Ask the Randi $1M challenge applicant

[SkipMagic]

@Oakminster

I reported it.

Yes, I see you did. But, you might wait more than a couple of minutes, after sending the report, to complain about a lack of action. I gotta get and read the e-mail first.

[Q.E.D]

@SkipMagic

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.

Apparently you are not aware that calling someone a liar (at least in Great Debates) has been ruled not to constitute a personal insult and is therefore allowed.

[Miller]

@Peter Morris

@E-Sabbath

Then I fail to understand what your challenge for Mr. Randi is. He claims that it is untrue that large numbers of underground rivers of size exist, except in unusual areas, such as those heavy in limestone, such as the River Mole.

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.

Okay, let me get this straight. You’re saying that James Randi believes the following things:

1. That there is no such thing as an underground river, in any place in the world, in any way, shape, or form.

2. Any claim that such rivers exist must be paranormal claims, because they contradict science as he understands it.

3. If you can demonstrate that such rivers exist, you will qualify for the Million Dollar Challenge, even though you yourself do not believe that you are demonstrating a paranormal claim.

Have I correctly understood your position in this thread?

If so, I just won a million dollars with a Google search.

[SkipMagic]

@Q.E.D.

Apparently you are not aware that calling someone a liar (at least in Great Debates) has been ruled not to constitute a personal insult and is therefore allowed.

Only in certain instances; this, however, is not one of them.

[Cisco]

@Q.E.D.

Apparently you are not aware that calling someone a liar (at least in Great Debates) has been ruled not to constitute a personal insult and is therefore allowed.

From your link:

@Guadere

if someone gets really obnoixous about calling people liars (particularly on flimy or nonexistent evidence) they can be banned under the “jerk” rule

Bolding mine. You can call someone a liar, but it has to be true.

[Q.E.D]

@SkipMagic

Only in certain instances; this, however, is not one of them.

Explain. Seems like a perfectly reasonable usage to me, even if I do happen to disagree.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

Besides, the thread was not in GD when he called him a liar.

[Peter_Morris]

@SkipMagic

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.

And while we are on the subject, I reported Left Hand Of Dorkness for repeated and deliberate twisting of my words, inventing opinions for me that I do not hold and so on. He has done so repeatedly. When can I expect an answer to my complaint?

Plus he has acted in a deliberately provocative and insulting manner throughout.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Peter Morris

And while we are on the subject, I reported Left Hand Of Dorkness for repeated and deliberate twisting of my words, inventing opinions for me that I do not hold and so on. He has done so repeatedly. When can I expect an answer to my complaint?

Plus he has acted in a deliberately provocative and insulting manner throughout.

I don’t think any of that is against the rules, even assuming it were true.

[Contrapuntal]

@Q.E.D.

Explain. Seems like a perfectly reasonable usage to me, even if I do happen to disagree.

It was untrue. Peter Morris’ depiction of **Lefty *as a liar was false. Lefty never lied.

*There’s a C&W song in there, somewhere.

[Q.E.D]

@Peter Morris

When can I expect an answer to my complaint?

I’m going to say never, since he has not done what you claim.

[GIGObuster]

Seeing the devastating Musicat post #151 I have to agree this is an exercise in futility, what is clear to me is this: you don’t need to be a psychic to know now that **Peter Morris ** will never get a single red cent out of this, and once he is finally dismissed by Randhi his protestations there or here will find no sympathy.

A theory with beautiful semantics looks pretty, but it doesn’t make it the truth.

[Oakminster]

@SkipMagic

Yes, I see you did. But, you might wait more than a couple of minutes, after sending the report, to complain about a lack of action. I gotta get and read the e-mail first.

I understand that, but you should have read the entire thread before acting against anyone. Had you done that, you could have either included both warnings in a single post, or done them consecutively. I’d also note that Peter got a “Please” that was not afforded to Cisco. Provocation throughout the entire thread should be considered when taking action. Finally, the Pit is where this belongs.

Not meaning to bust your chops, on this Skip. I’ll drop it. I’m cranky today.

[Oakminster]

Not sure where that comma came from. Double Dumbass on me.

[Revenant_Threshold]

From the actual application itself, which may be taken as the top authority as to what must take place;

I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place under these rules and limitations.
This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result. NOTE: Prior to preliminary testing, an applicant may be required to provide three notarized affidavits from persons who have witnessed the claimed paranormal phenomenon. These witnesses must be educated working professionals such as doctors, nurses, therapists, researchers, psychologists, lawyers, educators etc. This last requirement may be either waived or required at the sole discretion of the JREF. This is the primary and most important of these rules.

Peter Morris, you are required to demonstrate powers or abilities. What **powers or abilities ** will you offer to demonstrate in your claim?

I imagine you will say to this that Randi has “changed” the rules, by issuing his challenge to people with your belief; however, as you can see here -

NOTE: No special rules, exceptions, conditions, standards, or favors will be granted without the mutual agreement of those concerned — in advance. Any applicant who refuses to agree to meet the rules as outlined here, will not be considered to have ever been an applicant.

• you will require a mutual agreement that said change to the rules has been made, and you’ll need it in advance to you presenting your application. As you have already made said application, having failed to get mutual agreement to the change in rules, you will likely not be considered to be an applicant by the JREF.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Oakminster

I understand that, but you should have read the entire thread before acting against anyone.

I work as a moderator on another fairly busy board, and I have to say that this is not a reasonable standard. Skip may well not be interested in this subject; he may figure that any post that actually offends someone will be reported; he may rely on such reports to tell him where to take action. If moderators had to read hundreds of long posts before they could take action, the job would be impossible. I think his actions here are perfectly reasonable.

Peter, the things you have called me a liar for saying were clearly labeled as my understanding of the situation, and were immediately followed by a request for confirmation or denial. For them to be lies, I would have to be lying about my understanding of the situation. Far from lying about that, my understanding of the situation remains unchanged by your simple denial; in fact, it’s strengthened.

After all, I was asking (among other things) whether you considered yourself the ultimate authority on the meaning of my words. You called me a liar for asking that, suggesting that you know better than I do what I meant by my words. That’s strong evidence, albeit not definitive proof, that you consider yourself a higher authority on my intentions than I am.

So I’ll pose the question again. Who is the definitive authority on the meaning of your statements? The meaning of my statements? The meaning of Randi’s statements?

I’ll even offer my own answers to these questions:

1. You
2. Me
3. Randi

I’m going out of my way to make it clear to you that these questions are legitimate questions, aimed at what I see as the central weakness of your claims. I believe that your claim falls apart based on your misinterpretation of several of Randi’s statements, that you are taking them to mean something other than what Randi intended for them to mean. I believe that virtually everyone you ask regarding this issue will agree with me and not with you, including virtually every geologist you ask. (Just make sure you ask the geologists about the semantic question, not about some other related question).

You may choose to keep calling me a liar if you wish, and I will choose not to report you for it–although I am perfectly happy for others to report your violations of the rules. I am not lying. I am asking questions and offering clearly labeled opinions to contextualize my questions.

I have plenty of speculations about your motives, but I will keep those to myself unless and until this moves to the Pit.

Daniel

[Contrapuntal]

@GIGObuster

Seeing the devastating Musicat post #151 I have to agree this is an exercise in futility, what is clear to me is this: you don’t need to be a psychic to know now that **Peter Morris ** will never get a single red cent out of this, and once he is finally dismissed by Randhi his protestations there or here will find no sympathy.

A theory with beautiful semantics looks pretty, but it doesn’t make it the truth.

What you are not getting, GIGO, is that according to Peter, Randi believes that finding water moving underground would be a supernatural feat. This is based on the two axioms:

@Peter Morris

axiom 1) “pseudoscience” ie phony scientific theories ARE paranormal by Randi’s definition. Several examples of such listed on my website.

axiom 2) Randi has spent 25 years saying that THIS is a phony scientific theory.

ergo it is paranormal, according to Randi’s standards.

QED.

Randi has also asserted that for dowsers, finding a dry spot would be much harder than finding water underground, moving or otherwise. **Peter **has taken this as a personal challenge, and by his lights, an invitation to apply for the JREF Challenge. He is saying that while he does not believe it to be supernatural, Randi does, and that is all that matters.

I think Lefty is on the right track. There may be some kind of linguistic/cognitive problem here.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It occurs to me there is a simple means of clearing up this mater. Peter, will you email Randi and ask him the following question?

“Mr. Randi, do you believe that there are any underground rivers whatsoever?”

Daniel

[Oakminster]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I work as a moderator on another fairly busy board, and I have to say that this is not a reasonable standard.

So do I, and I have for 7 years now. I disagree. By acting without reading the thread first, sometimes you throw the flag on the wrong player, or treat one more harshly than the other for similar offenses. Mods don’t have to read every thread, but they should read the entire thread if they act. That’s why there is more than one mod per forum. Between them, they’ll read most threads, and the most eggregious things get caught quickly.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Oakminster

Between them, they’ll read most threads, and the most eggregious things get caught quickly.

Goodness–how active is the board you’re on, if the modds between themselves read most threads? If this were required of me as a mod, I would resign immediately, and I suspect half the other mods would as well.

Daniel