# 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:** 16
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/301 "2004-11-17T11:31:18Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > And yet more abuse. Earlier I provided six examples of you abusing “Randi fans”. You stated that your doing so was justified because of the way they’d treated you. Okey, dokey. You asked for it. A few weeks ago, you came to me in a private message on the Randi boards and asked me (as a lawyer) for information on legal aspects. In particular you had a theory that Randi’s challenge was not legally binding. I provided probably over a thousand words of information as requested, as best I could. I was utterly polite. I accepted there were aspects of what you were asking about that I didn’t know. I accepted that I was not confident you were wrong: there were aspects I just didn’t know (me being an Australian and not a Floridan lawyer). I said I didn’t want to and wouldn’t debate you in PM and that if you wanted to take the question further, I suggested you go to GQ where I would endeavour to help you get answers and where there were lawyers who knew Florida law. I suggested that twice. You haven’t taken me up on it. You never posted any response. Not even a casual “Ta for that Princhester”. Not a word. A few days later, apropos nothing, you include me in a general broadside as a moron. A day or so after that, you have the temerity, the ingrateful rudeness to say (of our PM exchange) I “could have been more polite” and (here’s the kicker) that I had “refused to accept any more questions from you”. An utter distortion at best, and an out and out lie at worst, since you knew damn well I’d offered to help in GQ, nay I’d positively urged you to take it to GQ, and all I’d said was that I wouldn’t debate you in PM. You are a close minded fuckwit with a ego the size of a house but made of eggshell. This whole Randi thing started when in your very first post on these boards you crashed in and with swaggering confidence announced that Randi was a fraud and sceptics were gullible putzes. Within half a page you’d been forced to admit that the factoids on which you based your opinion were wrong. And poor clever but immature Peter wasn’t used to being wrong were you? You’d lost face, poor darling. Your great big ego which you’d laid on the line with such bravado was cwushed. Your first reaction was to blame your mistake on other posters. Such a shame that only a few posts before that you’d specifically said that your opinions were based on your own experiences and knowledge and not that of others. And it got even worse when I started a pit thread calling you out for your jerkish behaviour of blaming others for your mistakes. And ever since then it’s been one attempt after another to find something, anything, with which to support your initial rash slander, because your ego can’t cope with having to face up to the possibilty that you were utterly, irredeemably and publicly wrong. So you do searches, you post decontextualised questions on other message boards, you start rumours of plagiarism, you troll through Randi’s recorded words like scripture to come up with distorted or out of context quotes that you can find an angle upon that may be wrong, all in some attempt to find something you can pin on Randi. In short you’re roughly the equivalent of a stalker. You asked me about your theory that Randi’s challenge is legally unenforceable in PM and refused to take it to GQ because firstly you didn’t want to be publically wrong again and secondly you don’t want even more people to poke fun at your obsessive anti-Randi behaviour. Backfired on you now, hasn’t it, jerk? And before you post some silly remark that this post is typical Princhester, all abuse and no logic or facts, answer the post before this one. Whenever you can. ---
**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 17, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/302 "2004-11-17T19:32:56Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Earlier I provided six examples of you abusing “Randi fans”. You stated that your doing so was justified because of the way they’d treated you. There you go, rewriting history as usual. You did not claim it as me “abusing Randi fans” You claimed I rejected all arguments from Randi fans just because they are Randi fans, and presented it as evidence of that. Now you try to rewrite what you were accusing me of doing. > [@](#): > > Okey, dokey. You asked for it. > > A few weeks ago, you came to me in a private message on the Randi boards and asked me (as a lawyer) for information on legal aspects. In particular you had a theory that Randi’s challenge was not legally binding. true so far > [@](#): > > I provided probably over a thousand words of information as requested, as best I could. I was utterly polite. I accepted there were aspects of what you were asking about that I didn’t know. I accepted that I was not confident you were wrong: there were aspects I just didn’t know (me being an Australian and not a Floridan lawyer). true so far. [quote] I said I didn’t want to and wouldn’t debate you in PM and that if you wanted to take the question further, I suggested you go to GQ where I would endeavour to help you get answers and where there were lawyers who knew Florida law. I suggested that twice. You haven’t taken me up on it. [/quote] Exactly. You told me not to contact you through PM’s any more. > [@](#): > > You never posted any response. Not even a casual “Ta for that Princhester”. Not a word. Princhester, there was more I’d have liked to ask you, but you demanded that I not contact you further. You had made it clear that you would not respond. So I didn’t. You told me not to continue the discussion, then get offended when I don’t respond. That’s your twisted logic all over. As for following your suggestion to post my question in GQ, no thanks. I get enough flak when I respond to threads that you start. > [@](#): > > A few days later, apropos nothing, you include me in a general broadside as a moron. Just remind me where I so described you, please. > [@](#): > > A day or so after that, you have the temerity, the ingrateful rudeness to say (of our PM exchange) I “could have been more polite” and (here’s the kicker) that I had “refused to accept any more questions from you”. You refused any further correspondence. Fact. > [@](#): > > An utter distortion at best, and an out and out lie at worst, since you knew damn well I’d offered to help in GQ, nay I’d positively urged you to take it to GQ, and all I’d said was that I wouldn’t debate you in PM. > > You are a close minded fuckwit with a ego the size of a house but made of eggshell. And more abuse. > [@](#): > > This whole Randi thing started when in your very first post on these boards you crashed in and with swaggering confidence announced that Randi was a fraud and sceptics were gullible putzes. Within half a page you’d been forced to admit that the factoids on which you based your opinion were wrong. Your fantasy, Princhester, that didn’t happen. > [@](#): > > And poor clever but immature Peter wasn’t used to being wrong were you? You’d lost face, poor darling. Your great big ego which you’d laid on the line with such bravado was cwushed. And the abuse continues. Why do you imagine that this is impressive? The rest of Princhester’s childish rant snipped. ---
**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 17, 2004, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/303 "2004-11-17T20:16:37Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Just exactly what do the words “almost everywhere” mean to you, Peter? Do enlighten us. > > I’ll give you a clue: they do not mean “only in certain selected spots”. The two concepts are in fact opposite. Furthermore what did I say about cites, quotes etc? [/quote] Given ad nauseam. I have tried discussing it with you rastionally, all you do is hurl abuse, and obsess over me calling Randi a putz eighteen bloody months ago. Get over it, for god’s sake. > [@](#): > > Put up or shut up. I’ve put up many times. Why don’t you shut up? > [@](#): > > The simple fact is you haven’t provided quotes or cites because you can’t. You’re wrong. There is nothing to confirm your position. All you are left with is a bald unsupported assertion. Cites given, over and over. Princhester incapable of understanding. Look, I’ll summarize for you. Randi claimed there’s water everywhere. I asked the geologists, and they said that Randi’s statement is highly misleading, because 1. In many places, there is some water, but only a tiny amount, often considerably less than 1GPM. Geologists say it’s doubtful that 1GPM is enough to count, and it’s often a lot less than that. 2. In many any places the underground water is highly contaminated. Wells in that area don’t supply water, they supply toxic sludge. 3. Most of the water is held in clay formations that bind the water, and don’t release it. There is water there, but it doesn’t flow at all. If you sink a well into that formation, you will get no water at all. There’s water there, but actually extracting the water is impossible. 4. Much of the water is inaccessible. You can’t get at it because there is a layer of solid stone sitting on top. Boring through the stone is difficult and expensive, or impossible. 5. The amount of water varies greatly from spot to spot. Taking an area as a whole, there is water under it. But actually finding it is hard. 6. The depth of the water variesfrom spot to spot. One spot it’s 20m from the surface, another spot it’s 200m down. So, there’s some of the things a geologist needs to consider when locating a spot for a well. Selecting a spot at random is no good at all. If you just drill any old place you are likely to find only a tiny trickle of water, or to hit solid rock before you reach water, or have a deep and expensive bore before you hit water, or find your well producing toxic sludge. You have not produced any cites to contradict this. But you ignore 99% of what is written. You pick up on “1GPM”, argue the toss about that and ignore the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Atlas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/0ea827/32.png) [@Atlas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atlas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/304 "2004-11-17T22:23:29Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > That should have been: > > Anyone wanting a test is railroaded into meeting Randi’s demands, not given the test the applicant wants. I haven’t made it all the way through the thread so I apologize if this link is redundant. This is a fairly well explained dowsing trial that Randi was involved with and it shows the documents, expectations and results. [Dowsing Test.](http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Atlas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/0ea827/32.png) [@Atlas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atlas)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/305 "2004-11-17T23:08:45Z")
Ok, I did see that my previous post had been linked to previously. Sorry about that. How about the [Kassel test?](http://www.randi.org/pdf/swift1-2.pdf) Pages 4-8 from that pdf discusses it. It even has pictures. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/306 "2004-11-18T09:14:58Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Given ad nauseam. Won’t cut it Peter. I don’t care how much “summarising” you do. Your summaries say exactly what you dream your cites would say if you had any. Quotes, cites. Or shut up. You are Lekatting. When cites are demanded you just say you’ve already provided them. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/307 "2004-11-18T09:46:58Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > You did not claim it as me “abusing Randi fans” You claimed I rejected all arguments from Randi fans just because they are Randi fans, and presented it as evidence of that. Read what I wrote again, fool. > [@](#): > > You told me not to contact you through PM’s any more. > [@](#): > > Princhester, there was more I’d have liked to ask you, but you demanded that I not contact you further. You had made it clear that you would not respond. So I didn’t. > > You told me not to continue the discussion, then get offended when I don’t respond. That’s your twisted logic all over. > [@](#): > > You refused any further correspondence. Fact. Lest anyone reading this gets the impression that the above is anything other than Morrisian fantasy of the type I have come to expect from this lying, ingrateful, slimey, weaselling arsehole[sup]\*[/sup], here is what I actually wrote: > [@](#): > > Firstly, I really think you’d be better off asking this in GQ on the 'dope. I’d be quite prepared to keep it on the straight and narrow legal question and not go off to GD (if you would!). The problem with asking me is that while there is much commonality of legal principle in the Western world,“consideration” is one of those topics where the finer details may just be different in Florida, and wagering is often statutorily regulated. But for what it’s worth… > > Secondly, I’m not going to debate you in Private Messaging for two reasons. If there’s going to be a debate on the legal niceties I’d rather do it in an open forum than get into a personal spat. And also, there’s not much point in getting into too much of a debate when I’m not sure of the details anyway (see point one). So I’ll give you an answer and that’s it. What I will say is, if you want to debate, by all means open a thread somewhere suitable and ask your question again and quote my answer and we can go from there. Every single thing Morris says is a lie. I never said he couldn’t PM me. I never said he couldn’t contact me. I never said we couldn’t correspond. There was nothing to stop him acknowledging my assistance other than his own ingrateful rude nature[sup]\*[/sup], the nature that is now causing him to utter yet further lies in an effort to weasel out of his earlier ones, and to avoid acknowledging his wrongs. I never said I wouldn’t answer any further questions, rather that I certainly would do so, but in GQ not PM. > [@](#): > > Just remind me where I so described you, please. That’d be [here](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870679741#post1870679741). You have a short memory when it comes to your own abuse, but a long memory when it comes to others abuse of you. - This is not abuse. This is a simple statement of fact based on your actions as described in this and my last few posts. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/308 "2004-11-18T12:09:34Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Won’t cut it Peter. I don’t care how much “summarising” you do. Your summaries say exactly what you dream your cites would say if you had any. > > Quotes, cites. Or shut up. You are Lekatting. When cites are demanded you just say you’ve already provided them. [/QUOTE] I note that you have cut out my entire answer. You have no response to it other than denial. I’ve put up, now you shut up. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/309 "2004-11-18T12:16:01Z")
So, Peter, is Princhester’s copy of the e-mail he sent you accurate? I mean, with so few facts on hand, we may as well treasure the ones we can confirm. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/310 "2004-11-18T12:23:23Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Read what I wrote again, fool. **"Secondly, I’m not going to debate you in Private Messaging "** \*\*"So I’ll give you an answer and that’s it. " \*\* You made it clear that you didn’t want any reply. So don’t get snotty becauase you didn’t get one. > [@](#): > > Lest anyone reading this gets the impression that the above is anything other than Morrisian fantasy of the type I have come to expect from this lying, ingrateful, slimey, weaselling arsehole[sup]\*[/sup], here is what I actually wrote: Once again, Princhester provides a cite that supports me, while claiming that it does the opposite. Princhester’s further vitriol and hatred snipped. What a vile troll he is. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/311 "2004-11-18T12:31:08Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > So, Peter, is Princhester’s copy of the e-mail he sent you accurate? I mean, with so few facts on hand, we may as well treasure the ones we can confirm. Yeah, it’s accurate. He even quotes the part where he tells me directly not to reply to him. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/312 "2004-11-18T12:32:49Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Princhester’s further vitriol and hatred snipped. No more snips, please, from anyone. I’d like to draw my own conclusions. > [@](#): > > What a vile troll he is. Uh-oh. Careful, there. ---
**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 18, 2004, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/313 "2004-11-18T12:36:43Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > Yeah, it’s accurate. He even quotes the part where he tells me directly not to reply to him. Actually, it looks more like he didn’t want to get into an extended private debate on this issue, though he invited you to take it public and quote him if necessary. ---
**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 18, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/314 "2004-11-18T13:25:11Z")
What is your understanding of his words : **“I’ll give you an answer and that’s it,” then?** To me, it seemed a clear statement that he would accept no replies. There were in fact some things I’d have liked to ask him about further, but he said “that’s it” so I didn’t ask them. As for taking the questuion to GQ - no thanks. I get enough flak when I respond to someone else’s postings about Randi. In the minds of Randi’s supporters, me replying to someone else is “proof” that I’m “obsessed” with Randi, and never mind the OP. Me starting a thread to ask about Randi would be flame bait. I’ll take my questions elsewhere. ---
**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 18, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/315 "2004-11-18T13:51:31Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > What is your understanding of his words : **“I’ll give you an answer and that’s it,” then?** To me, it seemed a clear statement that he would accept no replies. Well, to me it looks like a clear disinterest in discussing that particular matter in private, but I can’t read his mind or yours. > [@](#): > > As for taking the questuion to GQ - no thanks. I get enough flak when I respond to someone else’s postings about Randi. In the minds of Randi’s supporters, me replying to someone else is “proof” that I’m “obsessed” with Randi, and never mind the OP. See, I mentioned that sort of thing earlier, only it was “Randi fans”, not “Randi’s supporters”. Does it honestly not occur to you that someone who feels the whole “dry spot” thing is overblown might do so honestly and not because of any particular feelings toward Randi? You must realize by now that such rhetoric isn’t helping your claim. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/316 "2004-11-18T13:59:04Z")
[QUOTE] > [@Peter Morris](#): > > Princhester, there was more I’d have liked to ask you, but you **demanded** that I not contact you further. You had made it clear that you would not respond. So I didn’t. > > You **told me not to continue the discussion** , then get offended when I don’t respond. That’s your twisted logic all over. (Above bolding mine) **PM,** please show us where **Princhester** demanded anything in the referenced correspondence; also where ho told you to do anything. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Ithaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Ithaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ithaka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/317 "2004-11-18T14:03:38Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > What is your understanding of his words : **“I’ll give you an answer and that’s it,” then?** To me, it seemed a clear statement that he would accept no replies. I’ve been reading this (interminable) thread with much interest and I think I’ve discovered the problem: **Peter** , where did you learn to read? At school did you ever do any reading comprehension tests? As has been pointed out before there is absolutely no point in taking a sentence out of context. Read the whole passage again. Were you seriously offended by this? Why? What part of it is anything other than considered and polite? Your inability to detect tone and substance in English seems to go to the bottom of the problem in this thread. Yes, Randi can sometimes be foolish - as can we all. So? We are not debating his personality. Dowsing obviously and clearly does not work. Debating linguistic comprehension’s not going to change that. You strike me as a bit of a wally. Sorry if I’m wrong. (PS This is the first time I’ve been moved to post in the Pit. Hope I did ok? 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/318 "2004-11-18T14:16:56Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > I’ve been reading this (interminable) thread with much interest and I think I’ve discovered the problem: > > **Peter** , where did you learn to read? At school did you ever do any reading comprehension tests? As has been pointed out before there is absolutely no point in taking a sentence out of context. Read the whole passage again. Were you seriously offended by this? Why? What part of it is anything other than considered and polite? > > Your inability to detect tone and substance in English seems to go to the bottom of the problem in this thread. > > Yes, Randi can sometimes be foolish - as can we all. So? We are not debating his personality. Dowsing obviously and clearly does not work. Debating linguistic comprehension’s not going to change that. > > You strike me as a bit of a wally. Sorry if I’m wrong. > > (PS This is the first time I’ve been moved to post in the Pit. Hope I did ok? 🙂 ) It was about a 2 frankly. Don’t you know any cuss words? Can you not imagine bizarre sexual positions? Have you no thoughts concerning dubious geneology? Is there simply no disgust or vitriol that you can dredge up? " A bit of a wally."? Come on! I could carve a better Pit post out of a mango, you slack-jawed, google-eyed son of a…oh well, my heart’s not in it. Just try to spice it up a bit, OK? ---
**Author:** ![Ithaka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Ithaka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ithaka)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2004, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/319 "2004-11-18T14:31:48Z")
> [@trandallt](#): > > It was about a 2 frankly. Don’t you know any cuss words? Can you not imagine bizarre sexual positions? Have you no thoughts concerning dubious geneology? Is there simply no disgust or vitriol that you can dredge up? " A bit of a wally."? Hey, I’m English. “A bit of a wally” is about as bad as it gets. If it makes you feel better I also think it highly probable that **Peter** is a cad and a bounder. And almost definitely a nincompoop as well. ---
**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 18, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926/320 "2004-11-18T14:43:32Z")
> [@Ithaka](#): > > Hey, I’m English. “A bit of a wally” is about as bad as it gets. > > If it makes you feel better I also think it highly probable that **Peter** is a cad and a bounder. > > And almost definitely a nincompoop as well. Bollocks! I just rewatched _Trainspotting_ and surely you can do better than “a bit of a wally”. Okay, they were actually Scottish, but no matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/james-randi-and-dry-spots/268926.md?page=17)