Just let it go, Peter.
Stop obsessing over James Randi. Lead a real life. You’re not going to win the million dollars; they’re not even going to accept your application. Go on and do something else with your life, close down the Web site, and do whatever it takes to get over your obsession with the man.
You have a life to lead. A one way feud isn’t a productive use of your time. James Randi doesn’t care about you. You need to get over him.
Let it go.
By that particular quote, it seems just as well to say that you are indeed entitled to the same exact test. You must find water reliably over 94% of the time, whereby the definition of whether you have found water rests on the following two facts:
Those are the stipulations of his challenge. It is almost definitely certain that there is some precise cuttoff line for water-rate at which 94% of the world does have “water” at drill depth. As such, it is a perfectly valid challenge–assuming you are willing to accept his definition of whether his cuttoff line is worth contemplating.
Okey Dokey. Here is your post, from the other thread, in its entirety. Bolding for emphasis.
He refers to locating water by drilling. You refer to locating water by consulting geleological surveys.
Where have I lied?
And paying for it.
Yeah, this is an argument I’ve seen so many times before.
Many morons hurl abuse at me, and if I fail to respond one even one stupid pathetic moronic point, some idiot claims that he has won.
Your point is whiny, pathetic, trivial, and not worth responding to. It just shows that you are desperate.
No, the test is to find a dry spot.
I’m not sure I follow your point though, Contrapuntal. Mr. Morris is saying that he can look at a study and find spots where he can drill and not find any “practical amount” of water. I don’t see how consulting a map for spots to drill is supposed to make drilling and consulting geographical data as being mutually exclusive.
Though of course I don’t see where you are lying either.
That’s just the same test in reverse. You would reliably need to find a dry spot over 6% of the time, whereby the provisions were that you dig to “drill depth” and that “there is water for 94% of all land at drill depth”. With a 6% chance, searching for dry spots is certainly more expedient as a test criteria, but the result of searching for wet or dry spots is the same regardless so long as you maintain his challenge stipulations.
That’s rather what we’re all telling you about the whole thing to begin with…
Gee, with logic like that, it’s no wonder that think Randi’s stupidity is the same as intelligenge.
Jerk, Troll, Deluded.
You are also an idiot.
**Glee ** explained that already and you did ignore it on purpose, and no one reading so far can ignore what you are doing.
Bottom line: you are only stuck in a paradox of your own creation, for the purposes of the challenge, what Randi said means diddle squat.
Randi will simply take you down by just mentioning what are the true probabilities, because on top of that, there is a high provability that he was using hyperbole in his numbers, but this remains a moot and idiotic point on your part: only if the numbers are part of the final arranged challenge is that then we could talk even about getting stuck on your “he lied, he said” useless rhetoric.
One does not need to be a psychic to figure out what will happen next: on the way to set the challenge you will deny the correct proportions or data to be used in the challenge, regardless if it is set independently. And by insisting this is not dowsing but a natural phenomenon you are also beforehand barking up the wrong tree, you already set the triggers for the challenge being denied, you are a complete loser.
?
If I have a random field of squares and 10% are white and 90% are black, asking someone to, while blindfolded, select with better than 10% results white squares, or with better than 90% results black squares then either way is functionally the same. If they can accomplish either, they’ve shown that they can beat the odds. I don’t think there’s anything fishy in that statement.
Ah yes.
I use logical arguments.
You respond with abuse. And that’s all you have.
Just proves that you have no answer to a single point I’ve raised.
So you are not going to answer and then let everyone else deduce you really don’t know what to say…
Yeah, that sounds reasonable and does not show any hint of desperation. :rolleyes:
I haven’t claimed anything. I haven’t made a point. I have asked a question. Look at your own words in post #103. Right there. Just upthread. The ones you avoided answering by posting this drivel.
You called me a liar. Where have I lied?
Why is map reading equivalent to drilling?
OK, this is creepy.
Not liking Randi. I can understand.
Thinking he’s wrong about something. I can understand.
This…this is just plain old creepy.
I’ve encountered this before.
Some pathetic idiot hurls 100 stupid questions at me, then claims victory if I only answer 99. And that is the ONLY way he can convince himself of victory, in the teeth of the evidence.
Troll.
Has an axe to grind with Randi, for sure, but also seems to be quite enjoying the attention that he’s getting here.
DNFTT.
It reminds me of a local man who was convinced the channel six anchorman was Jesus Christ.
What he is saying is that after he has found the spot, he will consult a geological survey to determine whether water is there.
“Pick spots at random” refers to his methodology for finding a dry spot, as explained on his website. It is the crux of the issue. Equivalent to a dowser saying “this is the can with water.” Only, instead of opening the can, (drilling) he proposes to read a map.