Peter Morris Your neurological malfunction amazes me.
Randi does.
Many of his fans do.:
Randi has never denied the existence of flowing water in underground caves.
partial list of Randi’s comments
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/claims.aspx
Either the $1,000,000 challenge exists or it doesn’t. That’s pretty binary. If it exists, the dowsers know about it and that they are something he would consider a valid entry, then that’s 100% a challenge to dowsers, any way you look at it.
Randi is only half of the equation. The person who is doing the proving would presumably have a whole lot of video footage, documentation, and legal contracts all nice and happy regardless of whether Randi’s side backed out halfway through.
It doesn’t matter if the man is a liar. Either his name is signed on a notarized agreement or it isn’t.
And I might note that if most of the people you are talking to, day in and day out, are people who failed his challenge, you’re not going to exactly hear a lot of people saying, “Ah, yeah, you know we did the tests, but nope it looks like we were wrong all along!”
BUT, I would personally guess that part of the stipulation for any accepted challengers would be that the results are reviewed by a mutually agreed upon (from the start, before testing begins) peer pannel, the verdict of which both parties would have to accept. So given that, it’s rather impossible for Mr. Randi to cheat. Anyone who enters into the challenge simply has to make sure there are controls to make sure that he doesn’t–and that’s just not all that hard.
To forestall one possible mis-cite from Peter, let me ask folks to name three vast rivers in the world.
My answers:
Mississippi River
Amazon River
Yangtze River
Answers that I would not accept
French Broad River
The Thames
Gambia River
Do folks agree with me so far? I mean, others might have different cutoffs for what counts as a “vast river,” but I think we can agree that somewhere between The Nile and Haw Creek there’s a line to be drawn, and on one side of the line your river is no longer going to be characterized as “vast.”
Now, James Randi has claimed that dowsers are delusional for claiming that “there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped.” This is not, of course, a claim that “there are NO underground rivers,” any more than my claim that North Carolina lacks vast rivers is a claim that there are no rivers in North Carolina.
Peter may disagree, considering the modifier “vast” to be irrelevant. This is more evidence of his specific learning disability, a disability that I am wild-assedly speculating about, having no qualification to diagnose disabilities, much less to make them up out of whole cloth.
Nevertheless, it’s an interesting pattern. Do you agree, Peter?
Daniel
No, he disputes that there is riverlike flows underground that aren’t in caves (i.e. running in continuous holes through rock.)
I know. I’m just of the OPINION that both LRC and the JD distillery are cool places to visit, so I thought I’d give them a plug. 
Oooh, bad move. Now you’re going to cop it.
But he cheats in the tests and lies about it, like he lied about the dry spot test.
How does he cheat and lie the tests, without leaving any proof that the pre-selected, impartial, mutually selected reviewers come out blasting him over? I realise the man is a magician, but I’d be hard pressed to think that he could get around the various legal details and copies in triplicate that are necessitated by any sort of contract whereby you might give someone a million dollars.
Randi has neither cheated nor lied about the tests. His naysayers, especially those who pretend to have paranormal powers, make a habit of cheating and lying to people.
The OP of this thread asked if you’re a troll or a liar. Actually, I see nothing to make those two mutually exclusive. So far, I’d have to say that from the evidence of your posts in the linked thread, the thread before, and this one, you are a liar, a troll, and also pretty stupid. That makes a hat trick, doesn’t it?
Seconded, Monty.
Great! Now we’re cooking with butter. From one
Granted, the first part of this quote contradicts the second part. Any normally-functioning reader would interpret the second part of the quote as qualifying and correcting an overbroad statement in the first part. This is not, when taken as a whole, support for your claim about Randi’s claim.
The second link does not contain the word “river” or “underground,” and indeed makes no claim about underground rivers.
The third one contains this relevant quote:
I hope that by emphasizing the relevant modifiers you will be able to see and process them. I do not know if that will work. This is called a “restrictive modifier,” Peter. Restrictive modifiers restrict the meaning of that which they modify.
The fourth cite says nothing about underground rivers.
The fifth cite says nothing relevant about rivers or “under.” (It details a meeting that happened near the Potomac River–an irrelevant reference).
Finally, we hit paydirt, the cite I’ve already talked about:
The difference between saying there are no underground rivers and that the idea of “vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped” is delusional is, well, vast.
Daniel
I can only assume, Peter, that since you have thrice refused to answer my question, that you have none. Do I need to bring up the post where you quote Randi, and then offer your response? Clearly he refers to drilling, and you refer to map reading.
Randi :** "There are no streams of water flowing underground. "**
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html
Tell me, you appear to be a sceptic, of sorts, albeit a rasther credulous one.
Randi tells this styory :
<< 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 theyonly have a six percent chance of success. >>
What do you think about this?
Is he telling the truth? If you think so, then don’t I have the right to the same test?
Is he lying ? If you think so, then aren’t you outraged at him profiting from peddling lies, mr sceptic?
Good, Monty.
I take it that you believe his claim : 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 theyonly have a six percent chance of success. >>
since you are convinced that he doesn’t lie, this must be a true story.
and if it’s a true story, then aren’t I entitled to the same test?
Go email Randi and tell him.
I don’t dignify lies with an answer
Answered: you only can get this by leaving off the rest of the quote, in which he immediately correct himself. As in, two sentences later, he qualified this.
Heh. I’m not interested in the “dry spot” debate, since Randi has said that was a figure of speech, and I believe people are the authority on the meaning of their own words.
Daniel
My guess is because you are not a dowser. Here are the parts of the quote you left out –
*Now let’s go to modern Germany, after the fall of Communism, and compare N-rays to the newly discovered “E-rays.” They are actually called Erdestrallen, or “Earth-rays,” but I’ve gotten the media all over the world to call them E-rays, a sort of parallel to N-rays. E-rays are even sillier than the N-rays. What are they? First of all they cannot be detected by any known means, except by water dousers. They cause cancer. They supposedly come from the center of the Earth. The West German government spent over 400,000 marks, or about $200,000, to pay dowsers to go around to hospitals that were federally funded and federal office buildings to move beds and desks that were in the way of these deadly E- rays.
I offered to go over for nothing and conduct a very simple two-part test: 1. Can one dowser find the same spot twice? and 2. Can two dowsers can find the same spot once? I told them about this and their response was,"We don’t need to do the experiment because we know dowsing works. It’s been around since the Middle Ages and the historical tradition validates its truthfulness. "
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. Dowsing is an idiomotor reaction that is very deceptive. It is an unconscious motion that you cannot detect and it looks for all the world like some mysterious force.*
[SIZE=5]**
Why do you think that map reading and drilling are equivalent methods for locating water?**[/SIZE]