In-Sight Publishing

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/04

Robyn Ellen Blumner (born May 14, 1961) is an American attorney, civil rights advocate, journalist, and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. A graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law, she served as a director for the ACLU in Utah and Florida, focusing on civil liberties and rights. She later became a syndicated opinion writer for the Tampa Bay Times, earning recognition as a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Currently, she also leads the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, where she promotes secular values and science education. Blumner is an outspoken atheist and champion of secular humanism.

Blumner discusses her journey into atheism and humanism, starting in childhood and becoming more prominent after her column “I’m an Atheist, So What?” drew massive response. Joining the Richard Dawkins Foundation led to her role at the Center for Inquiry (CFI), merging both organizations to promote science, skepticism, and secularism. Blumner highlights CFI’s initiatives: challenging pseudoscience, supporting secular celebrants, defending church-state separation, and rescuing atheist activists abroad. She views these efforts as essential defenses of Enlightenment values. Despite opposition from Christian nationalism and pseudoscience advocates, Blumner remains focused on the work..

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Robyn Blumner. We will discuss all things related to American humanism and scientific skepticism. Where should we start? What is your personal, superhero-like origin story in scientific skepticism and secular humanism?

Robyn Blumner: We can go back to when I was 11 or 12 years old when I first realized that I was an atheist. I was raised in a Jewish household, but it didn’t stick. Let’s put it that way. I was questioning the existence of God and the biblical stories I was taught from an early age. Finally, sometime between the ages of 11 and 12—I can’t pinpoint the exact moment—I said, “I’m no longer a believer.”

I became an atheist, and I would sit quietly, but I refused to drink the Kool-Aid any more. That all happened at a fairly young age, but for a long time, I was the only atheist I knew. That changed by the time I got to college, where I met many more like-minded individuals. Eventually, my entire family became atheists, one way or another. They either arrived at it organically or decided they were atheists, including both of my parents. But it took quite a while before I found others who were kindred spirits.

That said, atheism wasn’t a central part of my identity growing up. I wasn’t necessarily seeking out humanist or secular groups. I would mention it if there were an appropriate opportunity without causing unnecessary offence to others.

Fast forward to 2004, when Sam Harris came out with The End of Faith. However, even before that book—about a week or two earlier—I wrote a column for the St. Petersburg Times newspaper in Florida, where I was a columnist and editorial writer, titled I’m an Atheist, So What? 

That column was my way of publicly coming out as an atheist to my newspaper readership. I was syndicated across the country, so it appeared in newspapers in several cities.

I was inspired to write it because of an incident at a Tampa City Council meeting, where a council member invited an atheist to give an invocation. Instead of listening to the atheist, two council members stormed out of the room in disgust, standing in solidarity with the idea that atheists cannot be moral people. I felt it was my duty to defend the atheist who gave the invocation publicly. It was a beautiful sentiment emphasizing church-state separation and respecting each person’s liberty to have freedom of conscience—to believe or not believe as they saw fit.

Jacobsen: That must have been quite a moment. How did people respond?

Blumner: I received more letters in response to that column than for any other I had written—hundreds and hundreds of them. A small portion told me I was damned and going to hell.

Jacobsen: Naturally. 

Blumner: But most letters were from people thanking me for voicing what they had been thinking for most of their lives. One man wrote that he had been reading newspapers for over 70 years and had never seen his perspective reflected in a mainstream publication.

It was heart-wrenching to see how this small outreach to the atheist community resulted in such a tsunami of responses. It was like this giant exhale of relief as if somebody had finally stepped into the limelight. It voiced the truth of their understanding of the nature of reality. What it showed me was that this was an important endeavour. It didn’t take long after that for the New Atheist movement to gain traction. You had the books of Sam Harris, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins; God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Dennett’s books.

At the time, I was still with the newspaper, but in 2013, I was approached about the job to take over the Richard Dawkins Foundation. That meant my husband and I would have to quit our jobs, move from newspapers, and relocate to Washington, D.C. I had been a huge fan of Richard Dawkins—notfor The God Delusion, which I thought was a beautifully written polemic on why faith doesn’t have a rational basis, but also for his evolutionary biology books. They made me love and understand that subject at a much deeper level than I had after taking biology in school.

I was attracted to the position because of the man at the helm, so I took it, and we moved to Washington, D.C. Within two years, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) approached the Richard Dawkins Foundation to see if we’d be willing to merge with them. CFI is a much larger organization with a legacy spanning almost 50 years.

It was a good fit. The two organizations had overlapping missions—promoting reason, science, and secularism. At the time, Ron Lindsay, my predecessor and the president and CEO of CFI, had announced his plans to retire. So, it was a wonderful symbiosis, having the Richard Dawkins Foundation merge with CFI and then having me step into the leadership role. That brings us to the present day.

Jacobsen: That’s quite the origin story. Now, here you are, 20 years after that first coming-out article, leading, ironically, a tripartite set of organizations and as one of the most prominent women in these movements. How does it feel, 20 years later, reflecting on how an article sparked heartfelt responses, both positive and negative, and then taking on a huge role advocating for scientific skepticism, humanistic values, and secularism? I’m sure you’ve received both love and hate waves in this position.

Blumner: Few people get to do professionally what they would choose to do as volunteers, and I’m one of those lucky few. Earlier in my career, I earned a law degree.

I was head of the ACLU in Utah and the ACLU in Florida before transitioning to a columnist and nationally syndicated editorial writer. So, I have a background in progressive advocacy and civil liberties litigation. I always thought that working for the ACLU would be the apex of my career in representing my values through an organization. It turns out I was wrong. This is, without a doubt, the apex of my career in representing my values through an organization.

The Center for Inquiry promotes reason, science, and secularism. The entire package of Enlightenment values is the secret sauce to humanity’s progress and happiness. There’s no better way to structure society—based on the evidence of world history—than to promote reason, science, and secularism in a society. I love the Center for Inquiry, the work we do, and the values it represents. While some antagonism comes my way, I have a bit of a force field around me because I love what I do so much that it’s hard to penetrate this feeling of fulfillment with discouraging words and hostility.

Jacobsen: I have to ask because I’ve interviewed many women in this movement, too. I did an article a while ago that was quite popular. It was a play on The Unbearable Lightness of Being, titled The Incredible Politeness of Being: Women in the Secular Communities. It was long. I got commentary from some prominent voices then and now.

I’ve quoted interviews before. In one recent interview with Mneka Mbanje from the Zimbabwe humanist group run by Tauya Chinama. She mentioned she was supposed to travel to the World Humanist General Assembly in Singapore but couldn’t due to some factors. I asked her if the critique, criticism, and hostility she receives as a humanist woman in Zimbabwe is more substantive than what men experience. She said, “Very much gendered.”

In your experience, either in conversations with other women in the movement orfrom banter, do you find that the hostility you receive is gendered compared to men? Do you find it a gendered experience in terms of the kind of hate you get?

Blumner: I don’t, no.

Jacobsen: You don’t? Interesting.

Blumner: No, I don’t. First of all, I don’t get much hate—maybe because I’m not looking for it. I’m not reading the Twitterverse, and I don’t go seeking out the postings of antagonistic voices. I’ve got work to do, and I don’t have time for that. I used to have a personal credo when I was a columnist.

If I wrote a column and you didn’t agree with it, I’d be interested in your critique, but not in ad hominem attacks. If someone sent me an email—and this was before many comments were posted online—I’d only read up to the first insult.

Blumner: Once I encounter an insult, I delete the message. I’m not interested in your point of view if you can’t communicate civilly. The way I interact with the online atmosphere is that I generally ignore it. It may be that ugly stuff is being said about me, but I don’t know about it. .

Jacobsen: Two things: First, that’s a wise policy. Second, it may indicate a healthier societal development when hate and love are equal-opportunity responses.

Blumner: yes, that’s so true. There’s a lot of anger in cyberspace and much ugliness spread by largely insignificant people. When you read what they say, you give them too much credit and worry about it. I don’t do either of those things.

Jacobsen: Good approach. Now, shifting focus, let’s discuss getting involved in more positive and constructive societal endeavours. Specifically, regarding the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and the Center for Inquiry, what is the importance of each in their respective domains? How can people get involved by donating money, donating expertise, volunteering, or writing articles for newsletters, blogs, publications, and journals?

Blumner: Let me tell you a bit about the Center for Inquiry’s (CFI) origin story. It was founded in 1976 by Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James “The Amazing” Randi, and Paul Kurtz—the house Paul built. Kurtz was a philosophy professor at SUNY Buffalo, and the Center for Inquiry’s headquarters is still in Buffalo, though we also have a building in Los Angeles. Many of our 31 staff members work remotely across the United States.

The founders created an organization called CSICOP—C-S-I-C-O-P—the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. As the name suggests, the impetus was to combat the “Age of Aquarius” nonsense that was catching fire then. Think of psychic powers, ESP, telekinesis, talking to the dead, and weird alternative medicine. All this woo was capturing the attention of even educated people without the scientific community rising to challenge it.

The organization was founded to challenge these forms of pseudoscience. CSICOP eventually became the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Paul Kurtz also helped found the Council for Secular Humanism, an organization that promotes atheism and secular humanism.

These were not distinct missions because religion is another form of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when nonsense gets wrapped up in the garb of science—claims about the natural world grounded in wishful thinking or received wisdom rather than evidence or science. So, religion is a form of pseudoscience. It’s grounded in faith, not evidence.

It makes claims about the natural world that turn out not to be true over and over again. So, it fits well within the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry portfolio. However, Paul Kurtz created another organization, the Council for Secular Humanism. Those two entities worked side by side. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and the Council for Secular Humanism published Free Inquiry magazine.

We still have tens of thousands of subscribers to those magazines today. I encourage anyone interested in these subjects to subscribe because you won’t find a better range of interesting, thoughtful opinions in those areas than in these magazines. Then, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science merged with us in 2016, which completed the picture we have today.

We go way beyond publishing magazines. I see the job of CFI as promoting Enlightenment values. We have a legal department; bringing church-state separation cases, and challenging medical quackery. Right now, one of our biggest cases is a suit against Boiron, the largest homeopathic manufacturer in the world. We’re claiming Boiron uses deceptive marketing practices when selling their products. If you look at their labelling, they essentially claim that what you’re getting is real medicine when, in reality, it’s a sugar pill—a placebo. That’s the only effect homeopathy has on a patient.

We have a legal program and a lobbying program. Our lobbyist works in state legislatures across the United States, lobbying against ideas like Louisiana’s law forcing the Ten Commandments onto the walls of every classroom in the state.

We also have a program called Secular Rescue. We save the lives of atheist activists overseas, dozens of them each year. We teach teachers how to teach evolution through our Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science. We have an incredible range of programs that promote reason, science, and secularism.

Jacobsen: What are some of the other current activities of the Center for Inquiry?

Blumner: One of our programs focuses on promoting secular celebrants. In every state in the United States, religious leaders automatically have the legal right to solemnize marriages, but secular individuals often lack this right. To address this, we have pursued legal action in multiple jurisdictions to secure the right for humanists to solemnize marriages. We also provide a program to certify secular celebrants, who receive certification from us after completing a training program, demonstrating they are qualified to solemnize marriages and officiate various services and ceremonies, such as funerals, graduations, and other celebrations.

Most importantly, we seek the legal right for secular celebrants to marry people. Many individuals prefer to choose between something other than a religious leader or a city clerk, so our program certifies secular celebrants, whom we then represent in lawsuits to challenge state laws that restrict humanist officiants from solemnizing marriages. We have filed such a case in Texas on behalf of a secular celebrant there and won the right for secular celebrants to officiate and solemnize marriages in Illinois. Similar efforts in Michigan and other states have equalized rights between religious leaders and secular celebrants. This effort remains part of our active legal program.

As I mentioned earlier, another legal initiative involves litigation against Boiron, one of the largest manufacturers of homeopathic products, for alleged deceptive marketing practices. Boiron claims that its homeopathic remedies are effective treatments for various illnesses. Evidence shows these claims are unsupported, except for a possible placebo effect. Basically homeopathic products are modern-day snake oil. They cannot work because they contain no actual medicine.

While this work is intensive and expensive, it is deeply rewarding. We are especially hopeful about the Boiron case, and while it may take years, we are committed to seeing it through.

In addition, we have a program called the Teacher Institute for Evolutionary Science (TIES), which provides science teachers with resources to teach evolution and address criticisms effectively. Many teachers, especially in middle schools, are underprepared to teach evolution and may avoid it altogether. Through TIES, we provide these educators with knowledge, tools, and confidence so that they are equipped with materials, labs, and tests to offer a robust educational experience to their students. We have hosted teacher development workshops in every U.S. state, including states where resistance to evolution education can be strong, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota. So far, we have reached more than 3,500 teachers nationwide, which will benefit generations of students.

Additionally, we run an initiative called “ScienceSaves,” which promotes appreciation for science’s invaluable contributions to our lives. We are working to establish March 26th as National Science Appreciation Day in the United States, honouring the day in 1953 when Dr. Jonas Salk announced the success of the polio vaccine.

The idea is that science needs an advocate these days. There’s a lot of misinformation, pseudoscience, and distrust of science.  Not enough people truly understand how vital science is to their longevity, health, prosperity, and happiness. So, we remind people of what science has contributed to their lives. One of our initiatives is an annual college scholarship contest. We ask high school seniors planning to attend college the following year to submit a 30-second video describing how science has helped them or someone they know or love. We then jury these videos and select winners, along with honourable mentions.

We also encourage participants to share their videos on their social media platforms, creating a peer-to-peer science advocacy effort that has been extremely successful. 

We have the only full-time paranormal investigator in the world, Kenny Biddle. He frequently receives queries about ghost sightings or other supernatural or paranormal claims, which he thoroughly investigates.

Kenny spends much of his time dismantling videos purporting to show something supernatural and demonstrating how specific techniques, fraudulent techniques, are executed. He’s incredibly skilled and engaging, drawing a diverse audience of believers and skeptics. Even those who believe in ghosts are interested in seeing him debunk these claims, and he’s remarkably effective at challenging those beliefs. So, that’s part of what we do.

We also have a podcast called Point of Inquiry. During the year, we host Skeptical Inquirer Presents, which are free online lectures open to the public. Our CFI West Executive Director, Jim Underdown, has a web series called SkeptaLab: The Bunk Stops Here—you can Google SkeptaLab, and the episodes will come up. In each episode, he uses Los Angeles celebrities to explore a different supernatural or paranormal claim, such as telekinesis, astrology, dowsing, and U.F.O.s.

In an entertaining 20 minutes, Jim walks viewers through how people might get confused or misled into thinking pseudosciences are real. He enlists scientists to explain the underlying physics or chemistry to reveal the truth. Additionally, Jim oversees our $500,000 paranormal challenge, which has been ongoing for 20 years.

The challenge is similar to the late James Randi’s $1,000,000,e We set aside $500,000 instead. It’s open to anyone claiming psychic or paranormal abilities. Participants can test their skills under controlled conditions, with tests agreed upon in advance. Suppose they can demonstrate an ability like moving an object with their mind, predicting the next card in a deck, or locating a hidden water bottle among 20 cups. In that case, we’ll pay them the $500,000. So far, our money remains safe.

So that gives you an overview of the work of the Center For Inquiry. 

Jacobsen: What about Free Inquiry? 

Blumner: Free Inquiry is a project of the Council For Secular Humanism, the arm of CFI that focuses on atheism and humanism work. It is an excellent magazine that explores the latest humanist thought and atheist advocacy. 

Jacobsen: What about international outreach? I am Canadian—a foreigner to Americans. You have affiliates like the Center For Inquiry Canada. How does outreach contribute to advancing knowledge, education, and humanist values?

Blumner: That’s a great question. We do have branches around the world. For example, we support a humanist orphanage in Kenya. The orphanage assists children whose parents, or the children themselves, have been accused of witchcraft, forcing them to flee. This orphanage provides a haven and pays school fees so that these children can receive an education. We also have a C.F.I. in Argentina and one in France.

These branches often rely on dedicated humanist leaders within their countries to carry the mission forward.. CFI Canada used to be a part of the Center For Inquiry. It was once integrated within our organization, but at some point before I came on board, a decision was made for CFI Canada to become independent. This separation mainly allowed Canadians to donate tax-deductible funds directly to CFI Canada rather than to an American nonprofit without tax advantages for Canadians.

While we support CFI Canada’s success, we are no longer aligned as a single organization. 

Jacobsen: What about conferences and events, such as C.S.I.C.O.N. 2024?

Blumner: Yes, C.S.I.C.O.N. 2024 just took place—I returned from Las Vegas a few days ago. It was a fantastic conference. Many videos will be available online soon, so look out for those. We honoured astrophysicist Brian Cox with the Richard Dawkins Award for 2024, and he gave an incredible talk about black holes and singularities.

Neil deGrasse Tyson delivered a keynote address as well. Neil is an extraordinary speaker whose public presentations overflow with insight and charisma, and we are always thrilled to have him at our conferences. We also hosted climate scientist Michael Mann, who addressed the serious state of our planet and updated us on what the “hockey stick” graph now shows.

To clarify, C.S.I.C.O.N.stands for the Committee For Skeptical Inquiry Convention. It’s always been centred on skepticism work.

Much focus these days revolves around medical quackery and pseudoscience. So much quackery is being sold as medicine, and many consumers are misled, confused, and deceived into buying treatments that don’t work. This topic comprised a large portion of the presentations at the recent event. CSICON also serves as an opportunity for professors in critical thinking and debunking misinformation to share their insights. We constantly seek effective tools to help people trapped in conspiracy theories and misinformation find a way out.

Jacobsen: Now, as you’re running this organization—which encompasses three entities in one—you have publications, media, conferences, events, advocacy in education, and international outreach. A lot is happening at once within the organization. What aspects of your work tend to receive the most pushback from those who oppose promoting science, reason, secular values, humanism, or critical thinking?

Blumner: The strongest opposition typically comes from those who want the country to be explicitly Christian in nature, law, and practice. The Christian nationalist movement has been gaining momentum recently, with allies in the federal judiciary in the United States. We’re seeing an unfortunate regression in enforcing the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of church and state. It’s disheartening that the clear line between church and state, firmly established since the mid-20th century, is now blurred. The U.S. Supreme Court seems ready to elevate religious belief as an overriding right that trumps other constitutional interests.

Under the Court’s current jurisprudence, a neutral law that applies to everyone could automatically have an exception for religious beliefs. This is, perhaps, the most distressing recent development in constitutional law. We’ve seen this in the Dobbs decision, which reversed Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal right to abortion in America. The notion that a cluster of cells smaller than a pinhead is equivalent to a human being like you or me is a theological stance, not a scientific one. For the Court to undercut the right to privacy and place a woman’s rights on equal footing with an embryo and fetus—effectively denying a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and her ability to make personal medical decisions—is a travesty.

And it’s grounded in religious dogma, not law, which is distressing. We will continue to fight, and hopefully, one day, new jurists will arrive at different conclusions. 

Jacobsen: What do you consider secondary concerns to the immediate issue of Christian nationalist encroachment into secular life in the United States? If Christian nationalism is number one on that list, what would be number two?

Blumner: We’ve observed an increase in identitarian political leanings infiltrating scientific endeavours, which poses a danger to the scientific method. For example, we’re seeing the suggestion that traditional or indigenous medical practices are equal to Western scientific medicine entering scientific institutions, medical schools, and curricula. In places like New Zealand and, increasingly, Canada, there’s a push to recognize Indigenous knowledge as equivalent to Western science despite it often being grounded in creation myths and storytelling rather than clinical testing or the scientific method. While certain outcomes from indigenous knowledge might be beneficial, a scientific claim should only be presented as truth within science once it is rigorously tested.

For the integrity of scientific truth, it’s crucial to set aside political biases and evaluate claims with the same rigour applied to all scientific inquiries. Creationism, for instance, asserts that life’s diversity stems from supernatural sources rather than evolution and natural selection. Whether that’s framed as God or Jesus or a mythological figure from an indigenous culture, it remains creationism and not science.

Jacobsen: If you had ample personnel and funding—say, a hundred staff and unlimited resources—what sort of outreach would you prioritize for public awareness, benefiting the general public, and growing secular humanism and scientific skepticism?

Blumner: I’d allocate more resources to lobbying efforts. It’s challenging to effectively moniter the activities of 50 state legislatures with our current lobbying capabilities. Much of the problematic legislation could be countered with stronger lobbying power. For example, in Louisiana, there’s now a requirement to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. In Oklahoma, public schools are set to teach the Bible. Additionally, naturopathic groups are pushing to receive medical credentials, which is both absurd and dangerous.

We’re fighting a 50-front war with a tiny army. I would love to expand our lobbying staff. As you suggested, we need an advertising campaign to help people understand the importance of science, the dangers of pseudoscience, and what it truly is. People also need to see that Christian nationalism is not at all what America’s founders envisioned for this country—quite the opposite.

This is an attention economy; we need resources to capture more attention. 

Jacobsen: Who are some of your biggest allies in these efforts?  I know, for instance, that when people want to place giant tablets of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, The Satanic Temple might respond by erecting a statue of Baphomet, claiming their religious freedom as a form of protest. Which organizations, groups, or individuals do you find to be consistent and reliable allies?

Blumner: We certainly welcome allies from all sides. Some groups align with us on one issue but may oppose us on another. The Satanic Temple, for example, has a knack for humorous and impactful stunts, capturing public attention with its “hoist you on your own petard” approach. It’s truly mastered the art of clever P.R. What makes CFI unique among secular groups is our focus on challenging pseudoscience. We are pro-vaccine, track medical quackery, and even take legal cases on those issues. When we’re in legislative discussions, we’re not just countering religious legislation but also monitoring the actions of the alternative medicine lobby.

Jacobsen: Among late secular humanists and scientific skeptics who have died, who stands out to you as a hero or an inspiration?

Blumner: Christopher Hitchens has to be at the top of that list. I’ve never seen anyone as skilled as Hitchens at verbally dismantling an opponent. He was also a brilliant, impactful writer. Other heroes include Robert Green Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Mary Wollstonecraft, and John Stuart Mill. The writers of the Enlightenment are my greatest heroes. Then there’s Bertrand Russell, a more recent and brave atheist. Losing Dan Dennett recently was a tremendous loss to our movement. There are many giants whose shoulders we stand on.

Jacobsen: What would you choose if you had a small bookshelf and could only include a few books to guide people?

Blumner: Steven Pinker’s Enlightenment Now would be at the top. Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, the Selfish Gene, and Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World would also be essential. It’s a solid list.

Jacobsen: Here’s a foundational question. Do these recurring counter-movements against secular humanism, scientific skepticism, reproductive rights, human rights, and similar issues primarily attack what we see as the continuation of the Enlightenment’s substantive work? I don’t necessarily mean just the values themselves but also the practices—whether it’s lawsuits over homeopathic pseudoscience, proper education for middle school teachers on evolution, challenges to religious fundamentalism infringing on reproductive rights, and so forth. The many issues discussed in this interview all seem to touch on this. Short version: Foundationally, do you see these attacks as assaults on what we consider an extension of Enlightenment values?

Blumner: Yes. We stand for reason, science, and secularism—fundamental values of the Enlightenment. Much of what we do flows from those principles, including protecting individual rights and freedom of conscience. Suppose someone wants America to be a Christian nation. In that case, they’ll discard freedom of conscience, impartiality in the law, and the democratic principle that individuals have a right to dissent. This seriously threatens the American experiment, which we’ve helped successfully export elsewhere.

Sadly, many Americans don’t fully grasp this danger. People worldwide sometimes seem more alarmed at America’s trajectory than many of my fellow Americans.

Jacobsen: Is there anything else you’d like to address that we still need to cover?

Blumner: You did a fantastic job covering the full scope. Thanks for the thorough discussion!

Jacobsen: Nice to meet you.

Blumner: Nice to meet you. Bye-bye.

Jacobsen: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.