Ask Peter Morris if he is a Liar or a Troll or just tell him.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Peter Morris

1. someone asked a vaguely sensible question about how to settle disputes between Randi and me.

2. I posted a comment from Randi about how such disputes would be settled by a third party trusted by both. I then suggested Arthur C. Clarke as a possiblethird party.

3. Some lying sack of shit chose to twist my words out of all proportion, claimed that I said Clarke is the ultimate authority on what Randi’s words mean.

Nice–I ask logical questions, and you hurl abuse at me. In a lie, of course–I made no such claim as you say in #3, but rather asked you a question.

The reason why I asked such a question is because of #2: you answered a question, but it was not the question that I asked. I was trying to figure out whether you were answering my question or the one of your invention. Apparently it was one of your invention, because you considered my follow-up question to be a lie.

Since then, you have continued to refuse to answer the original question.

Par for the curse (I like that typo!)

Daniel

[Monty]

In other words: you’re full of horse apples, Pete.

[Cisco]

I’ll ask my question for the 5th time:

How do you plan to link Mr. Randi’s throwaway comment (“find me a dry spot”) to his unrelated $1M Challenge, and why do you think the two are related?

[RickJay]

@Peter Morris

Several things tell me that Randi is not telling the truth.

So suppose he’s not. It still doesn’t have anything to do with the JREF challenge. The JREF challenge is not some open challenge to anyone who disagrees with James Randi on anything at all. It’s designed to test paranormal claims. You’ve pointed out examples of claims that were more pseudoscientific than paranormal, but all made claims that were nearly indistinguishable from paranormal activity (e.g. claims that equate magnetism to magic, like the wine taste magnets.) Your disagreement with Randi is based on a throwaway comment that you’ve taken out of context and in any event it’s a disagreement over a point of fact. You’re not claiming something that could be construed as pseudoscience. He is not going to accept your challenge.

You need to get over your obsession with Randi. Really, you’re obsessing over a celebrity. It’s not healthy. Forget the semantic arguments; you’re acting ina really weird and unhealthy way. You need to step back and ask yourself how you would react to someone else being this obsessed over a fixation on a C-level celebrity.

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

I am willing to take the same test he offered them.

The test he offered them was to find a dry spot by dowsing, and to confirm the dry spot by drilling, said drilling to be paid for by the dowsers. You are offering to generate random numbers, attach them to a grid representing a particular part of the surface of the earth, and confirm the dry spot by consulting geological surveys. Not even close to the same thing. Noy in the same category of things, really. One calls for a person to physically pick a spot through methods unknown to science and provide a drilling team to confirm the results. The other calls for a person to run a computer program and consult a map to confirm the results. You wouldn’t have to leave your room. You could just e-mail him the results.

Why do you think these two protocols are “the same?”

I have asked you this before, and you never responded. You only responded when I reduced it to “drilling = cartography,” at which point you called me a liar, because you never said drilling = cartography. But when presented with your actual words, you are silent. Why do you suppose that is?

[rayh]

@Contrapuntal

The test he offered them was to find a dry spot by dowsing, and to confirm the dry spot by drilling, said drilling to be paid for by the dowsers. You are offering to generate random numbers, attach them to a grid representing a particular part of the surface of the earth, and confirm the dry spot by consulting geological surveys. Not even close to the same thing. Noy in the same category of things, really. One calls for a person to physically pick a spot through methods unknown to science and provide a drilling team to confirm the results. The other calls for a person to run a computer program and consult a map to confirm the results. You wouldn’t have to leave your room. You could just e-mail him the results.

Why do you think these two protocols are “the same?”

I have asked you this before, and you never responded. You only responded when I reduced it to “drilling = cartography,” at which point you called me a liar, because you never said drilling = cartography. But when presented with your actual words, you are silent. Why do you suppose that is?

And the results would have to be confirmed by drilling anyway, otherwise both sides have a get out. Just because the survey results say there may or may not be water there, how do you know unless you actually drill?

[Peter_Morris]

@Lochdale

To be frank Peter, that’s been done to death. You simply don’t accept that your application is inherently flawed insofar as it violates the letter and spirit of the challenge.

No, you have not given me one credible reason for that. Not a single one. All I’ve had is abuse.

And two things are obvious. First, you don’t understand the way the challenge works. And second, you haven’t actually read my apploication.

The letter and spirit of the challenge is this:

James Randi does not believe in certain things. As proof of his disbelief he offers $1,000,000 to anyone that can demonstrate his disbelief to be wrong. “prove me wrong and win a million dollars” he says.

Some of the things he challenges are telepathy and dowsing, it’s true. But others are what he calls “pseudoscience” statements about science that Randi does not believe.

In this category are dozens or hundreds of things. Such as :

1. The wine clip - a device that uses magnets to rapidly mature wine. Randi does not believe it, and offers the prize to anyone that can prove him wrong.

2. Water memory - the theory that water holds a memory of substances dissolved that survive repeated dilutions. Randi does not believe it, and offers a million dollars to anyone that can prove him wrong.

3. Tice clock - a device that supposedly improves the sound in your hi-fi system. Randi does not believe it, and offers a million dollars to anyone that can prove him wrong.

4. Facillitated Communication - the claim that severely autistic children have hidden intelligence and can be helped to communicate witth the outside world. Randi doesnot believe it and offers a million dollars toanyone that can prove him wrong.

And this is the basis of the challenge. This is the letter and the spirit of the thing. Randi is so convinced of the rightness of his opinion that he will back it up with a million dollars. If nobody tries to claim, he advances that as proof of how right he is. If you think he’s wrong about any one of these items, you can prove it and win a million.

For example, if you believe the wine magnet works, you are entitled to say “it works, it’s not paranormal, you just don’t understand magnets”

Or, if you believe the Tice clock works, you are entitled to say “it works, it’s not paranormal, you just don’t understand how a hi-fi works.”

And THAT’S what it’s all about. You don’t have to show a paranormal ability to get the million. You merely have to demonstrate ignorance on the part of James Randi… Randi has promised that he will pay out if one of these pseudoscientific statements turns out to be true - paranormal or not. People can say “it’s not paranormal” and still be entitled to the million.

So, a claim does not have to be paranormal to be eligible. It only requires that James Randi expresses disbelief, and dares you to prove it. That’s the letter and the spirit of the challenge.

And if Randi ever, even just once, turns out to be wrong, but says “it’s not paranormal” and refuses to pay, then the whole point of the challenge vanishes in a puff of logic. He has promised that he will never do this.

Moreover, your application appears to be solely reliant on your interpretation of some comments Randi may or may not have made. Again, this foundation does not lend itself to a credible application.

No, it’s based on a challenge that Randi has issued over and over for 25 years. He has stated repeatedly that he doesn’t believe underground streams exist, or that dry spots are common in the ground, and has issued a challenge to prove it. I am willing to take the challenge, while I say from the start that it isn’t paranormal, Randi is just wrong.

And that complies to the letter and the spirit of the challenge.

[Peter_Morris]

@Cisco

Ok, then I’ll ask my question for a 4th time, which is relevant to this.

How do you plan to link Mr. Randi’s throwaway comment (“find me a dry spot”) to his unrelated $1M Challenge, and why do you think the two are related?

It’s not in any sense a throwaway comment. It’s a central theme in his attacks on dowsers. He has made that challenge over and over again for 25 years if not longer.

He has grabbed praise and attention and money for himself by repeatedly telling the story of how he issued the challenge, and how nobody dared accept.

[Peter_Morris]

@treis

If you don’t know what Mr. Randi was denying in this instance, how can you possibly claim he was wrong to do so? For all we know the underground river concept the dowsers claimed were something akin to an underground Mississippi that does not occur in caves.

Unless you have direct evidence that is what Randi meant, don’t go adding meaning to what he said.

For myself, I prefer the logical approach, which is to take it as meaning *exactly *what he said. No more, no less.
[/quote]

If you can’t show where Mr. Randi said that he believes all phony scientific theories are paranormal then your axiom #1 is unproven, and therefore your logically conclusion is unproven.

No, I don’t have to do any such thing.

I never said that ALL phony scientific theories are ellivgible. That is your invention.

A phony scientific theory is elligible if and only if Randi directly states that he does not believe it, and issues a challenge.

saying “find me a dry spot” makes this one eligible.

[Anduril]

@Peter Morris

Tell you what, everyone. Let’s leave the personal insults aside.

Each of you tell me your main objection to my application. I’ll answer your objection, provided you state it clearly, and without insult.

Why should anyone follow you here? You were given some latitude when it came to the thread you started in GD. Here, the insults and snide comments are not only allowed but are completely justified in your case.

So…I find your obsession to be quite pathetic. Look at the context of the challenge and tell me how you’ll be able to show up Randi even if you can delude yourself into thinking that it will ever be successful. JREF was put up to challenge paranormal claims. Here you are trying to pin him down on a factual error. Say he admits to the factual error, then what? It obviously (at least to everyone here - BTW, has there been anyone who actually agreed with you aside from nuts who want to prove the paranormal) doesn’t fall under the purview of the challenge. I’m really confused with your agenda.

[Peter_Morris]

@Contrapuntal

Why do you think these two protocols are “the same?”

I have asked you this before, and you never responded.

I have responded before, and my response stands. You are inventing my opinions. I do not think they are “the same.”

The fact that you need to lie like this speaks volumes.

[Peter_Morris]

@Anduril

BTW, has there been anyone who actually agreed with you aside from nuts who want to prove the paranormal) a.

The fact that I’m right has been obvious to anyone EXCEPT morons that want to suck Randi’s cock.

Randi is more intelligent than some morons. Morons look up to him as a superior intelligence. But normal people don’t.

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

I have responded before, and my response stands. You are inventing my opinions. I do not think they are “the same.”

The fact that you need to lie like this speaks volumes.

You are quoted in my reply. Here, I’ll do it again.

@You

I am willing to take the same test he offered them.

My bolding.

This getting a little freaky, Peter.

[Peter_Morris]

@Monty

In other words: you’re full of horse apples, Pete.

In what way?

Randi boasts of all the times he has challenged dowsers to “find me a dry spot” and all the times they refused.

I’m willing to take the same test he offered them.

If you think his story is true then you should believe that I will fail the test.

So email him and urge him to perform this test and prove that I can’t find dry spots.

In other words, put up or shut up.

[Peter_Morris]

@Contrapuntal

You are quoted in my reply. Here, I’ll do it again.

My bolding.

This getting a little freaky, Peter.

Only to a moron with an obsessive need to invent things.

You tell me where Randi ever specified actually drilling?

[zuma]

How’d this dude get obsessed with Randi, and how’d he end up here?

[Mangetout]

Peter, have you actually applied for the challenge? If not, why not?

[Peter_Morris]

I’m not obsessed with Randi, I’d be happy to ignore him altogether.

But my detractors in this thread ARE obsessed with him. Every time there’s a discussion about dowsing or ESP or anything it’s Rand this, Randi that, Randi the other, Randi is so wonderful, I wanna suck Randi’s dick, Randi does all my thinking for me, Randi says this so that proves its true, etc, etc, etc.

If it wasn’t for them going on about him all the time, I’d have no reason to mention him.

[Peter_Morris]

@Mangetout

Peter, have you actually applied for the challenge? If not, why not?

It would help if you actually looked at my website before asking questions.

Yes, I’ve applied.

You can see my application on my website
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

Only to a moron with an obsessive need to invent things.

You tell me where Randi ever specified actually drilling?

How many times do I have to do it? I know I’ve done it at least three times already. It is in the same post where you justify your eligibility for the test. I’ll post it again, and bold the part that mentions drilling.

FWIW, how else would a doswser verify the existence of water?

I claim the ability to pick spots at random, consult a geological survey, and show that there is no water “in a practical sense” at the spot so picked.

Now, I think this is easy to do. I think anyone can do it. I say that there is nothing paranormal about it.

James Randi does not believe my claim, and has issued a challenge to prove it.
"Find me a dry spot because, it’s almost impossible not to strike water **if you drill **deep enough. " http://www.bestfilmfests.com/review-divining-mom.htm

And I have accepted the challenge he has set. I will find him that dry spot he wants.

This is what the challenge is about. Randi states his disbelief in claims, demands that people prove them, and offers a million dollar prize for success. He has expressed his disbelief, issued the challenge, and I am fully at liberty to accept.