# James Randi and Dry Spots **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926 "2004-10-13T01:46:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/261 "2004-11-15T04:05:56Z")
Can someone tell me the entire gist of this thread in 20 words or less? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/262 "2004-11-15T04:35:28Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > Can someone tell me the entire gist of this thread in 20 words or less? Peter’s nuts. There, did in in two. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/263 "2004-11-15T11:57:47Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > Can someone tell me the entire gist of this thread in 20 words or less? A pointless, dead horse argument flogged to the degree that they’ve worn _right through_ the carcass and are now scrapping six feet underground in a pool of ground water. Damn, 29 words. Seriously, this entire thread should be up for an award some place for the most stupid, does-any-one-really care, oh-my-god-my-brain-has-gone-numb argument ever in the history of time. Never before has such pedantry gone on for soooo looong. Hats off to everyone involved. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/264 "2004-11-15T12:09:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Can someone tell me the entire gist of this thread in 20 words or less? Page 1, post #16. Nothing has changed. Trying to convince **Peter** that the disagreement here is _trivial_ is like trying to apologise to an Obsessive Compulsive for bumping his armchair off the “perfect” angle. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/265 "2004-11-15T12:38:57Z")
> [@Futile Gesture](#): > > Never before has such pedantry gone on for soooo looong. Hats off to everyone involved. Why thank you. Blushes. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/266 "2004-11-15T16:24:02Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > I don’t lie. I state your position exactly as you said it. I have quoted your exact words often enough. There is no doubt what you said or what you meant. Yes, I said that, and then I admitted that I worded my post badly, and then explained what I meant to say. How this can be beyond your understanding is, frankly, beyond mine. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/267 "2004-11-15T18:03:23Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > [You don’t.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=178616) Oh, well, Princhester saying so, that _proves_ it, then. :rolleyes: Princhester, you chose to hurl abuse at me after I commented on what a Randi fan had said. You chose to blame me for someone else’s words. You accuse me of “weaseling out” because I refuse to take responsibility for what someone else said. You then claim that I have “never denied” weaseling out, when I have _always_ denied it. You lied, Princhester. > [@](#): > > As to your suggestion of hypocrisy regarding me being annoyed by your abuse but comparing you to the mentally ill, the difference (as I have explained already) is specificity. I say negative things about you in relation to particular things you have done. You just throw out unqualified abuse against those that don’t agree with you. Not true at all. You and your ilk throw out unqualified abuse at me, I comment on your rudeness. And you shriek and scream at my replies, pretending that they are in some way equal to your behaviour. > [@](#): > > As to the “substantive” stuff, it’s just same ol’ same ol’. Yes, indeed. > [@](#): > > _Why_ you did it is not the point. On the contrary, it’s very much your point. You accuse me of “throw[ing] unqualified abuse against those that don’t agree with [me]” yet when I point out that I was replying to abuse from Randi fans, you claim it doesn’t matter. The fact is, it defeats your point totally. > [@](#): > > The point is that I said I’m tired of you discounting what people say because they are supporters of Randi. You say “when did I ever do that, I don’t recall doing that”. I quote six examples of you doing that inside of a single thread within the last week. No, Princhester, you have not quoted a _single_ instance of me doing that. I never discount what people say simply “because they are Randi fans.” I do discount what they say when they have nothing to say other than abuse. _Each_ of the examples you quote is me responding to abusive behaviour from Randi fans. > [@](#): > > The point is that you can actually blythely say, seemingly in all seriousness, that you didn’t do something that you have done six times in a single thread within a week. Because I didn’t do what you said. > [@](#): > > What the fuck were you thinking? Did you know you’d done what you said you hadn’t but hoped I wouldn’t remember? Were you playing up to an audience of lurkers hoping I wouldn’t quote you? Or do you actually not remember what you’ve done from minute to minute? Or perhaps you have such a capacity for cognitive dissonance that you can (in one and the same mind) do something while believing you haven’t done it? See, there’s another example of you hurling unqualified abuse at me. When I reject your arguments, it isn’t because you are a Randi fan, it’s because your arguments consist of abuse like this. > [@](#): > > I mean what the fuck is going on? In all seriousness Peter, are you mentally the full box? More unqualified abuse. > [@](#): > > It’s a rhetorical question: mentally ill persons seldom think they are mentally ill and I’m sure you’ll answer appropriately. But I’m reaching the point with you that I reached with Lekatt. I have to question whether continuing to debate you isn’t the ethical equivalent of poking fun at the insane. And still more unqualified abuse. Princhester, **your** behaviour is what makes things so difficult. When I reject what you say, it’s not because you are a Randi fan. It’s because your argument consists largely of flames like this. You use a stream of four-letter words. You accuse me of being “mentally ill” and “insane.” And so on. That is why I don’t pay much attention to your arguments. You try to deny this, you attempt to convince yourself that I reject your arguments because you are a Randi fan. You are just kidding yourself. I reject them because I have to pick through piles of hateful abuse even to see what you are driving at. And, yes, I find this type of behaviour frequent from Randi fans. Randi himself is an abusive little idiot. Randi thinks that it’s a good argument to call someone a “woo-woo” or a “grubby” and accuse them of being “self-deluded.” By doing this, he limits his fan. The only people that admire him are childish jerks that think hurling abuse is a clever argument. Which means that most of his fans are abusive jerks with no argument beyond name-calling. There are a very small number of Randi fans that are capable of logical argument, without resorting to your type of behaviour. I can listen to them, when they point out errors I admit it and revise my opinion accordingly. When you hurl abuse, I have no reason to do so. Rswt assured that when I reject your arguments, it is because you are being abusive, and offering very weak logic. It’s not because you are a Randi fan. Though the majority of Randi fans do in fact act the same way you do. If you wish me to take you seriously, please abandon the abuse, cease using the F-word, stop calling me insane, and stick to the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/268 "2004-11-15T18:05:39Z")
> [@vanilla](#): > > Can someone tell me the entire gist of this thread in 20 words or less? Princhester obsessing over the meaning of two words, taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/269 "2004-11-15T18:10:31Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Page 1, post #16. > > Nothing has changed. Trying to convince **Peter** that the disagreement here is _trivial_ is like trying to apologise to an Obsessive Compulsive for bumping his armchair off the “perfect” angle. Actually, I’ve tried to knock it into Princhester’s head that the debate is trivial. But he obsesses on and on about it. Where I got bored with this thread long ago, and abandonned it. But poor obsessed Princhester hounded me from thread to thread, accusing me of beingn unable to answer him, boasting that this indicates that he has won for the first time in his life. Princhester is the one that will not see how trivial this is. I have told him so, but he’s obsessed. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/270 "2004-11-15T18:16:17Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > Yes, I said that, and then I admitted that I worded my post badly, and then explained what I meant to say. How this can be beyond your understanding is, frankly, beyond mine. What is plain is that you are lying. You did not word your post badly. You said exactly what you meant to say. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/271 "2004-11-15T18:41:19Z")
> [@](#): > > **Peter** : Actually, I’ve tried to knock it into Princhester’s head that the debate is trivial. Gosh. You’re saying it _doesn’t really matter_ whether Randi is literally, exactly correct in everything he says about underground water? That whether 1 GPM is really “dry” or not is insignificant minutia? That whether Randi’s “challenge” was literal or figurative is inconsequential flotsam, unworthy of a _post_, let alone 6 pages? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/272 "2004-11-15T19:04:49Z")
No, I’m saying that Princhester starting a thread to argue the toss about the two words “dry spot” is trivial. Randi’s wildly inaccurate guff is not trivial. Nor is the fact that he issued a challenge, then weaseled out. Princhester obsessing over two words is trivial, Randi spending several decades giving out wrong information and outright lies is important. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/273 "2004-11-16T00:57:15Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Princhester obsessing over two words is trivial, Randi spending several decades giving out wrong information and outright lies is important. Several decades? How long ago did he make this “dry hole” remark, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/274 "2004-11-16T01:54:22Z")
As far back as [1980](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm) at least. I’d be willing to bet money that he was doing it years earlier. But that’s the earliest reference I have. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/275 "2004-11-16T03:03:42Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > As far back as [1980](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm) at least. > > I’d be willing to bet money that he was doing it years earlier. But that’s the earliest reference I have. Well, from your linked reference, the relevant paragraph seems to be: > [@](#): > > One thing must be made clear—dowsers on the whole are very honest folk. They believe in what they do. Unfortunately their belief is poorly placed. They CANNOT perform as they think they can. Having a string of successful wells to which one can point, proves nothing. A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. With more than 90% of the world’s land mass above reachable supplies of water, this should be quite difficult. I gather that a dowser wandering through a field picking out palces to find water is something Randi doesn’t consider impressive, but a dowser saying “this spot definitely has water” and “this spot definitely doesn’t” would be more interesting. I don’t see the the outright lie in here, I’m afraid. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/276 "2004-11-16T04:17:06Z")
The outright lie referred to comes from [here](http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html) > [@](#): > > 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. ` I wrote to Randi telling him : I have been in contact with several geologists and they tell me that dry spots are much more common than he thinks, and random drilling would hit dry spots far more often than 6% he claims. I received an abusive reply from him. So I wrote back to him, telling him that I was considering taking up his challenge to “find a dry spot” which he always offers to dowsers, and could he please clarify the conditions of the test. He wrote back, admitting that his tale was an utter lie. He had in fact never offered this test to dowsers. His tale of dowsers turning down his challenge was a complete fabrication. A total lie designed to discredit them, and make himself appear great for defeating them. In further correspondence he refused to even discuss the conditions for the “find a dry spot” challenge, and made it plain that he was not willing to honour it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/277 "2004-11-16T04:27:01Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > The outright lie referred to comes from [here](http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html) But that transcript only dates to 1992, which is just a little over _one_ decade ago. For a guy demanding a high standard of literal precision, you seem pretty fast-and-loose with words, yourself. As such, can you provide links to transcripts of Randi’s alleged “abusive reply” and admission of an “utter lie”? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/278 "2004-11-16T04:45:53Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > But that transcript only dates to 1992, which is just a little over _one_ decade ago. He’s said similars stuff throughout the last couple of decades. I have more recent references than that. > [@](#): > > For a guy demanding a high standard of literal precision, you seem pretty fast-and-loose with words, yourself. That’s Princhester’s fantasy. In reality i’m not obsessed with literal precision. I don’t complain about Randi using slightly inaccurate words. I complain about totally wrong statements. > [@](#): > > As such, can you provide links to transcripts of Randi’s alleged “abusive reply” and admission of an “utter lie”? I’m seeking to get them published. I don’t at the moment have them online. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/279 "2004-11-16T07:31:37Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Oh, well, Princhester saying so, that _proves_ it, then. :rolleyes: The irony is huge. You provide one of your self serving and utterly inaccurate “summaries” and I contrastingly have the confidence to provide a link to what actually happened. But **I’m** the one asking others to take my say so? > [@](#): > > No, Princhester, you have not quoted a _single_ instance of me doing that. Odd. I highlight (by way of six quotes) that you had in fact done what you nonetheless bizarrely claimed not to have done. In your first response, you don’t deny that, you just say “oh but what I did was justified” Then I point out that justification was not the point, the point was that you denied doing something that it was completely obvious you had done, and that denying the obvious was suggestive of delusion. Now that you’ve been boxed into a corner on that (but only now) you say that you didn’t do what I said you’d done. As to all this “Princhester you don’t have any arguments, it’s all abuse” crap, I’ve heard it all before. It’s just another attempt at the Big Lie. The several pages of legal argument provided to you privately, was that just abuse? (no, don’t thank me for that, Peter, being called a moron is all the thanks I want or need). The threads in GD where abuse would get me banned, was that all nonetheless abuse? Were my posts in the five pages of this thread before I got jack of your attitude, was that all abuse? Do you actually believe that? Yes, of course you do, your capacity for self delusion is bottomless. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2004, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/280 "2004-11-16T08:22:06Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > What is plain is that you are lying. You did not word your post badly. You said exactly what you meant to say. No. You. Fucking. Moron. I knew you were dense, but Christ! I just tried to write a slightly zingy little post and go on my merry way. Little did I know that the patron saint of anal-retentive nitpickers would come along and ignore the position that a couple of seconds’ brainwork would have revealed as the one I was trying to convey in favour of one that no-one with the sense God gave a common pancake could possibly hold. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=15)