From that quote I would suggest that the inclusion of the phrase “aside from any paranormal issue” would indicate that there was also discussion around the issue of his claiming paranormal powers.
Prove it. You haven’t given any facts regarding the case. I even showed you that Randi did not say what you claimed he did. Also, pay attention to what Cyros wrote above. What Geller is inferring is that the case was in regard to a paranormal issue, and that aside from that Geller was defamed with a comment about the kind of tricks that used to be found on the back of cereal boxes. Whether or not defamation for the cereal boxes part of the comment was part of the suit is unknown, since you have presented zero facts of the case to back up your statement.
Moving along, I pointed out that razncain and I showed you that you’re wrong about Geller never being the type that claims he helps police in solving crimes. You said that people that do that are lowlifes. You said you needed “time to study them closely” and that you would do it today. Gonna comment today? There’s not a lot of studying involved.
x-ray vision, I’d love to demolish you on your misunderstanding. But unfortunately, under a peculiar ruling from the mods, I’m forbidden to do so.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13528739&postcount=135
Read the instructions, and you will see why I cant answer.
Also, note that under the ruling YOU are likewise forbidden from asking me.
I’ve given you facts, as far as I can, only mentioning Geller’s side, and not the other one. I cannot go into further detail without breaking the rule.
As for that, fine. You can criticise him for the claim. Go ahead, knock yourself out.
I was mistaken and you were right. I admit it. Have a cookie.
But that is unconnected with his appearances on TV, bending spoons, and other tricks. They stand on their own merits as entertaining magic tricks.
You sure picked a convenient time to stop breaking a rule you knew you were breaking. I, of course, haven’t read every thread you have been involved in and was not aware the rest of us were subject to a rule that was only written in one thread. Why were you breaking a rule that you knew existed?
Real mature. You didn’t answer my question. Do you now think that Geller is a lowlife based on your own criteria?
Nonsense. You’ve been shown multiple times that Geller has been presenting his tricks as ESP, telekinesis, etc. and has made money from the gullible by selling material and instructions on developing these powers and displaying these supposed powers.
It seems to me that everyone here agrees that Uri Geller does not, in fact, have any supernatural powers and that what he performs are magic tricks and illusions. So the fact that he is recognized by magicians as performing good magic tricks is irrelevant. What is at issue here is not how Uri is seen by others, but what he claims about himself. Does he present himself as a magician or a psychic?
Would an actual legal document, written by a Circuit Judge of the US Court of Appeals, settle this? From here: https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/40/40.F3d.1300.93-7140.html, docket number No. 93-7140, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit:
So a Circuit Judge refers to Uri Geller as “a self-proclaimed psychic”. Seems like pretty strong evidence. Does anyone here who is claiming that Uri considers himself a magician have any cite that could trump that?
I didn’t break any rules. I carefully avoided any mention of that guy in the discussion.
Well, now you know the rule. If you ask me the question again, you will KNOWINGLY be breaking the rule.
asked and answered.
You’re weaseling. You were discussing a lawsuit regarding Randi and now you’re claiming that wasn’t breaking a rule because you didn’t use his name. I’ll stop here before any further comments may be considered an act of jr. modding, but it’s clear you don’t have the evidence you claim you do.
You claimed that what evidence you already provided was sufficient in backing up your statement. You were shown by another poster and me that it wasn’t. If you have more facts that prove your assertion that you claim that posting would be a violation of the rules, PM them to me.
More weasel words. A simple yes or no will be suffice: Do you now think that Geller is a lowlife based on your own criteria?
Moderator Instructions
Peter Morris and x-ray vision
Based on the rule previously cited by Peter Morris, let’s drop the side discussion of Randi’s involvement with Geller. I think Geller can be discussed without getting into this aspect.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I’m always mystified when people do this. I don’t understand the purpose of a response like this. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion, it doesn’t further support your contention. If you believe that you’ve already answered the question, but someone else makes it clear that they haven’t seen that answer, wouldn’t you be better served by just answering it again? Something like, “asked and answered with a ‘yes’” (or “no”, whichever is appropriate) would be far more productive.
He saw my answer, all right. He just didn’t like it. By asking the same question over and over, he’s just badgering me, and I’m not going to be drawn into an argument with him.
MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS
Drop the side discussion and stick strictly to the subject of the thread. Further sidetracking may be subject to a warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Sorry, I got the drawing trick, but never have understood how rigid items like keys are bent in mere seconds by stroking them. Yes, I know it’s a trick; I don’t know what the trick is. Any help?
My understanding is that you bend the key beforehand, either by having an identical key prepared or by quickly jamming the key against a hard surface just before you start the stoking. While stroking you hold and turn it in such a way that it looks like it’s bending but it’s really just already bent.
A certain magician that can’t be named* has a presentation on Youtube where he shows footage where you can see Geller bend objects he gets from his audience by using brute force. He then holds it so that he’s covering the bend and then subtly moves it while he’s rubbing the item so that the bend becomes more apparent.
In cases where the bending is more extreme or it actually breaks, he never uses items he gets from audience members, he always brings his own. Presumably those then are rigged such that there’s already a weak point.
*not Voldemort
And afterwards I can only assume you came home and spooned.
mmm
Clarification of Moderator Instructions
As I just posted in this thread:
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Because he was Randi?
inazin, I’m a bit late to the thread, but from skimming, it seems to me that you’ve repeatedly said variations on “I’m not claiming Geller is X” and “I never said Geller was Y” and “I never said A was B” etc.
Putting aside what you’re not claiming, what (if anything) are you claiming, about Geller or anything else?
^^^ That’s Geller is a friend, and a really nice guy. 