Nonsense. You may choose not to answer my questions, but I think that most folks will draw the same conclusions from this that I do–the questions are ones that you find deeply uncomfortable, because they strike at the heart of the weakness of your argument.
It’s pretty funny that you report me to the mods and then directly break the rules of the forum. Whatever, though–I can’t be arsed to report you in turn.
Daniel
Except you didn’t answer it. It was a yes-no question; I did not ask you to propose an alternate question and then answer the alternate question.
More dodging. Only you are the authority on the reason for the dodging.
Daniel
Dang, Lefty, I cannot believe I conceded at the same time you were losing! 
Curses!
OK Peter. Why do you believe that “practical use” is a relative term? As I pointed out, .5gpm would be a significant amount of water to me. What does the farmer have to do with anything? Seriously, if we are going to define practicality based on need, it’s going to make finding that dry spot a whole lot harder, isn’t it?
Randi never said anything that remotely approaches that.
His words are “the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.”
he made no exception for “unusual areas”, he made nocomments about limestone, he’s probably never even heard of the river Mole. Nor did he remark about rivers “of size”. He said that the concept is not suppoorted AT ALL by geological research. Not AT ALL. Not even a little bit. There aren’t any, according to him. Not even one, if he’s right.
I disagree with the statement he actually made. Not the opinion that you invented for him.
The correct term is channels, not rivers. Only some of the channels are rivers, many are not. There are indeed channels, of various types, all over the world.
Beyond any rerasonable doubt
Oh, no. I’m not challenging Randi. He’s challenging me.
I state that underground channels exist. He challenges me to prove it. And note that the word “vast” is his addition, which I never claimed.
When you don’t win the money, how will you pay off your mortgage?
You’ve answered your own question. It’s a lot to you, but not to a farmer. Thus it’s a relative term.
How about a bit of cost/ benefit analysis.
How much would it cost to bore a well? How much benefit will you get from 0.5gpm? Does the benefit justify the cost?
If the benefit < cost, then we could fairly say it’s a dry well.
New question: have you ever heard of this poem?
Cisco, personal insults are not allowed outside the Pit. Don’t do this again.
LHOD, perhaps you could try being a bit more direct.
Just state clearly what exactly is your main objection to my claim. Do you think I’m wrong in my claim that underground channels exist, or what?
I’ll just have to work for twenty years, same as everyone else. 
Those were honest questions.
Except you have used it to define a dry spot. I am confused. If your random number generator lands in my backyard, you have not found a dry spot, but if it lands in a farmer’s field, it has? (Assuming the .5gpm rate) Isn’t that a bit chancy?
No; you’re not. In your application, you go out of your way to state beyond a question of a doubt that you posess no Dowsing abilities whatsoever. The challenge is not for a scientist to find a dry spot, but rather a dowser to regularly find them. Quibbling over the number (6% vs 24% that is practically usable), I should say, will not be seen as a legitimate challenge for the $1million prize.
My prediction is that your application gets round-bin filed.
My question is ‘if the JREF does not accept your application, will you reverse your statement on Randi’s honourableness?’
(IOW, is there any way that you will come to see that you are wrong?)
Ah. I didn’t realize that you were a licensed professional who could make accurate assesments of someone’s mental state by reading his posts on a message board; I often get those types of assesments mixed up with personal attacks.
Further comments on your warning will need to be confined to the Pit.
Where is Peter’s warning for calling Lefty a liar in post 179?
This thread is a trainwreck, and should be moved to the pit.
I’ll let you know my main objections to the claim, but I’m afraid I have to run and won’t be able to read your follow-up for a few days. In a nutshell, it’s not that the channels don’t exist – they do – but that Randi doesn’t deny their existence, nor will he give you a dime for proving they exist. But good luck, anyway.
This thread is, well… whatever it is, it sure doesn’t belong here. I’m not sure why you’d expect this thread to not be turned into a debate, Peter Morris. You’ve tangled with the other Dopers before on this very subject, so it shouldn’t be surprising to see that a debate would, once again, pop up.
Thus, it’s headed to Great Debates (although, I’m tempted to move it to the Pit).
I dunno. Did anyone report it? That’s the proper thing to do with a post you think breaks the rules, ya’ know. In the meantime, it’s a big thread with a lot of posts flying back-and-forth; I haven’t quite caught up with everything yet.
I reported it.
Good Lord, this is a fun thread. Peter Morris, much like Great Debates, you can attack a person’s post in here, but you cannot attack the person himself–that type of behavior is limited solely to the Pit. Please do not do this again.