Name one.
Check the OP in the link.
I’ve had a half-dozen posts in this thread (albeit a critical one) and was not even aware of this situation until I saw this thread. It was a fluke that I saw it, since I’ve not done much on this board of late. I don’t think I’ve started any threads in months. Why am I singled out by Peter?
People would be making fun of you (and are making fun of you) for arguing that what Mr. Randi has said is false, when what he has said is the same thing as you are saying. Rabidly saying you disagree with someone saying the same thing of you leads to people making fun of you.
Now if you, or he, came up with a theory that one side didn’t agree with we’d have something to debate, and potentially disagree with you. But at the moment, disagreeing with you isn’t an issue because, as said, you are right. There are underground rivers, just as you and Mr. Randi have both agreed.
Past behaviour.
How many threads have I started about you?
But we’re not talking about dowsers, are we? I thought the issue was Randi’s accuracy about underground water flow. How are dowsers (and Randi’s views on them) relevant to your claim on the prize, which by your own repeated admission has no paranormal elements whatsoever?
How are the statements of Randi’s supporters (or anyone other than Randi) relevant to your claim on the prize? And could you cite some of these examples in this thread, or if you have, the post numbers containing said examples? I’ve seen you discuss this issue on several occasions and as far as I know, Randi’s statement on underground water flow is the only error of his that concerns you. Your opinion of his opinions on dowsers or “woowoos” or anything paranormal is insufficient for the prize and by your own claim, irrelevant to your argument.
Followup question: if your claim is completely free of any paranormal element, why are references to paranormal claims (including but not limited to dowsing) relevant?
He has said the exact opposite to me.
Peter : underground rivers exist
Randi : There are no underground rivers
Peter : Water flows underground through lots of different structures.
Randi : Water ONLY flows underground in caves
Peter: Dry spots are common.
Randi : Dry spots are very rare.
etc, etc, etc.
If you think this is nit-picking, what would you consider a big difference?
Do you realise how much of your life will lose meaning when Mr. Randi finally takes the time to look at your ramblings long enough to realise that you’ve never been saying anything more than some nitpickings, and writes back to say that he agrees with you and your stance, and thus there is no viable challenge?
I honestly hope he continues to ignore you. But otherwise, I urge you to become mentally prepared for finding you’ve dribbled a lot of your life away on something that is only based on one misunderstanding which you’ve fought coming to the realisation of.
I’m torn.
I don’t know whether to put this utter nonsense out of its misery (and that of the Mods who have to read it) or send it to the Pit where it might swiftly overtake the post count of the utterly silly Pitting someone attempted of me.
I will say that if the personal countercharges don’t stop very soon, it will not be an active thread in GD when I get back from the store.
(They have to start paying us to read this stuff.)
[ /Moderating ]
He was talking about dowsing. There are no underground rivers necessitating the need for dowsers. You’re separating his one sentence from the context in which he is saying it. As is, it is just an example of hyperbole.
So? He stated himself poorly, as said. Technically there are similar structures as caves which allow flow (for instance cracks, and porous materials) but again this is an issue of him glossing over the fine points in a single sentence of dumbed down conversation. I talk about computers to non-techies all the time and will gloss over or mis-state lots of things. Just because I said something that was technically incorrect doesn’t mean that I think that what I know to be the technically correct answer must be paranormal.
Overall, any reasonable and knowledgeable person reading what he said understands what he meant. If you don’t think that’s what he meant, you might want to start looking a bit harder at the utter lack of support you are getting amongst a group of people who all agree with the theory you are trying to prove.
Right, so now we have one item where you and he actually disagree. I would agree that this isn’t a case of nitpicking.
But, at what depth are you talking about? And at what depth is he talking about?
Now if you want to restate your argument against him as saying that “Dry spots are much more common than 6% at any reasonable distance for drilling for water.” then you have a proper challenge. But at the moment, most of what you are espousing is nitpicking.
Not even that. He said that the specific notion of underground rivers that dowsers hold is false.
Which gets back to the lack of proper understanding of language. I wonder whether Peter has some specific difficulty understanding the proper application of modifiers? It seems that his misunderstanding of modifiers is at the root of a lot of his misunderstandings.
Daniel
So on to the practical side of things, having actually found one item of contention between the two of you:
Well firstly, I would contend that:
Isn’t a particularly good definition for a “reasonable” source of water. Filtration just isn’t that hard, and generally if water is polluted, I would tend to guess it would be from local pollutants, which isn’t really a geophysical issue.
I would also contend that you only view a viable dry spot as providing less than “half a gallon a minute” of water. For sustenance living, that would be an amazing amount of water to have coming in dependably. I highly doubt that you will be able to get him to accept this.
Similarly, I would debate the usefullness of how “bound the water is to the soil.” Either you can get your X gallons per a minute or you can’t. Adding something as indefinable as “soil bonding” is meaningless.
And just to be technically meaningful, again, it should be noted that when he said 94% of all land has water, he was saying that in regards to dowsers. So he’s saying that 94% has “sufficient water to support a dowser to live”–so I can see why he might hem and haw when asked for something more accurate in terms of laying down a real number.
His point is that irreguardless of whether you hire a dowser or not, the gallons per minute of water you are going to get from any spot on your land is 94% of the time going to be fixed. Really, to disprove his 94% number, you would need to prove that there is a meaningful difference gallons per minute to be attained between any two spots in reasonable proximity.
I do agree that technically you have possibly caught him in a bit of an error, I just highly doubt it is one where he would be willing to accept it as being anything more than his speaking poorly. And certainly not as being a proof of the validity of dowsing.
/hijack/
I used to locate underground utilities. Sometimes there would be utilities down there, somewhere, but they wouldn’t be on the plan, or it would be inaccurate information. We needed to make sure that they were found and marked for monetary and safety considerations. When the technology failed us, or gave conflicting reports about location, I could take two little flags (you know the kind,) bend the metal into an “L” lay them on top of one another while holding the flag part in my hand, and they would cross each other if I walked over a utility line, or pipe. Damnedest thing. Not into the paranormal, so double damnednest thing.
Do I get the $1 million?
/hijack/
Please proceed with exercise in futility.
Only if you can prove that the same thing would happen if you were blindfolded, deaf, and otherwise lacking all sense of your surroundings.
Cecil’s take: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_168.html
If you can consistently do the above under controlled conditions, then yes, you certainly appear to be eligible for the million. Please test yourself under controlled conditions before applying, though, it saves everyone a lot of hassle. Feel free to ask for suggestions about how to set up such a test.
[sub]Disclaimer: I am in no way affiliated with James Randi, the JREF, or the Million Dollar Challenge. Nothing I say is official in any way; it’s all based on my own imperfect understanding.[/sub]
Good grief. :rolleyes:
Peter, you and Randi disagree about underground rivers. He challenges you to prove what you claim.
This is not his $1,000,000 challenge!
It’s like an atheist saying he has faith that the Sun will rise in the morning. The use of the word ‘faith’ in this context does not mean religious belief.
Randi does not think that proving the existence of underground rivers is in any way paranormal. This is entirely your own mistaken belief.
What Randi does think is paranormal is detecting underground water by dowsing.
You don’t claim to do that, so you have no legal claim for the $1,000,000 challenge.
Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Randi made the challenge when talking about dowsers. I’m not a dowser, but that doesn’t stop me accepting the challenge he made.
They aren’t. I just made a comment about their behaviour in past discussions. What they did then has no relevence whatsoever to my application.
No, can’t be bothered.
I’ve produced long lists of Randi’s misdeeds in the past. All I’ve received in response is abuse. I’m finished with that. Instead of trying to convince you of how bad he is, I’ve just simply decided to turn Randi’s dishonesty to my own advantage. I’ll just turn his lie against him, and make a million dollars from it. I no longer care what you think about him.
no, but the fact that he has issued a challenge is most certainly relevent.
In order to make it plain that I’m not claiming any of them.