Hetre we see the usual Miskatonic logic which goes something like this :
[Miskatonic ] The geologist says " Except for a few circumstances where streams and rivers can flow underground though limestone in karst country "
SEE he says OTHER THAN. OTHER THAN that, they aren’t. OTHER THAN when they do, they don’t So this supports Randi. They don’t. He say about ancient burried rivers. I ignore. Doesn’t fit truth of Randi, so I ignore. Not true. He say I gnore. Rivers CAN flow underground, but not. It support Randi. Him say Rivers CAN flow underground. This neutral. Not oppose Randi Neutral not oppose. Impossible Randi be wrong. Clever person cant say Randi wrong. Him say river CAN flow underground, peter twist meaning. Me know river not flow. Clever person, say river CAN flow, but apart from when it does, it doesn’t. OTHER than that it doesn’t. Him say it doesn’t. See, that support Randi. Other than when it does, it doesn’t. That mean it doesn’t. Me hate Peter. Him stupid. He twist truth by quoting exact facts. Me tell exact truth of Randi by changing facts to suit. Facts wrong if not support Randi. Clever man him say River flow unfder ground, me change fact. Him say this support Randi, not oppose.
[/miskatonic]
No, Peter, the logic I use is simnply realising that what you claim the geologists say is not what they actually said. Not surprising since you can’t even keep track of what you yourself are saying.
The geologist in question states CLEARLY that underground rivers exist in Karst.
What do you think he meant by the words
** streams and rivers can flow
underground though limestone in karst country (where they have
carved/dissolved cracks and caverns as channels thru the rock and flow
thru these openings), **
See he says underground rivers exist.
But in Miskatonic world, where Randi tells the truth and 2+2=7, He said that APART from this, so that agrees with Randi really.
Been done. By me. But I wasn’t dowsing, so it doesn’t count, I guess.
I just “became aware” a mine was in the road where four mine detectors and a number of mine-sweeping engineers had just passed over without detecting it.
I continued it that day, and continued to find mines the mine detectors missed.
My words were: “Here is an example of a comment from his cite which Peter is unlikely to mention”
So you say that I accused you of being unwilling to mention that cite at all, yet my very words referred to “his [ie your] cite”. That is, it was inherent in my comment that you had provided the cite, you just hadn’t mentioned the comment in question. Your big lie capacity knows no bounds. Or you are just entirely out of touch with reality. Or you are careless and make mistakes. Just like you accuse Randi of making.
And in the context of dowsers beliefs about underground rivers this is right. You are well aware of this cite because it has been pointed out to you time and again: Here is what the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has to say:
Strangely, to my knowledge you have never commented upon this cite or acknowledged its existence. Probably because it agrees with Randi.
Not what he said. There is a great deal of water underground. Your geologists support that. There is some water almost everywhere. Your geologists support that . The US government cite you are so steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the existence of says that.
Nowhere does Randi conflate there being a great deal of water underground with producing a great deal wherever you dig. That’d be you, Peter, not him.
Cite? He never said that.
Twaddle. I think that what Randi meant is that the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is fiction. That’s what he said, that’s what the Missouri people say. But by all means do interpret Randi’s comment in some absolutist pedantic fashion so as to find a way to make it out to be wrong. And why don’t you get onto the Missouri people and castigate them too, huh? Such inaccuracies, and in a government publication!
Your geologists also said that reachable water is not everywhere. Just like Randi
You still haven’t commented on Tomndebb’s post I notice. Do you have any idea how out of touch with the word “dry” you are?
Of course, your geologist was not so silly as to say that enough water to supply 10 US households with their annual water needs was “dry”. Only you are twisted enough to attempt that.
It would be interesting if it were true. You don’t seriously think anyone is going to believe a word you say without a link, do you Peter? Your reputation is not that great, trust me.
And the usual hate from the obsessed Randi fanatic.
Once again, I tell things the way they happened. The facts don’t fit in with the fantasy world that Miskatonic lives in. He denies that any such words were ever spoken. Smugly, he challenges me to produce them, totally sure that they never existed.
As usual, I speak the truth. Yet again, Misko end up looking like a fool.
Two pathetic Randi-worshipping morons said those words, which Misko denies exist.
The first of them was possibly the saddest, most pathetic clown that ever drew breath. Beyond doubt, he was the biggest butt-wipe ever to disgrace these boards. This pathetic wretch spake thus :
** " For the record, there are no “underground rivers”. The occassional creek in a large cavern complex is about it. Water sits in aquifers. " **
Get that, Misko? THERE ARE NO UNDERGROUND RIVERS. That is what the randi-obsessed moron said.
You can see the post of this sad, pathetic clown here. Here’s the second idiot who took Randi’s word over logic and common sense.
** "I can’t find where he says that. He does, however, say that underground rivers are fictional, and so pretty hard to find in the first place. "**
Note the words UNDERGROUND RIVERS ARE FICTIONAL.
And here’s Miskatonik’s usual pathetic attempt to brand me a liar. I recount the facts, exactly as they happened. Poor Miskatonik cannot believe any facts that don’t support his fantasy world. To Miskatonic, the facts disagree with his Randi worship, but the universe is lying, Randi is the only truth.
Lets watch as Misko spews out more hate. Look as he tries to excuse himself. Observe his inability to admit error. See how he cannot admit that his god is less than perfect.
See as he tries to claim that the words THERE ARE NO UNDERGROUND RIVERS. and UNDERGROUND RIVERS ARE FICTIONAL do not mean that underground rivers are fictional.
What a buffoon.
Peter can I ask that if you are going to debate me on legal aspects, you first read this thread on Randi’s boards first and refresh on my position (if as I suspect you are going to debate me on similar topics)?
[QUOTE=Princhester]
My words were: “Here is an example of a comment from his cite which Peter is unlikely to mention”
So you say that I accused you of being unwilling to mention that cite at all, yet my very words referred to “his [ie your] cite”. That is, it was inherent in my comment that you had provided the cite, you just hadn’t mentioned the comment in question. Your big lie capacity knows no bounds. Or you are just entirely out of touch with reality. Or you are careless and make mistakes. Just like you accuse Randi of making. [/'quote]
Yet the fact remains, your comment was a direct lie. There is not one single word fromn that cite that I’m unlikely to mention. You accuse me of concealing a quote, when in fact I published it as agreeing with me.
Backtrak all you want to. Re-word your attack all you can. It will not change the basic fact that I cited that post, every single word of it.
your accusation that I concealed it is your usuakl lie.
It is utterly irrelevent.
Randi makes some misleading statements about underground rivers. He claims that they are fictional. He says that they don’t exist. He says that water only flows in caves.
I consult some geologists. They say that Randi is talking cobblers. Underground rivers are not fictional. They do exist. Water does flow underground.
Desperate Princhester looks for an excuse for Randi. He finds some errors made by dowsers. He produces these errors made by dowsers as proof that Randi is right after all. ooh look, a website claiming that unnamed dowsers believe in domes. No need to to go to a primary source, if it’s on the net it must be true. dowsers really do believe in domes, and no need to cite an actual dowser saying so.
And in some strange Princhester logic the errors made by dowsers wipe Randi’s errors out of existence. Geologists say that Randi’s statements are wrong. But here’s a list of errors made by dowsers. The errors made by dowsers change reality. Randi says underground rivers are fictional. Geologists say they are real. But dowsers say domes exist. Therefore, in Princhester-land , underground rivers are wiped out of existence. Randi is correct to say they don’t exist. The fact that dowsers belive in domes supports Randi’s claim that water does not flow underground.
Princhester, get real. Randi is wrong about a lot.
Pointing out errors made by dowsers - (assuming that it’s an accurate quote in the first place) does not change the fact that Randi talks bollock all the fricken time.
Peter you didn’t mention the comment that I said you were unlikely to mention. Get over it.
The Missouri Dept of Natural Resources saying almost precisely the same as Randi about dowsers’ beliefs and whether they are correct and whether there are underground rivers (of the type relevant to a discussion of dowsers) is irrelevant to the question of the veracity of Randi’s comments about what dowsers believe and whether they are correct?
Riiiight.
So if Randi points out that dowsers are in error, pointing out that the dowsers are in error doesn’t make Randi right?
I see.
Now I know you were about to answer my other questions…
I am agreeing with you. The “minor correction” (on reflection, “addition” would have been a better choice of word, as well as a paragraph break after the first sentence) is just to the part about dowsers finding (or trying to avoid) water, when other dowsers have claimed the ability to find other, rarer, substances.
Soooooo… is that worth a million dollars? If you feel Randi’s been mean to you, why not just sue him for punitive damages?
Does he talk bollock all the time? Even if one agreed that Randi was wrong in some significant ways about subterranean water, does that invalidate everything he says, on any subject? And does that somehow increase the likelihood of dowsing being for real?
I’m begining to see this kind of a claim a lot in these Randi- or skeptic-involved threads. As an example:
Poster A: I believe the claim of X is wrong, and that Y is happening instead.
Poster B: I find that people who believe Y are a bunch of devil-worshipping kitten-cookers.
A: I’m not a devil-worshipping kitten cooker!
B: Not you specifically, but some people. That’s the kind of misunderstanding that can occur from people who believe they’re God.
A: I never said I believed I was God.
B: I didn’t say you did! It’s just that some people in thie thread by implication like to have sex with their sisters.
A: I don’t even have a sister.
B: I never said you did…
I think it’s a pretty blatant passive-aggressive attempt to put A on the defensive, yet not have the responsibility of directly insulting him. I’ll just have to ask (as I and others have when statements like this are made), exactly who on this board do you think is seemingly under the frighteningly hypnotic control of James Randi? I invite you to name names.
Well, now this is potentially interesting. Did you ever show such abilities before that day, or shown them since? Were you in an area that was especially heavily mined, and thus pointing out likely places for mines had good odds of finding them? Were there any “false positive” moments where you were sure there was a mine and yet there wasn’t?
If you still have the ability to detect mines, and you can prove it, I urge you to contact Randi and try for the million. If not, your experience remains a mild curiosity, but I’m not inclined to take it as proof of ESP.
There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. “There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers.”
You claimed that it confirms Randi’s statement. The statement being that underground rivers don’t exist. I didn’t quote any Randi comment about Dowsers’ beliefs. Only his direct statement and unambiguous statement that underground rivers don’t exist.