[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
First, my thanks to **Gaudere ** for pointing out it was not my imagination that you did insult me.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Jeez, if you want to see insults, just check out some of the stuff I’ve had from Randi’s supporters. If you had one tenth of one percent of the hate I’ve received simply because I don’t support Randi’s lies, you wouldn’t whine about such a mild remark.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
.I did. In your first cite, it stated quite clearly that the JREF would test Guska at his home, but it would not be Randi personally doing it. In the second, Randi doesn’t mention the location of testing beyond acknowledging that Guska has moved to California.
[/QUOTE]
Read the bloody article.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
:rolleyes: Jeez, if you want to see insults, just check out some of the stuff I’ve had from Randi’s supporters. If you had one tenth of one percent of the hate I’ve received simply because I don’t support Randi’s lies, you wouldn’t whine about such a mild remark.
[/QUOTE]
This is GD not the pit, if you are not willing to stop being insulting, you will get into more trouble.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Did you or didn’t you read your own cite?
[/quote]
Yes, and it supports the point I made.
yes. Have you?
Randi and his assistants come out with some pretty nasty stuff to people trying to discuss things with him. Just read it.
No, it gives Randi’s excuses. Randi is twisting things.
Sure, it cites a few idiots that applied to Randi’s test. But misses out lots of appalling misbehaviour from Randi himself.
What about the applicant who said she could cause a candle flame to flicker with her mind,l an ability that worked about 30% of the time. did you see how Randi said that any ability that worked less than 50% of the time isn’t paranormal? And tried to make her increase her claimed success level
did ya see that. Did ya? What a surprise that Randi didn’t mention it in the article.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
:rolleyes: Jeez, if you want to see insults, just check out some of the stuff I’ve had from Randi’s supporters. If you had one tenth of one percent of the hate I’ve received simply because I don’t support Randi’s lies, you wouldn’t whine about such a mild remark.
[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, having had to wade through this drek (unaware that Gaudere was here before me), I would note that your posts have been consistently and unnecessarily hostile throughout your participation in this thread. Claiming that a Mod is “whining” simply because she or he asks you to ratchet back your hostility is really not appropriate.
Now, if all you have to offer is more Randi-bashing and squabbles over who has posted what over the last couple of years, go find some other thread in which to post it.
Everyone else: no one is required to respond to an off-topic post, (although stupid comments that threads are intended to lure particular posters are also unwelcome, as are other cheap shots and more bickering over who posted what).
Get back to whatever this thread was supposed to be about or stay away from the thread.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Read the bloody article.
[/quote]
Peter? I did. And now I did again. It does not say what you claim it says. I’m going to quote it here. Your first cite:
He can be tested at home, but not by Randi personally, or he can be tested at Randi’s, by Randi. No demands that he come to Randi.
Your second cite:
Nothing about the location.
It supports your original claim that a small percentage of applicants proceed to testing. Now I’m trying to determine if that tells us anything useful, and if so, what. According to your cite, that useful thing is that the reason lies with the applicants.
Nobody is saying that Randi isn’t abrasive, impolite, brash or rude.
No I didn’t. Link?
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Read the bloody article.
[/quote]
Peter? I did. And now I did again. It does not say what you claim it says. I’m going to quote it here. Your first cite:
He can be tested at home, but not by Randi personally, or he can be tested at Randi’s, by Randi. No demands that he come to Randi.
Your second cite:
Nothing about the location.
It supports your original claim that a small percentage of applicants proceed to testing. Now I’m trying to determine if that tells us anything useful, and if so, what. According to your cite, that useful thing is that the reason lies with the applicants.
Nobody is saying that Randi isn’t abrasive, impolite, brash or rude.
No I didn’t. Link?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Everyone else: no one is required to respond to an off-topic post, (although stupid comments that threads are intended to lure particular posters are also unwelcome, as are other cheap shots and more bickering over who posted what).
Get back to whatever this thread was supposed to be about or stay away from the thread.
[/QUOTE]
I apologize. It took me a little while to compose that post, and then I had trouble connecting (hence the double post) so I didn’t see this until I had already posted. Will stick to the topic from now on.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
On the other hand, having had to wade through this drek (unaware that Gaudere was here before me), I would note that your posts have been consistently and unnecessarily hostile throughout your participation in this thread. Claiming that a Mod is “whining” simply because she or he asks you to ratchet back your hostility is really not appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
With respect, I disagree.
For a start, I said that GIGO is whining. I did not make that accusation against any mod.
You made a mistake in your criticism. Your complaint is unfounded. I think you owe me an apology.
As far as hostility goes, you might want to check out Priceguy’s responses to me. In all honesty I don’t think I’m anywhere near as hostile as he is towards me.
Finally, I don’t think my post was off-topic. Most of what I said in my first post in the thread directly related to points Princhester raised in the OP.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
I’m somewhat less obsessed by Randi than most of you are.
[/QUOTE]
The extent of my knowledge of Randi is:
[ul][li]What Carl Sagan wrote about him in The Demon Haunted World []A few threads here on the Straight Dope (almost all of them, in retrospect, must have involved you, Peter)[]3-5 visits to his website over the last ~10 years, all prompted by either the first or the second item in my list[/ul][/li]
You, on the other hand, OWN A FREAKING DOMAIN WITH HIS NAME IN IT.
I rest my case.
Moderator’s Note: Any further discussion of or complaints about the moderation of this thread should please be in the Pit, not in the thread itself.
Tell you what. I’ll apologize to you for not catching the exact intent of your statement just as soon as you apologize to the board for totally misreading the context of the Randi Challenge and insisting on your interpretation for page after page of thread after thread despite the fact that not one single poster (that I have seen) has ever agreed with your odd claim.
You also ignored the general thrust of my post which is that you bring at least as much hostility to these threads as you receive, so you owe me an apology for ignoring my point.
Now get over the need for apologies and stick to addressing the OP of this thread.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Peter? I did. And now I did again. It does not say what you claim it says. I’m going to quote it here. Your first cite:He can be tested at home, but not by Randi personally, or he can be tested at Randi’s, by Randi. No demands that he come to Randi.
[/quote]
You appear to have missed the basic point.
Guska claims that he can find gold by dowsing in creek beds in California. He wants to demonstrate this to Randi and win a million dollars by doing so.
Randi, just as you say, offers to test him in his home, or at the JREF offices.
Guska emphasised that he wants to be tested in California at the creek.
Randi’s response to this request was
<< From what I see here, Mr. Guska is plainly telling me that he doesn’t want to be tested again, and ensuring that he won’t. He’d rather enjoy his delusions, and he’s created a situation that he’s quite sure I’m not going to accept. Have a nice vacation in Fantasyland, Mike. >>
So, Mike is trying to discuss the matter in reasonable terms, and negotiate a test. There are disagreements, but Mike is willing to discuss and compromise. Randi won’t discuss the matter at all and hurls insults at him.
According to your cite, that useful thing is that the reason lies with the applicants.Nobody is saying that Randi isn’t abrasive, impolite, brash or rude.
But he IS denying that the application process often breaks down as a result of his rudeness.
Here’s the original application.
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=29763
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Here’s the original application.
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=29763
[/QUOTE]
He’s not saying that it isn’t paranormal. He’s saying that the odds of getting a succesful hit are the same odds of getting a successful hit by pure chance. Her abilities could be paranormal, but a success rate of that amount won’t tell us if she does or doesn’t.
It would be like me saying I have a paranormal ability to flip a coin and have heads come up, and suggesting a 50% success rate. That certainly could be me making sure that the right amount of heads come up. Or, it could just be chance. We don’t know. So the test is a poor one.
It seems like a pretty polite reply, too. But just in case I get branded too; Randi is a fuckwit. There ( I can insult people not on the boards, right?).
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
He’s not saying that it isn’t paranormal. He’s saying that the odds of getting a succesful hit are the same odds of getting a successful hit by pure chance. Her abilities could be paranormal, but a success rate of that amount won’t tell us if she does or doesn’t.
It would be like me saying I have a paranormal ability to flip a coin and have heads come up, and suggesting a 50% success rate. That certainly could be me making sure that the right amount of heads come up. Or, it could just be chance. We don’t know. So the test is a poor one.
It seems like a pretty polite reply, too. But just in case I get branded too; Randi is a fuckwit. There ( I can insult people not on the boards, right?).
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure if this is back on topic or if it’s still the hijack, but I happen to agree in this case that Randi was unnecessarily obstructive (and actually suggested the applicant perform a significantly different thing from what she claimed to be able to do), whereas Kramer is just unhelpful, and in the case of his bald statement to the effect ‘50% is CHANCE’, is just wrong. If I succeed in flipping heads half the time, that’s chance; if I succeed in picking the ace of spades out of a full deck half the time, that would be significantly better than chance.
That’s true. The test seems to be “I can make a candle flame move” fo which i’m not sure what the chance rate would be.
It doesn’t make a difference to the main point I was trying to make though, which is that they rejected the test because they thought it wouldn’t reveal anything. They may be wrong, but that’s the reason they had. Not because they claim anything that doesn’t work 50% of the time isn’t paranormal.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
That’s true. The test seems to be “I can make a candle flame move” fo which i’m not sure what the chance rate would be.
[/quote]
As I understand it, the claim is something along the lines of “I can direct the heat of a candle flame in a way that is statistically discernible from chance”. Kramer just fails to grasp that, not only making the aforementioned terribly naive assumption about the statistical nature of the claim, but also attempting to impose the way he thinks it ought to work - after explicitly stating the JREF line “I’m also entirely unconcerned with HOW your ability works”, he goes on (in post #7 of the linked thread) to say:
If anyone wanted an example of how a lucid, intelligent applicant makes a coherent claim, but is unable to progress it due to interference, obstruction and unfair shifting of goalposts by JREF staff, this would be it.
Well, I did say Randi was a fuckwit. I’m happy to expand that to include any other JREF staff, too. I still think my point holds though.
That was just before Kramer had the mild meltdown and left JREF, wasn’t it?
I’m not so sure… it’s not really a fair rejection if it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the claim and a failure to properly apply the JREF rules/terms/conditions. The challenge itself is a sham if the hosts allow themselves this kind of weasel room and put up this kind of resistance to applications.
For the record, I don’t expect the claimant to have been able to demonstrate the claimed phenomenon, if it had gone as far as testing.