What the…?
Why should Randi be required to test you over a delusion you have regarding his opinions? That is utter nonsense.
So how do you do it then? Forgive my ignorance but if you are a ‘dowser’ then do you employ the two metal rods to fine water? If so, what scientific principle supports your ability to find 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.
I’m not going to get into the delicate Tinkertoy construction of assumptions you seem to be pinning your hopes on re the challenge , nor am I asking for a response by you. I simply wish to state that your assertion that “Randi does not believe water moves underground” when this is a demonstrated geologic fact, is absurd on it’s face, and is likely to be based on a fundamental mis-reading or mis-understanding by you of whatever communications the two of you have had on this topic.
I don’t see how that could be a problem. If I say, “You’re an asshole,” and you respond to me with, “You’re a dick,” and you get a mod warning and I don’t, the flag hasn’t been thrown on the “wrong” person. Even if I call you an asshole, it’s still against the rules for you to call me a dick, and your mod warning is deserved. You can always point out that I started it, so I get warned too. As has happened in this thread.
I don’t see this as practical for this message board. We routinely have threads that run more than ten pages. If an insult is given on page nine, a mod should slog through the entire thread before he issues a warning? That strikes me as an unreasonable demand on their time.
You have a funny definition of ‘never’.
Randi, from Flim-Flam, (already quoted at least twice in this thread)
What are we to make of this definition you have of ‘never’?
I got that already, turning something that is natural into supernatural (take into account that we are assuming Randi is wrong here) does not make that an automatic challenge for the $1M, once more investigations with neutral parties are made on the way to a challenge all can agree, it will be clear that then Randi will dismiss this challenge on technical terms since he is “wrong”. Once again, a challenge for the Randhi price is useless if you are trying to prove a natural phenomenon, try to get published first in journals like Nature and then we will talk.
And that is why I said virtually the same thing in my last paragraph.
Sorry. I did not mean to lecture. I was being a bit ironic. Also I had not seen your name before. Obviously, your reference to Muscat’s post indicates your familiar with the thread. Mea culpa.
You asked me to state facts, I gave you an answer, which you chose to ignore and made up your own answer. The one you made up was distinctly, and deliberately different from what I told you. You persistently engage in wilful and deliberate twisting of my words.
Yes, you give your own answer, ignoring the answer that I already gave you. Making up your own answers and presenting them as mine, that’s the only argument you’ve got. And you keep using it, again and again and again. Every time you invent my opinions, you just make it more plain how utterly desperate you are.
I consider provocation relevant. On your example, I would be less culpable than you, because you were the aggressor. Therefore, you should get the first warning and/or harsher treatment than I should.
This forum gets about the same amount of traffic as the main forum on the board I moderate. There, as here, Mods regularly particpate in the threads as regular posters–we just don the mod cap when needed. You can skim a thread pretty quickly for moderation purposes, and get the gist of what has transpired before you decide what to do.
Then again, this is really none of my business. I don’t mod here, and I’ve hijacked whatever this thread was. My apologies.
Here’s a question:
Isn’t it true that any person who writes on a variety of subjects as varied and for as many years as Randi will occasionally make a statement which, if interpreted in an especially rigid manner, prove to be less than absolutely accurate?
Randi is not himself a geologist, though he has consulted with geologists, and made a statement about geology which might not be perfectly accurate and linked it to the colourful variety of offbeat paranormal claims he’s been hearing for decades.
As I understand it, you don’t like Randi and have many negative things to say about him. Followup question:
If Randi is as deceptive and dishonourable and just-plain ignorant as you have repeatedly claimed, why do you always come back to this underground-river example, whose vagueness leaves adequate room for defenders of Randi to argue on his behalf? Shouldn’t there exist numerous other examples that are far less vague and defensible?
Peter I have a serious question:
- 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?
perhaps you should read Randi’s opinions, instead of assuming.
<< This is the most pervasive of the delusions that dowsers have and promote endlessly, that there exist vast rivers of fresh water that run deep in the ground and can be easily tapped. There are large reservoirs of water there to be accessed, it’s true, but they are certainly not “flowing”; they’re pretty well stationary. >>
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-08/080406move.html#i6
Randi denies the existence of flowing water underground. He has done so for 25 years.
False. Read post #226.
And even granting you that, It is clear to me that on the way to a challenge being accepted, the definitions and misconceptions will be taken care of. IOW, what he believes means diddle squat once the parameters of the challenge are set. Looking at the past history, I still say you are barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Yes.
But this ids much more than that. This is a central theme of Randi’s lectures. EVERY TIME he talks about dowsers, he will
As I understand it, you don’t like Randi and have many negative things to say about him. Followup question:
If Randi is as deceptive and dishonourable and just-plain ignorant as you have repeatedly claimed, why do you always come back to this underground-river example, whose vagueness leaves adequate room for defenders of Randi to argue on his behalf? Shouldn’t there exist numerous other examples that are far less vague and defensible?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve pointed out numerous examples before. His supporters just spew out abuse, and think that “woowoo” is a logical answer.
Now, I’m fed up trying to prove that he’s wrong. I shall no longer try to give an education to fundamentalists who just don’t want to know. Instead of that, I’ll just use Randi’s willful ignorance to my own ends. I’ll just take advantage of the challenge he offered, and make myself some money.
Whether or nor you ever understand just how ill-informed he is just doesn’t matter to me anymore.
I got a hundred dollar bill that says you will not win the prize for Randi’s challenge. Interested?
oops.
Every time he talks about dowsers he will come out with the same stuff. He always leads his supporters in laughing at them for being stupid and delusional because they believe in underground rivers. One of his central arguments against dowsers goes :
- dowsers believe in underground rivers
- underground rivers don’t exist
- dowsers are stupid, lets all laugh at them, woo-woo-wooo, delusional, grubby, etc.
Once again: post #226.
YOu gave me an answer, true, but it was not an answer to my question. In fact, when I tried to clarify whether it was an answer to my question, you accused me of dishonesty.
Here was my original question:
If he tells you that, who will you consider to be the definitive authority on his intended meaning in his earlier communications?"
You quoted this and replied (I’m quoting the reply in full, underlining the section that I believed to be the most relevant answer to my question):
I replied to this with a question trying to clarify whether you had actually answered my question (remember that a question beginning with “who” is most properly answered by the provision of an individual or group of individuals):
When I tried to clarify whether you had answered my question, you responded:
Since then, you have been unwilling to answer this question.
Again, it’s a simple question. The answer ought to consist of a name or a pronoun clearly linked to a name. Failing that, you might provide a reason why it’s impossible to answer in such a fashion.
The question has been asked many times in many different manners. I do not expect you to answer it, because I believe, although I cannot prove, that you know an answer to it will reveal your quest to be ludicrous. You will, I predict, continue to dodge the question, continuing to imply that I am being dishonest or aggressive, because dealing with the subject at hand–providing a simple name or pronoun, or a reason why a name or pronoun cannot be provided–is too personally painful to you.
The last paragraph is, of course, speculation. I may be wrong. It is a fact, however, that I am not holding my breath.
Daniel