And my saying that is based on my opinion that, like a conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11, he’s made up his mind and will do pretty much anything to ensure that he’s right (i.e.: that nobody can pass his test).
Nevertheless, my offer stands.
Until I decide to change it. 
Czarcasm, point taken although don’t forget that Randi has gone after big fish (Sylvia in particular) with no media splash generated whatever.
Firstly, all those who are in a position to know suggest that many Joe Paranormalists (particularly dowsers) are sincere but self-deluded. I’ve also met cold-reader/astrologer/fortune teller types (amateurs) who genuinely thought they could do something paranormal and didn’t realise they were just empathetic people who knew a lot about human nature.
Secondly, you assert that “it would not be hard to stir up some fervour” but I just fail to see how that is true for reasons given in my last post. Sure, if it’s something new and spectacular, but yet another paranormalist who claims to have an ability in a field that is widely culturally accepted (astrology for example) would have a great deal of difficulty doing so, I think. And it is precisely because such crap is widely culturally accepted that it should be attacked.
Some prat who claims he can fly by thinking like a bird and using his arms is not going to be believed by anyone outside of the terminally credulous, so it’s unimportant that you’ve got the Challenge as an effective means of debunking him?
Are you able to state what it is that the rules permit him to do to prevent anyone from passing?
As an aside, I assume you are presently working on a considered and useful post that will advance your position that the present Challenge is invalid due to bias. I’m looking forward to your input.
Frankly, I don’t think that’s possible. The more someone claims to be able to exhibit paranormal ability on demand, I think the the likelihood of them being a fraud increases–exponentially if they expect payment for performing on demand–but one has to perform on demand in order to pass the Challenge.
So what is your opinion based on?
Princhester asked you some great questions upthread that I would like to see answered.
Simulpost. 
As I said back in post #125, where I first stated my opinion, it was formed by hearing interviews with Randi.
What point are you trying to make by this? Do you mean to suggest that it is the responsibility of the JREF to point out to all of these people that they are sincere but self-deluded?
The existing frauds were created for exactly that reason - they are easy to fake. We’re not going to see a “real” dowser any more than we are going to see a “real” Huckleberry Finn. They are both entirely fictional.
If a real dowser or psychic or spoon bender were to come along, their abilities would be so radically different than what we’ve been seeing for hundreds of years that it would indeed be easy for them to get noticed.
I can’t figure out what you’re asking here. Could you please reword?
Okay, Bryan. I’ve said this before, and you’ve flamed me for repeating it, but I don’t recall you ever expressing an opinion on the subject.
This is far from the only thing I have to say on the subject, whatever you may think, but it’s the easiest to see where fraud lies.
A story told by Randi, not just once but it’s something he’s said repeatedly over several decades :
<< I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth’s surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don’t want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>
That is a story that he has told on numerous occasions. Not an offhand remark, as some would claim.
Now what do you think of the tale he has told? It is either true or false. Which do you think it is? Either Randi is recounting a factually accurate tale or else he is telling a totally fictional tale .
Do you, Bryan Ekers, think that Randi’s tale is:
a) TRUE
b) FICTION
Your reply to this post, Bryan, should consist of one word, and nothing else. Either you think Randi’s story is TRUE or you think it is FICTION. I want you to state in one single word which you think it is.
My own belief, which you might not share, is that the story is a fiction. He makes himself sound like a hero by telling these tales, but he makes them up. And he persuades people to give him tons of money by telling these stories.
But, hey, if you think he’s telling the truth, that’s fine too. Please do tell me if you think that.
You ever seen a stand-up comedian? You ever seen the same stand-up comedian more than once? Did you notice that, even if your attendance was several years apart, their act is anywhere from 10%-90% the exact same material? Just because something is repeated does not mean it is not an “offhand” comment. There is no law requiring Randi to write an entirely new speech everytime he appears in public.
Does James Randi still tell this story? Is it possible that he realized that he was mistaken and stopped telling the story? Does the make him a fraud or a liar, or just a fallible human?
I want you to answer those questions, though I’ll take bets from anyone who actually thinks you will.
Okay, Bryan. I’ve said this before, and you’ve flamed me for repeating it, but I don’t recall you ever expressing an opinion on the subject.
This is far from the only thing I have to say on the subject, whatever you may think, but it’s the easiest to see where fraud lies.
A story told by Randi, not just once but it’s something he’s said repeatedly over several decades :
<< I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth’s surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don’t want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>
That is a story that he has told on numerous occasions. Not an offhand remark, as some would claim.
Now what do you think of the tale he has told? It is either true or false. Which do you think it is? Either Randi is recounting a factually accurate tale or else he is telling a totally fictional tale .
Do you, Bryan Ekers, think that Randi’s tale is:
a) TRUE
b) FICTION
Your reply to this post, Bryan, should consist of one word, and nothing else. Either you think Randi’s story is TRUE or you think it is FICTION. I want you to state in one single word which you think it is.
My own belief, which you might not share, is that the story is a fiction. He makes himself sound like a hero by telling these tales, but he makes them up. And he persuades people to give him tons of money by telling these stories.
But, hey, if you think he’s telling the truth, that’s fine too. Please do tell me if you think that.
I agree that the Challenge is of no use for paranormalists who cannot perform on demand. I suppose the practicalities are that it is going to be pretty difficult to set up a test where everyone involved in a test just waits around indefinitely in the hope that sooner or later the testee will do something paranormal. Do you see any way of avoiding that problem?
I’m wondering how much of a problem this really is. There certainly seems to be a large body of paranormalists out there who charge money and who make appointments with clients and so on. Couldn’t they be tested under the current setup? If not, why not and what suggestions do you have for improving the Challenge in relevant respects? I appreciate that they may be frauds, but does that matter? Shouldn’t that be exposed?
You say that a paranormalist’s likelihood of being a fraud increases with their claim to be able to exhibit on demand and that this increasese exponentially if they expect payment. That’s an interesting fact. What studies have brought this to light? I’d love to read some cites on the subject. I look forward to you posting them.
On another topic, in your post #137 in this thread you seemed pretty clearly to be suggesting that the problem with the Challenge was Randi’s bias. I’m not sure if you are suggesting that the Challenge requirement that claimants perform on demand is related to Randi’s bias. If so, could you explain this a bit more? If not, I look forward to hearing from you on the subject of improvements to the rules of the Challenge that will eliminate Randi’s bias as a factor.
Was there something in that interview that lead you to the conclusion that nobody could pass his test? What did he say? How could the Challenge be improved to avoid Randi using the loophole that he revealed in this interview from being used to avoid people passing his test?
Okay, I obviously erred by not adding a “specifics other than the oft-repeated and as far as I can tell, utterly irrelevant quibble about Randi’s facetious remark about dry spots.” Even if I stipulate a FICTION response, I invite you to comment on any other evidence you have, since it’s far from the only thing you have to say on the subject and by itself doesn’t support the “fraud and a quack” assessment. You have one potential data point. I’d like to see several.
If this is moving the goalposts, I freely admit it’s my fault for not sighting them properly in the first place.
Yes it does. Offhand means “without previous thought or preparation” according to the dictionary. OFFHAND Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com.
If Randi repeats a statement several times, then by definition it’s not offhand.
The most recent reference I have is a couple of years old, but I doiubt he’s stoipped telling it since then. I don’t think he ever believed what he was saying, and that makes him a liar, IMO.
What do I win?
Don’t dodge the question, Bryan.
Do you think Randi was giving an truthful account or do you think he invented the story.
Oh, and I’ve got a hundred other examples, but this will do for starters.
Do you think he was telling the truth, or do you think he was lying?
I’m not interested in a tedious pick each post apart line by line bickerfest. Firstly, go back and read what you wrote in your post #158, first sentence. My point is obvious.
Secondly, I’m not suggesting the JREF has a responsibility to do anything. However, given that it has as its own goal the challenging of claims of paranormalists, it’s a question of what it can best do to achieve that.
Thirdly, you keep repeating the point that there are no real paranormalists. You know that and I know that, but it is not relevant to this discussion. The fact is, there are plenty of people out there who think there are real paranormalists, and the question is what to do about that.
Fourthly, you may well be right about what a “real” paranormalist would be like but again that is irrelevant, since no such thing exists. The problem which does exist is that there are people who claim to be paranormalists and there are people who believe them. If the barrier to application to the Challenge is set so high that many such people can never apply, then it becomes useless as a tool for challenging their validity. What you are doing is proposing to set the barrier to entry by reference to what you or I believe a “real” paranormalist would be like (which is singularly pointless since neither you nor I believe in them anyway) rather than by reference to what millions of deluded other people believe that they actually are like, which is what the JREF sets out to challenge.
Sorry, the question mark was a typo.
I’ll stipulate he was lying.
What else you got?
Ok, so it’s an anecdote. I should’ve been more careful with my words since you are known for being such a voracious attacker of people by means of semantics.
So, you don’t know if he’s still saying it, but you assume he is, and you don’t know if he ever believed what he was saying, but you assume he didn’t? And you’re attacking Randi for being dishonest?
I would’ve said ‘respect’ had you fully and honestly answered the questions.
I thought “Frankly, I don’t think that’s possible.” already covered that.
Of course. Catching frauds isn’t the problem. Expecting everyone who claims to have paranormal ability to never be on the up and up is. I don’t like absolutes like “never”.
Is there some sort of disconnect here? I said I think the the likelihood of them being a fraud increases–exponentially if they expect payment for performing on demand. Since when does “I think” = “I’m stating a fact”?
As I said upthread, I think Randi has established too much of a personal stake in his Challenge. Since changing the rules to accomodate anyone who may come along eventually and be able to perform–though not on demand–isn’t feasible, make a change that is feasible.
Oh, brother. [list=#]It wasn’t just one intervirew but a string of them.[]I can’t remember anything specific he said, just a general feeling that I was hearing the old “I’m right, I know I’m right, and nothing you do or say can disuade me” mentality.[]The very nature of the test is the problem. It can only be done on those who claim to perform on demand and, as I keep saying, I think those who repeatedly claim to be able to perform on demand are frauds.[/list]