Freda, may I just fax you the cash?

Skeptic(a)emia is different from being a skeptic. That's how I'm choosing to read it. It doesn't involve true skepticism and is the exact opposite side of the coin from gullibilitis. They are both conditions that can make a person look stoopit. As far as I'm concerned, a true skeptic investigates the truth of everything - including his own opinions, and changes what he believes is true based on what he learns. When facts and evidence isn't available, he considers the likelihood that a thing is true.

Raw oysters are uncooked: this is a fact. I've done research on this, following the oyster from its natural state in the seafood department right up until it's eaten, and I can verify that it was never cooked.

Row oysters are gross: there have been no double blind, randomised studies on them that I've been able to discover. There would be some difficulty in finding a suitable placebo for a raw oyster anyway, and if one used, say, toast, the test subject would immediatley know it wasn't an oyster. Because it isn't gross. I've done some personal research, and I've come to the conclusion that I believe they're gross. I also realise that, in the absence of empirical evidence, others may very well hold other beliefs. Some people, and probably most oysters, might think they're attractive.

My main problem with skepticemia is that people often can't spell it, and wind up with scepticemia, which is a completely different condition. The call themselves 'sceptics' and I worry that they don't know there are some good antibiotics available these days.