:::aside to GIGObuster:::
The false Franklin attribution is attributed to Charles Miner in about 1810.
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0507D&L=ADS-L&P=R4445&I=-3 Sorry for the off-topic.
Hm, Tom closed it…
Though had Peter Morris come back espousing dowsing, I was going to suggest that the thread be closed. Not much hope for the thread after that.
Peter is neither a liar nor is he a troll. He is however one batshit crazy delusional motherfucker. IMHO.
Thanks samclem.
Well, the GD thread was just closed, **Peter ** just continues to ignore clear evidence Randi is not an absolutist regarding underground water.
I thought for a moment Randi was not on the ball there, but the long winded GD thread actually made me respect Randi more.
Even Carl Sagan admitted that Randi is basically a dick, but the fact that Peter is so obsessed with hating him and can only argue against him using petty, misguided semantics, is to me further proof of his scruples. In other words, Peter Morris is helping Randi’s cause, not hurting it. Imagine the cold sweats he’ll wake up to when this eventually dawns on him.
My vote is a little bit of troll mixed with a lot of insanity. I don’t believe that he believes he is lying.
Not sure about liar or troll, so I vote: Miserable grasp of logic, plus poor reading comprehension.
Make that “incredibly, amazingly, otherworldly poor reading comprehension”.
I think it’s entirely possible that his reading comprehension is so poor as to qualify as paranormal. Maybe he should institute a JREF challenge based on his supernatural ability to misunderstand plain language.
Peter said I was bound to pop in shortly and I’d hate to disappoint him. So here I am. My contribution to the debate is as follows:
“Heh!”
Not a question. I’m not going to argue.
“eh?”
Ah! 
**askeptic ** is just using the standard reply **Peter Morris ** was giving to anything that did not fit his 4 “rules” in the GD thread.
IMO **Peter ** was being a jerk too.
I’m voting for delusional troll, with a heavy splash of needs instruction in linguistics and cognition (per LHOD)
I am also pissed that thread was closed just fifty or so posts after my brilliant riposte about the married couple, one who dowses, and one who dowse not! Clearly not enough time for me to get my due.
Seriously, it took me a long time to understand the essence of PM’s argument. When I did, I was very confused as to how someone who can often string many coherent thoughts together could seriously advance such an equivocation as an argument. Thus, trolling or delusional. And stupid sometimes. Needs to get laid. Get some fresh air. Find a new hobby. Get help. That kind of stuff.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
I was going to post this in the original thread,. but it’s been closed.
see, it’s like this. Randi isn’t very clever really, but he wants to make himself sound clever. So he goes making up stories. He tells fictional tales of his supposed exploits. Totally fictional tales of how he challenged paranormalists, and beat them. Here’s an example of one of his works of fiction:
http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm
<< I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth’s surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don’t want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>
He tells two direct lies in the above piece.
First lie: the claim that 94% of the Earth’s surface has water. Sounds exact, doesn’t it. Not 93% or 95% but *exactly *94%. It’s a story that sounds well researched, but actually he has pulled it out of his ass. The fact is, water is much harder to find than he makes out. Random drilling is really very likely to hit a dry spot, and Randi knows it.
Second lie. He tells the tale of how he dared dowsers to find a dry spot, and they refused. This is sheer fabrication. It never happened. I’ve corresponded with him on this point, and he’s admitted that he made it up, or rather used the weasel words “figure of speech.”
Randi tells lies like this all the time. Why? Not to discredit the dowsers. He does it to make himself sound like a hero. He sells tales of how clever he is for tons of cash. He’s nowhere near clever enough to do these things in real life, but by making up this stuff he makes himself sound clever. Then he goes begging for donations so that he will be able to continue doing this. By telling lies like this, he gets loads of fame and glory and money for himself, none of which is deserved.
Result: sceptics pay a fortune for his lectures and his books, and leave with less money in their pockets, and their heads full of wrong information.
Now, I’ve tried pointing out the fact that he is a liar before. I’ve tried pointing out to my fellow sceptics (yes, I’m a sceptic) that he is a cynical con man exploiting them for cash. The usual response is a load of stupid feeble excuses, and a load of abuse. Most of them, in my experience, really want to believe that he is some sort of hero, and make any old excuse to explain away his misdeeds.
Well, I’m done with trying to prove he’s a bad guy. If you want to ignore his cheating, that’s up to you. I’m beyond caring. I shall not bother trying to prove it to you.
During one of my previous debates on the subject, when I tried to point out a list of his lies, a guy on the Straight Dope and Randi’s forum named Princhester told me that he didn’t believe me, and suggested that if I really believed what I was saying then I should apply for the million dollars. That suggestion intrigued me. I hadn’t thought of it. And now, after thinking about it for a long time, it’s what I’m doing.
I think that Randi is lying, and has been lying throughout his career. I’ve tried to convince others of this, they don’t want to know. So now I’m going to hoist him with his own petard, and turn his own lie against him. Why? Because I can get a million dollars for doing it.
Here’s the bottom line: James Randi has told the tale of how he offered dowsers the dare “find me a dry spot” and they chickened out. If he’s telling the truth, then he surely will be willing to give me the same test he offered them. If he’s telling the truth, then dry spots really are rare, and I will be ubnable to find any. If he’s telling the truth, then a display of finding dry spots really is a paranormal event, and will honestly earn the million.
If he’s lying (and I know he’s lying) then he’s a cynical conman, and 100% deserves to lose his money. I’ll publicise the fact that he issued the challenge, and force him into a position where he can’t back out.
I don’t care if you believe me or not. In fact, if you don’t believe me, that will be to my advantage. If you don’t believe me, go email Randi, tell him that you’re sure he’s right, and beg him to take me down.
That’s it.
Peter,
Please answer my question from post #232 of the original thread:
Thank you.
OK, one last go for the hell of it.
Peter Morris, you divide posters into two parts: the ones who agree with you, and the ones who agree with Randi. You miss the vast majority, which consists of people who recognise that you and Randi don’t disagree in this matter. This has been explained to you several times. For some reason - I will not venture to attempt to ascertain what reason that might be - you cling on to the notion “Randi believes water never flows underground” as if your life depended on it. But it’s just not true, and no-one believes that notion but you.
You will respond saying something that shows that you still have not grasped this concept. You’ll probably urge me to email Randi since I’m so sure that you’re wrong about water flowing underground, once again totally missing the point. I am not saying that you are wrong about water flowing underground. I am saying that you are right. Water does flow underground. I know this. You know this. Randi knows this too, which is a crucial point. Randi never said it didn’t. What he did in fact say has been quoted many times and you have shown your extreme lack of reading comprehension skills every single time, so I won’t bother quoting it again.
Give this up. You’re accomplishing nothing. You’re tilting at windmills and screaming at strawmen.
Are you sure that was me? I mean, it might have been. I just don’t remember. Of course, the $50,000 finder’s fee when you win will be nice*
*I’m joking. You win it, you deserve to keep the lot. Plus I really am far from sure it was me who suggested you apply. Maybe it was.
He said “if you drill deep enough” you will find water, per your cite. You are offering to find water by consulting geological surveys. Why does this seem like the same thing to you? Are geological surveys evidence of water, or are they indications of where water is more or less likely to be found, based on actual examination of similer conditions?
It’s like trying to prove a rape occurred based on statistical tables. Sheesh.
And I’ve pointed out to them that such interpretation relies on extremely stupid and unsupporrtable rewording of Randi’s comments.
eg, Randi says that there are NO underground rivers , **Princhester **insists in the teeth of the evidence that he actually meant that underground rivers aren’t as common as dowsers believe.
After all this time, you still fail to get it. Well, we tried.