magic.
The menu offers eight starters and mains, some of which may be familiar choices and some interesting regional Argentinian dishes to try too. There is plenty of choice beyond steak and the waiters were very flexible offering to chop and change choices according to guests' preferences.
The most popular option is to start with a selection of tapas and move onto a main dish. I tried a fantastic starter of prawns al ajo, with pork belly and chorizo at £8.95, and a chicken, grilled pepper and cumin empanada at £3.50. Both were excellent and I particularly enjoyed the garlic sauce which the prawns were cooked in.
For my main course, I tried their most popular dish, ojo de bife with chimichurri, a rib eye steak with the famous Argentinian sauce which is made from a mix of wine vinegar, garlic and herbs, at £21.95. The steak was full of flavour, tender and perfectly cooked. The steak at Zoilo comes from Argentina from a select number of farms used there. They mitigate the environmental impact by using filtered water instead of bottled, and by cooking practically everything else in house.
Desserts are all homemade and were outrageously good. I tried the banana and dulce de leche ice cream, which was packed with banana chunks and thick swirls of La Salamandra dulce de leche.
For authentic Argentinian food of excellent quality superbly executed and some outstanding Argentinian wines, Zoilo is highly recommended. If you fancy being more adventurous, there are some lovely dishes to try, and if you just fancy an excellent steak with a delicious glass of wine, it is an ideal choice.
Tags: Argentinian restaurant London, Gluten free restaurant, Gluten free restaurants London, Zoilo, Zoilo Argentinian restaurant, Zoilo London


text:
Heritage Sportsman Bag
Roomy, weather-resistant bag with modular interior dividers
To order by phone, please call 1-866-860-8906
Our weather-resistant bag has modular interior dividers and U-zipper closure for full bag access. Features include five pockets and an adjustable, removable shoulder strap for carrying comfort.
- U-zipper closure for full-bag access
- 1 bellows pocket, 2 flap pockets, 2 stow pockets, 2 interior dividers
- Two snap-closure dividers create modular organization
- Rustproof brass hardware
- Removable, adjustable cotton webbing shoulder strap
Field; Workwear; Travel
Product Care
Wipe or brush clean
18" W x 11" H x 7-1/2" D
Made in USA of imported material


text:
Joomla Showroom is pleased to announce the immediate release of Event Registration Pro Calendar version 3.1.3 and 2.5.12.
Continue reading
We have put together a list of the Top 10 Joomla administrator tools that we believe will make your Joomla development life much easier. We use these tools in our own development of Joomla websites for our clients and we thought you would find these tools useful to have in your own Joomla development arsenal.Continue reading
We haven't done this in a LONG time but we wanted to wish everyone a Happy and Safe Halloween. We work so much that we all fee like we are turning into zombies. So we thought this was a perfect time for the zombie crew at Joomla Showroom to extend a 20% discount on all our software.Continue reading
Joomla Showroom is pleased to announce the release of Event Registration Pro Calendar version 3.1.1.
This new release has some exciting new features and we have also fixed some bugs as well.
Event Registration Pro is the most feature rich open source event registration management system available for the Joomla content management system.Continue reading
Since the launch of our new website we have only had one single subscription option for a 12 month subscription for Event Registration Pro Calendar.
So many of our customers have asked if we would consider bringing back the lower cost 6 month subscription option and we have taken your suggestions to heart.
Continue reading
Joomlashowroom.com is happy to announce our new release of Event Registration Pro for Joomla 2.5.
Version 2.5.3 brings some really major changes to Event Registration Pro, and we are happy to let you know that we know you'll just love what we have done with it.
We have used the Twitter Bootstrap CSS to restyle every front end view. Here is an overview of all the amazing new features.
NOTE: Those that have made custom edits to your CSS or have created template overrides, those changes will need to be redone as all views for the front end have been updated in this new version.Continue reading
The Joomla! name is used under a limited license from Open Source Matters in the United States and other countries. Joomla! Showroom is not affiliated with or endorsed by Open Source Matters or the Joomla! Project.
Joomla Showroom is a web property of Integrated Technology and Design Inc.


text:
Hi All
My name is Lionel de Lillie, but everyone calls me "D". I've been collecting 808 State for more than a decade now. I own a White Label Stamped Promo 12" copy of Massonix's "A Little Bit More" 4 track release on Noise Records (NNR 112). My question is, was this recording ever issued commercially? What are the actual mix names as my edition doesn't furnish them.
The sound is very soulful, a bit like what Soul II Soul or Lisa Stansfield were doing at the time.


text:
The official poster of the 2014 College World Series!
This rare piece, published for sale at the tournament venue in Omaha, features a spectacular tribute to the glory of spring evening baseball on the Great Plains, as well as some fierce close-play action at second base. With the official tournament logo, tournament dates and location, and the sporting logos of all eight schools competing for the 2014 National Championship
(UC-Irvine, Louisville, Texas, Vanderbilt, Texas Tech, TCU, Ole Miss, Virginia), this is the ultimate poster for the wall
of any fan of college baseball, Omaha sports, NCAA athletics, and America's
Note: CWS posters are always produced in
limited quantity; available while supplies last.
Product Specifications:


text:
Nico Hulkenberg believes Sauber are ready for the challenges ahead after a solid showing in pre-season testing...
Nico Hulkenberg believes Sauber are ready for the challenges ahead after a solid showing in pre-season testing.
Leaving Force India in favour of a move to Sauber for this season, Hulkenberg quickly adapted to his new team and their C32.
The German demonstrated good pace during the pre-season, finishing sixth overall, while the Sauber covered more kilometres than any other team at Barcelona.
"In terms of competitiveness, the final Barcelona test showed we are quite well prepared but still have some homework to do, and that we still have room for improvement in certain areas," said the German.
"But I'm confident the baseline is good.
"I'm really looking forward to racing against the usual grid and finally get a clear picture of where everybody stands with regard to performance."
Hulkenberg will be teaming up with Esteban Gutierrez for the Mexican driver's first season in Formula One.
The 21-year-old has set himself a target of consist top-ten results with the aim being to improve with every grand prix.
"Competing in a Formula One race is the next step in my career, and that's what I need to focus on," he said.
"One of the things that I need to do is feel natural and relaxed in my surroundings so I can focus on the most important elements during the weekend.
"I feel I have a good base for the start of the season, but, of course, I will keep on working as I have areas were I can improve. My goal is to exploit the car's potential and finish consistently within the points."


text:
Hang tight!
Recipe by MakeItHealthy
"I love these cookies but I really wanted to try to make them a little lighter. I actually used sweet potato puree for some of the butter and juice squeezed from an orange for some of the sugar and they still taste great. It sounds a little odd but try it!!"
Hmm. None of these ingredients are on sale today.
Show ingredients on sale
Sort stores by
Save money at local stores when ingredients are on sale!
Watch video tips and tricks
1/2 cup
butter, softened
1/4 cup
sweet potato puree
1/2 cup
white sugar
1 cup
packed brown sugar
1/2 cup
orange juice
egg whites
2 teaspoons
vanilla extract
1 teaspoon
baking soda
2 teaspoons
hot water
3 cups
all-purpose flour
2 cups
semisweet chocolate chips
1 cup
chopped walnuts
Loved it-- different texture, but very flavorful! I used butternut squash instead of sweet potato !
Awesome recipe, though I add one more teaspoon of vanilla and use dark brown sugar. If you like to make larger cookies as I do, this makes something closer to three instead of four dozen.
2 Ratings
* Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
Healthier Best Chocolate Chip Cookies
Serving Size: 1/24 of a recipe
Servings Per Recipe: 24
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 249
Calories from Fat: 102
Browse through over 500 recipes for delicious, budget-friendly meals.
The old saying goes, "Eat what you can, and can what you can't!" We have the know-how.
Delicious recipes, party ideas, and cooking tips! Get a year of Allrecipes magazine for $7.99!
See how to bake the perfect chocolate chip cookie.
Try these addictive cookies, featuring milk-chocolate chips. Mmm.
These amazing cookies are good for the heart AND for the taste buds.


text:
Simple Minds are a Scottish rock band who achieved worldwide popularity from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s. The band produced a handful of critically acclaimed albums in the early 1980s and best known for their #1 US, Canada and Netherlands hit single "Don''t You (Forget About Me)", from the soundtrack of the John Hughes movie The Breakfast Club, #3 US hit single "Alive and Kicking" and #1 UK hit single "Belfast Child". The band has sold more than 40Â million albums since 1979. The core of the band is the two remaining founder members - Jim Kerr (vocals, songwriting) and Charlie Burchill (guitars, keyboards, other instruments, songwriting) - and drummer Mel Gaynor (who first joined the band in 1982). The other current band members are Andy Gillespie (keyboards) and Ged Grimes (bass guitar). Significant former members include bass guitarist Derek Forbes and keyboard player Michael MacNeil (the latter credited as a significant band composer during the band''s rise in the 1980s).
This area is intended for discussion only. If you have a question about your order, or require customer service you can get in touch via our Customer Service Area. Comments enquiring about existing orders, including personal details, or with questions will be deleted.


text:
Writer's block is real.
When O.J. Simpson was on trial for the murder of his wife, he could really have used a best friend. And in Ryan Murphy's true-crime drama�
SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk's grand idea for an 800-mph above-ground transit system is taking it's first steps to become a reality.
Jake Goldenstein was up to his usual tricks as he got an early takedown of Wellington's Daniel Schmidt to start Augusta's home double dual Thursday night at Hutter Gymnasium.
Alice Jean Duensing, age 76, formerly of Winfield, passed away Dec. 19, 2014 at the Life Care Center of Andover.
At least these Sony hacks were good for business for someone.�On Monday, USA Network ordered to series�Mr.
When NBC's gruesome psychological horror�Hannibal�returns for Season 3, it'll bring with it a new...
Hillary Clinton's circle wants to be quoted yawning at Jeb Bush, a sure sign of concern that he could beat her in 2016.
Augusta's middle school boys basketball teams had a rough outing against Andover earlier this week as the Trojans swept all four games.
The holidays are in full swing, which means there are plenty of parades, marathons, Christmas movies and New Year's Eve specials to check out over the next two weeks. Here's our handy list for what's planned as 2014 comes to an end. All times...
- Events Calendar


text:
squarejelly wrote:I have never heard of a turducken, when I first read it I thought it was just a joke. But just last night I was flipping through the channels and came across Paula Dean as she was pulling one out of the oven, she was only calling it a turkey though. Is Turducken the actual name for it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
Dynamo broadcaster Eddie Robinson and CSN Houston's Sebastian Salazar look ahead to Saturday night's match between the Dynamo and Portland Timbers at JELD-WEN Field. The match will kick off on CSN Houston at 9:30 p.m. CT and can also be viewe online as the MLS Stream of the Week.
The Dynamo roster is currently comprised of 27 players. Creating the roster is an elaborate process, combining salary cap restraints while trying to create the most competitive team possible. Below is a look at how the 2013 Dynamo roster was constructed. It is clear the club has exercised all methods for acquiring players, including: the draft, signing homegrown players, trades, loans and signing players from other clubs.
The first chart details when and how each player was acquired:
|Date acquired
|Brian Ching
|Moved with club from San Jose (SJ acquired 03 Supplemental Draft)
|Brad Davis
|Moved with club from San Jose (SJ acquired 05 trade)
|Corey Ashe
|2007 MLS SuperDraft, Round 2 (pick 26)
|Bobby Boswell
|Traded from D.C. United for Zach Wells
|Tally Hall
|Signed as discovery player on free transfer from Esbjerg (Denmark)
|Tyler Deric
|Signed as home-grown player (first in club history)
|Cam Weaver
|Traded from San Jose Earthquakes for Chris Wondolowski
|Kofi Sarkodie
|2011 MLS SuperDraft, Round 1 (pick 7)
|Will Bruin
|2011 MLS SuperDraft, Round 1 (pick 11)
|Alex Dixon
|Signed as home-grown player
|Jermaine Taylor
|Transferred from St. George's (Jamaica)
|Calen Carr
|Traded from Chicago Fire for Dominic Oduro
|Adam Moffat
|Traded from Portland Timbers for Mike Chabala and Lovel Palmer
|Luiz Camargo
|Loaned from Clube Paraná (Brazil)
|Warren Creavalle
|2012 MLS SuperDraft Round 2 (pick 37)
|Brian Ownby
|2012 MLS Supplemental Draft Round 1 (pick 7)
|Erich Marscheider
|Signed as trialist
|Boniek Garcia
|Transferred from C.D. Olimpia (Honduras)
|Ricardo Clark
|Signed as free agent (originally moved with club from San Jose)
|Giles Barnes
|Signed as free agent
|Eric Brunner
|Traded from Portland for allocation money
|Omar Cummings
|Traded from Colorado for Nathan Sturgis and allocation money
|Jason Johnson
|2013 MLS SuperDraft Round 1 (pick 13)
|Anthony Arena
|2013 MLS Supplemental Draft Round 1 (pick 18)
|Bryan Salazar
|Signed as home-grown player
|Andrew Driver
|Loaned from Heart of Midlothian (Scotland)
|Mike Chabala
|Signed as free agent (Spent 2006-11 with Dynamo before trade to Portland)
Next is a list of when the current Dynamo players were acquired, sorted by their first season with the club.
Acquisitions by first season* with club
2006 2
2007 1
2008 1
2009 3
2010 0
2011 7
2012 6
2013 7
*For players that re-joined the Dynamo (i.e Clark, Chabala), first season is classified by their year of return.
Finally, here is a breakdown of the current Dynamo roster by the amount of players acquired by various methods.
Acquisitions by method**
** Returning players classified by how they re-joined the Dynamo.
|MLS SuperDraft
|MLS Supplemental Draft
|Home-Grown Player
|San Jose original
|Free agent
Looking for analysis from yesterday's Champions League matches or this weekend's Dynamo match vs. Portland? Tune in to Dynamo All-Access tonight from 7-9 pm on 1560 AM.
Glenn Davis will preview this weekend's Dynamo match, offering his analysis on the early season starts for both the Dynamo and Timbers.
Guests for the show include Dynamo head coach Dominic Kinnear and defenders Bobby Boswell and Jermaine Taylor. In addition, Glenn will chat with NASL commissioner Bill Peterson and Portland Timbers broadcaster Robbie Earle.
The call-in number for the show is 713-780-3776.
Sebastian Salazar sat down with Houston Dynamo head coach Dominic Kinnear to discuss this weekend's opponent, the Portland Timbers.
Good news for Dynamo fans looking to watch Saturday night's match against the Portland Timbers. The folks at MLS have chosen the Houston-Portland match to be this week's MLSsoccer.com Stream of the Week.
This means that if you do not get CSN Houston (the channel broadcasting the match) as long as you have an MLSsoccer.com account (Click here to register FREE account) you will be able to watch the match online.
There are a few restrictions, however, with the free stream. Because Adobe Flash Player is required to watch the stream, the match will ONLY be available on your computer and not on a mobile device. So that means you cannot watch this stream on your iPad, iPhone, Android, Roku, etc.
However, if you pay for an MLS Live subscription, the local blackout restrictions will be lifted and you can watch the match on your mobile device through the MLS Matchday App.
So long story short, there are numerous ways for you to catch your men in orange this weekend against the Portland Timbers.
1. If you have CSN Houston, catch Glenn Davis and Eddie Robinson on the call beginning at 9:30 p.m. CT.
2. If you want to watch the match with fellow Dynamos fans, come to our official viewing party at Firkin & Phoenix.
3. If you want to watch the match in the comfort of your home and don't get CSN Houston, check out the MLSsoccer.com free stream (not available on mobile devices).
4. If you pay for MLS Live and want to watch the match on your mobile device (phone, tablet, roku, etc.) you can watch the match on MLS Live through the MLS Matchday App.
After Houston's 2-0 home victory over San Jose last weekend, the Dynamo tied the MLS record with 34 consecutive home games unbeaten in all competitions. With the new record in their sights, the Dynamo got some love in this week's power rankings from MLSsoccer.com and Bleacher Report's Joe Tansey. Both sites had the Dynamo in their top spot after the fifth week of the MLS season.
MLSsoccer.com had this to say about Houston:
Got to give it up for the Dynamo: They've weathered preseason injuries, a disappointing CCL elimination, some set-piece worries (we're not 100 percent convinced those are gone) and international call-ups all before the calendar even turned to April. And with all that, they're 3-1-0 – and heating up.
But not everybody agrees that Houston's current form deserves the top spot in the power rankings. Both ESPN.com's Jeff Carlisle and Yahoo Sport's Zac Wassink placed Houston in the fifth spot in their respective rankings. According to Wassink:
Houston's next three games include trips to Portland and Toronto surrounding a home match against lowly Chicago. The Dynamo could be atop MLS power rankings by the end of April.
Meanwhile, Sports Illustrated's Avi Creditor did not move the Dynamo after their home victory, keeping them at the No.3 spot, but did emphasize Houston's attacking force:
The manner in which the Dynamo scored in a 2-0 win over the San Jose Earthquakes was a testament to their attacking quality. On one side, Oscar Boniek Garcia used a tremendous individual effort to get by All-Star defender Justin Morrow and send an accurate cross for Will Bruin. On the other, Brad Davis put in his trademark pinpoint service for Giles Barnes. This dynamic team can come at opponents from myriad ways and angles.
Houston will look to win their first road game of the year when they travel to JELD-WEN Field this weekend to take on the Portland Timbers.
Go behind-the-scenes at the Dynamo's March 30 match vs. the San Jose Earthquakes with our latest episode of Tunnel Vision.
Eddie Robinson offers five key story lines to watch for ahead of this weekend's match vs. the Portland Timbers.


text:
Repair How-To'sStep by step how-to's from the industry's best with photo and video demonstrations.
Find Answers
The standard of the industry, Park Tool Shop Cone Wrenches are unmatched in quality and performance. The special "Y" head design puts more material where it's needed for strength and durability. Precision sizing and a military grade industrial phosphate finish ensure an accurate fit and consistent quality.
Sorry, there currently are not any related repair help articles.
Click here to view our Repair Help & Education Articles... more
Packed with hundreds of photos and procedures, the
Learn bicycle repair from your local bike shop in this hands-on clinic. Find a local Park Tool School or Learn More.
© 2015, Park Tool Co. — PARK TOOL® and the color BLUE are registered trademarks of Park Tool Co.
All other referenced trademarks and trademark registrations are the property of their respective owners.


text:
SAVE 6-Drawer Humidor (300 Cigars)
Keep your favorite cigars in style and at the right humidity.
The look of multiple front drawers adds a furnished look.
Opens and closes smoothly on quadrant and piano hinges. Features engraveable brass nameplate, gold plated lock and key with tassel, two felt-lined accessory drawers, two large rectangle humidifiers, glass hydrometer, two felt lined drawers for accessories, and a scratch resistant felt lined bottom. Holds up to 300 cigars.
Dimensions: 11.62" L x 18.75" W x 10.25" H
Weight: 21.00 lbs.
6-Drawer Humidor (300 Cigars)
6-Drawer Humidor (300 Cigars)
Our innovative products will provide you and your family with years of enjoyment. And with the Brookstone Protection Plus service and replacement plans, you'll have the added peace of mind knowing that if the unexpected does happen, we will simply repair or replace your covered product. Our enhanced coverage goes above and beyond the manufacturer's warranty, saving you time and money.
- 2-Year Extended Replacement Plan $19.99
- 3-Year Extended Replacement Plan $29.99
6-Drawer Humidor (300 Cigars)
6-Drawer Humidor (300 Cigars)
Shopping Cart


text:
International Delivery
With blue flowers that symbolize truth and white blooms that signify honor, this standing wreath arrangement beautifully reflects all the love and sympathy that is in your heart. Exquisitely crafted by our expert florists, it features a gathering of fresh blue delphinium, white roses, lilies, mums and more.
Sign up to receive special offers and
promotions from 1-800-FLOWERS.COM


text:
Read Equity Literacy for All, written by Paul C. Gorski and Katy Swalwell for Educational Leadership.
Take the newly redesigned Who Said It? Quiz.
Subscribe to the EdChange E-Newsletter for updates on our free resources, Web sites, and workshops.
Worskhops and Training
Diversity, equity, and multiculturalism workshops should facilitate new levels of consciousness regarding concepts like racial, class, and gender equity. But they also must empower participants to become change agents on the ground, today. We specialize in using this philosophy to help individuals, organizations, and schools shift from a "celebrating diversity" orientation to one grounded in principles of equity. We call this approach cultivating Equity Literacy.
Publications and Research
We bolster diversity, equity, and multicultural theory and practice in schools and communities with our cutting-edge scholarship for diversity practitioners and organizations. Our publications run the gamut from peer-reviewed academic journal articles to practitioner-focused blogs.


text:
Style #:
For further details regarding our pricavy policies including the use of cookies please click here. For instructions on how to enable cookies please click here. If you need assistance one of our customer service representatives at 1-800-850-7463 would be glad to help.
Price: $159.95
Sale Price: $0.00 Save 100%
Select Your Size
Then, Select Your Width
Additional Views
Studding on black leather was actually a look that punks effectively misappropriated from early variations of cafe racers and bikers, mutating a classic style that groups such as rockers and greasers had previously championed; punks adopted the look for a new generation of anti-establishment rebels. Here, their studded look is kept simple, blunt and striking, with extensive use of large studding all over the uppers and toe caps.
No Customers Have Reviewed This Product Yet
Share your thoughts with other customers
Enter email address to join our mailing list


text:
Brigham Young University - LaVell Edwards StadiumThis panorama of LaVell Edwards Stadium, taken by James Blakeway, features the BYU football team playing to a sold-out crowd. Originally named Cougar Stadium, the current facility opened in 1964 with a seating capacity of 45,000. The stadium was expanded to 65,000 in 1981 and was later renamed LaVell Edwards Stadium on Nov. 18, 2000, after legendary head football coach LaVell Edwards. Home to the perennial nationally-ranked BYU football program, the stadium is nestled at the base of the breathtaking Wasatch Mountains and consistently ranks among the top 25 in attendance nationally. Founded in 1875 in Provo, Utah, Brigham Young University currently enrolls more than 34,000 students.
Bring your wall alive with the breathtaking sights of the BYU campus, and the always sold-out football gameday at Edwards! A spectacular, rare print you'll likely never see in stores. Printed in brilliant color and perfect focus on high-quality paper stock, and complete with a sharp white border that includes the official team logo and a brief descriptive paragraph, this is both a beauty for the wall of home or office, and a great collector's item for years to come. Perfect for the wall of any student, alumnus, athlete, or Provo-area resident!
Product Specifications:


text:
Item 904-225-FAUX is a beautiful Forest Hill Foot Stool With Faux Leather. The Shorty Stool is an attractive, versatile piece from our Forest Hill collection. Its diminuitive size allows it to travel from the game room, to the ottoman, to the mud room, or tucked in the most unexpected places. It even fits under our Forest Hill coffee table!
•Hand forged and heirloom quality iron
•Crafted in the Ozark Mountain
•Custom designed pieces
•Elegant, Rustic, Old world and contemporary styles
•Made from Americas Blacksmith shop


text:
'So You Think You Can Dance' All-Star Belly Flops His Way Into Fox's Diving Special (Exclusive Video)
Watch an exclusive clip of Stephen "Twitch" Boss training for the Jan. 9 special. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/thr/television/~3/DSQPKxXWeGU/story01.htm More »
Detroit, Boston, Memphis and Los Angeles Auditions Also Confirmed http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Tvbythenumbers/~3/iiip8gchy-g/
Put on your dancing shoes; "So You Think You Can Dance" has been given a 10th season, Fox said Thursday. http://www.thewrap.com/tv/article/so-you-think-you-can-dance-hoofs-it-10th-season-70266 More »
SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE: Melanie Moore, Marko Germar and Kathryn McCormick Talk About the Season 9 Finale
For as disjointed SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE has felt this season, it feels like just yesterday when Melanie Moore was crowned the winner of season 8. But now, there are a couple of new names to add t More »
America had their vote on who should be named the SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE winners, but what did the judges/choreographers think of the results? After all, these are the ones who have monitored thei More »
For SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE finalists Tiffany Maher and Cyrus Spencer, they managed to remain safe for all the weeks of fan voting. Unfortunately, both dancers placed second in the competition, but More »
So You Think You Can Dance season 9 was an odd one. With only a few of the top 10 identifying as the standard contemporary dancers, it was anybody's season. And in the finale, ballet dancers Eliana Gi More »
The results of Tuesday night's So You Think You Can Dance 's Season 9 votes not only surprised the contestants, but the judges as well. Although most people expected Eliana Girard to win it for the gi More »