What I want to know is Peter: do you agree with me that doing what I hypothesize (re the Scottish mountain conversation) would be inappropriate behaviour on your part, were you to indulge in it?
Yes or no?
Peter has now answered my question, over on the Randi boards.
So once again what Randi said:
You say that Randi is making an absolute statement that there are no underground rivers. You say that you are interpreting Randi’s comment in the context of the whole. Indeed you shout this.
As I understand it, your position quite simply is that Randi says there are no underground rivers. Period. In what way are you taking Randi’s statement in context?
[sub]and I’m getting more than a little tired of name calling, discounting anything anyone says because they are a supporter of Randi (a tactic you are quick to decry when others do it to you) and so on. Stick to the facts and logic.[/sub]
Was this worth a resurrection? It should be fairly obvious that Peter loves Randi and wants to have a nice spring Vermont wedding. There’s no other reasonable explanation for this years-long fixation.
An interesting question, Bryan. I could certainly argue that I am pretty silly to bother with Peter. I guess I must get some amusement out of it somehow.
Hollywood has engendered the notion of vast rivers of water residing in underground cravasses where people can canoe down rapids into some vast underground ocean.
It just ain’t like that. Water will fill any void in the ground. But the vast majority of it is in permeable rock, stone, gravel and cracks in larger stone/rock formations. I was reading an article a couple of months ago that geologists were surprised at how much water overtime can flow through very, very small holes in rocks - the distance and the amount of water.
Can water flow like they show in movies, yes, in Hawaii the old lava tubes, where the outside crust cools and the liquid center flows out, do fill with water, not so much from above ground rivers or rain directly, but from underground artesian wells. Pressure forces the water out through theses holes. People rough water raft through these.
I take his words in context by reading the whole of what he says.
Lets just look once again at Randi’s words.
Now, I look at those words, and see their meaning taken as a whole. Looking at his words in context, it’s perfectly clear what he is saying here. The message of Randi’s words taken as a whole is this: we don’t need anyone telling us where to dig. There’s so much water underground you will find a succesful well any place you want. It makes no difference which spot you choose.
Randi attacks wells that are ** "dug with great precision on spots located. " ** Taken in context, its plain what he’s saying: The exact spot doesn’t matter. You’ll find equal amounts of water in any spot.
Randi attacks ** “the underground river notion that dowsers maintain.” ** Taken in context, it’s plain what he’s saying. Dowsers have the notion that a well dug on this exact spot will hit an undeground river and produce a lot of water, while a well dug on that spot 20m away will miss the underground river and produce nothing. Randi seeks to discredit the notion, and denies that “underground rivers” exist full stop. There are no underground rivers, says Randi, so the location of your well makes no difference.
Randi says ** “find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well.” ** Taken in context, it’s plain what Randi is saying. Go anywhere within 100m from this spot, dig a well, and you will find exactly the same amount of water.
Overall, Randi is mocking the idea that a well needs to be dug on this exact spot, rather than that spot 20 metres away. Randi is under the impression that it makes no difference, you will get vast amounts of water in either spot. And the geologists ALL disagree with him 100%. They all say that the exact spot makes a vast difference. They tell us that a well in one spot might hit an “ancient buried river” and produce several hundred GPM, while a well 20m from that spot misses the “ancient buried river” and produce only a tiny trickle.
Taken as a whole, Randi says the amount of water is the same from spot to spot, and ithe amount is huge. Taken as a whole, geologists say that the amount of water varies a great deal from spot to spot, with most spots producing only trivial amounts, and good spots being hard to find. Taken as a whole, Randi says that a dowser can select any old spot, and expect to hit water, because water is so abundant. Taken as a whole, geologists say that a spot selected at random is likely tio be dry, and finding a good spot requires a careful survey and good geological interpretation.
That’s me, looking at words in context.
You, Princhester , refuse to do so. You are in the habit of taking tiny fragments of Randi’s words and arguing about their meaning, devoid of correct context. You take phrases such as “dry spot” and start threads to debate the meaning of those two bloody words, arguing the toss on and on and on, refusing to look at them in context.
Perhaps you would care to explain how you take words in context?
So, you’re getting tired of name calling. That’s good. Remember who used the terms fwit and S-for-brains? Here’s a clue - it wasn’t me.
And when did I discount what people say “because they are a supporter of Randi?” When did I ever do that? I don’t recall doing so.
I reject what people say when they surround it with a lot of invective, or when it doesn’t match the facts. Not because it comes from Randi fans.
1/ The whole of your substantive post above depends upon the attribution of an opinion to Randi for which you have no factual justification, namely that Randi thinks that the amount of water is “exactly” the same from spot to spot. Randi has never said that or anything close. If you want an illustration, then consider that if you actually think that saying “it is hard to find a dry spot within 100m of a well” and saying “anywhere within 100m of a well will have the exact same amount of water” you lack for basic english comprehension.
2/ You have been provided with US government cites that say that there is water pretty much everywhere. Your response is to point to some geologists who told you there is more water in some places than in others. That is not to the point, unless you/dowsers can show that the spots they find are better than other spots nearby. Since wells cost of the order of thousands of dollars per shaft, I doubt that is usually done.
3/ You have been provided with numerous dowser cites showing the types of ideas dowsers have about underground rivers. You have never denied those cites, or found any cites to suggest that the types of ideas dowsers have about underground rivers have any basis in fact. You point to only one type of true underground river: water flowing through caves (in karst country). In no way are dowsers’ “finds” of underground rivers limited to that. You also point to paleochannels, which are (a) not underground rivers and (b) do not result in numerous “underground rivers” going all over the place, fanning out like spokes etc as dowsers allege. But you don’t have to believe me: you have been provided with two separate US government cites that say that dowsers have unsupportable ideas about underground rivers. Despite this, you persist in the suggestion that Randi is wrong to say that the underground river notion that dowsers maintain is wrong.
4/ One geologist said in response to your question about whether Randi is right about water being everywhere said “does a gallon per minute count?”. The clear implication being that if it does, then the answer to your question is “yes”. While he went on to say that other spots would be a lot better, the basic point is that there is going to be some water everywhere.
5/ You refer to a gallon per minutes as “trivial” or a “tiny trickle”. None of your geologists say this. A gallon per minute is a lot of water. Over half a million gallons per year. As I have pointed out that is sufficient to supply the annual water needs of several average US households. Look it up here. The average yearly usage of a household in Denver is about 150,000 gallons per year. Yet you persist in calling that amount trivial or a tiny trickle because otherwise you’d lose the only means you have of sugesting that what Randi says (and what two seperate government websites say) is wrong.
I don’t think there’s more to be said. I think I’ll take Bryan’s advice.
Except for this: Peter as to name calling I abused you in one pit thread as a result of a despicable piece of weaselling on your part that you have never denied.
Calling others names has become your stock in trade. I don’t appreciate being called a moron for asking you a simple question, without any explanation as to why such an attack is legitimate or justified in my case.
That’s just quotes from one single thread on the Randi boards in the last few days. I have never in my life come across someone with such a blythe lack of self awareness, outside the ranks of the mentally ill.
Princhester, It’s Randi’s entire point.
The whole theme of Randi’s many lectures and essays on the subject is that the spot you choose for a well is irelevant bacause you’ll find huge amounts of water anywhere.
You have ignored 99% opf the information, and taken odd words out of context to support your fanaticism.
Yes, there is water “pretty much everywhere” but the amount varies hugely from spot to spot within a location.
That doesn’t change the basic wrongness of Randi’s drivel.
The words were “does a gallon per minute count?” Obviously they consider it doubtful that counts.
Kindly do not lie about my position. As you well know, since I’ve pointed it out before, I meant precisely what Randi obviously means: that the notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain is false, not that there isn’t any water underground.
That is an outright lie. The “weaseloing” existed in your imagination.
IIRC, I quoted some Randi fan, and disagreed with what he said, then along comes Ptrinchester, blaming me for the words I was challenging. I pointed out that they were not my words, and Princhester spewed out abuse along the lines of : I don’t care they aren’t your words, refusing to take responsibility for someone else’s words are weaseling e *
Says Princhester, ignoring the much worse stuff that came from Randi fans on that thread. And I mean MUCH worse. The level of hatred from Randi fans there leaves Princhester looking almost polite.
Well, here we see Princhester’s usual logic. He objects to me “calling names” and then compares me to the “mentally ill”.
Randi fans are a strange bunch.
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.
And the “notion of underground rivers that dowsers maintain” is simply that they exist. So, sayi8ng that is false is denying thheir existence.
I missed out this bit in my earlier reply. Given Princhesters habit of claiming victory if I don’t answer ever single line in every single post, I’d better answer it.
Yes, Princhester, as has been pointed out to you time after time, yes there is some water everywhere, but in most spots the actual amount is tiny. There is no spot on Earth that is totally devoid of water. So, Randi dividing the world into “succesful wells” and “dry spots” makes no sense at all. Howevewr you twist it, the information supplied by the geologist directly contradicts Randi.
But you will continue to take odd words out of context, and twist their meaning to suit your purpose.
Did he do this?
"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."
According to Randi, the World is (more than) 90% successful well, 10% (or less) dry spot.
Puh-leeze. He could make a lot more money by becoming one of the “kooks and cons”, if it weren’t for this inconvenient thing called “integrity”.
I’ve seen that argument before, it’s never impressive. The idea is that he must be honest because he could make more money through a different type of dishonesty. It just doesn’t make sense.
If a policeman was accused of corruption, and he said that if he were really dishonest he’d be a crook instead of a cop, would you be impressed? That is essentially the same argument.
No, the original implication was of venality driven by greed, and the argument was that venality driven by greed would have led to a different result. It makes perfect sense.
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.
As to the “substantive” stuff, it’s just same ol’ same ol’.
Why you did it is not the point.
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. 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.
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?
I mean what the fuck is going on? In all seriousness Peter, are you mentally the full box?
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.