James Randi and Dry Spots

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

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.

Have you seen the Australian movie “The Castle”? I suspect it was only really a hit in Australia. In it, a suburban lawyer is way out of his depth in court, trying to make out a constitutional argument for which he can’t actually find any support in the constitution. So finally in defeat he says as his desperate parting shot: “It’s the vibe, your honour”.

The saying has become a euphemism for hopeless arguments amongst Australian lawyers. As in “well I can’t actually find anything in this contract to support my client’s position, but well umm, ahh, it’s the vibe!”

Theme, vibe, whatever.

Yes I know that in “The Castle” subsequently a more senior lawyer comes along and points out that actually there is a section in the constitution that supports the argument, but until you find an actual cite to support the proposition that Randi thinks there are huge amounts (or equal amounts) of underground water everywhere, your position is based on a fallacy. Let’s face it, I’ve asked you for such a cite before and you haven’t provided it, and you would if you could. It just doesn’t exist. Your whole argument is based on reading something into Randi’s words which just ain’t there.

@Peter Morris

You have ignored 99% opf the information, and taken odd words out of context to support your fanaticism.

Let me get this straight. You were provided with a cite to a US government website (which consists of several pages, large amounts of text, diagrams etc). You were provided with a quote from that website to the effect that there is underground water almost everywhere.

But you say that we are ignoring “99% of the information” and have taken odd words out of context.

So the inescapable conclusion is that 99% of a US government website, with diagrams and page after page of information, shows that Randi is wrong. You can just provide some quotes from this site, point to some diagrams, can’t you Peter? That’ll show us.

This information is out there, page after page of it, fully backed by an authoritative, neutral source, available online, destructive of Randi. The opportunity exists to grind Randi into dust using an impeccable source. His position is a goner. C’mon Peter, lay it on us.

Skeptics supporting Randi on the point may as well just pack up and go home. Any second now, Peter’s going to cease using obscure quotes from newsgroup geologists and hit us with both barrels of a US government website 99% of which says that there is not water underground almost everywhere. Here it comes, the debate-ending quotes are comin’ right up…

Any second now…

OK Peter, let it rip…

Come on Peter, don’t let us down. Don’t make me have to post about you being deluded, or engaging in Big Lies.

Peter?

…croak, croak, croak…

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

The words were “does a gallon per minute count?” Obviously they consider it doubtful that counts.

So imagine the following scenario:

1/ dowser is regularly employed to find spots for a well

2/ dowser suggests particular spots

3/ according to this and this oft provided US government cites, the wells when drilled will almost always hit water, and indeed according to your favourite geologist the wells when drilled will produce at least half a million gallons a year, sufficient to provide the annual water needs of several US households

Do you have any evidence at all that the average dowser would say: “damn, those wells don’t count, dowsing doesn’t work?”

According to the earlier of the above provided government cites:

Few areas exist in Missouri where some water cannot be found at some depth with some quality and therein lies the success of the diviner in our own state.

Sounds remarkably similar to what Randi is saying. Must be wrong, eh?

[SentientMeat]

Peter:No…Randi’s wildly inaccurate guff is not trivial. Nor is the fact that he issued a challenge, then weaseled out.

Ah, I see. Sorry for bumping your armchair.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Assuming for the moment that Randi has this big blind spot where underground rivers are concerned, and he’s too proud to admit his error…

… so how does that justify all the personal attacks, Peter? You’ve said at length how much of a scumbag Randi is, but all your arguments seem to come back to this one single solitary issue. Even if Randi was completely wrong and had heaped oodles of undeserverd abuse on you, how does that justify disparaging all of Randi’s debunking work? Do you feel any of it had value?

Bad Prin for resurrecting this thread. Bad, bad Prin! [slaps with rolled-up newspaper]

[Princhester]

It’s all Randi’s fault[sup]TM[/sup], Bryan

Trademark courtesy Peter Morris esq. without his kind permission

[Richard_Pearse]

@Futile Gesture

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.

Actually, that’d be a river of underground water.

[Peter_Morris]

@Princhester

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?

Yes.

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”

No, Princhester, you have not shown one single quote to support your contention. You claim that I reject the words of Randi fans just because they are Randi fans.

To support your claim, you quote me commenting on jackasses hurling abuse at me. My comments on their abuse becomres in your mind a rejection of their ideas because they are Randi fans.

Well FYI :

1. For the most part, they don’t have ideas, they have abuse.

2. Such ideas they have, I reject because their ideas are weak and lacking in logic. Not because they come from Randi fans.

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.

The fact remains, I did not do what you accused me of doing.

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.

Oh, we’re back to claims of victory, huh?

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?

For the most part, no. Although you could have been a little more polite. There were a couple of points where I’d have liked some further clarification - but you refused to accept any more questions from me. Mostly, though you were reasonable. I just wish you would behave like that more often.

(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.

And the abuse from Princhester continues.

[Peter_Morris]

@Priceguy

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.

You obviously believe that.

Seek help now.

[Peter_Morris]

@Princhester

Let me get this straight. You were provided with a cite to a US government website (which consists of several pages, large amounts of text, diagrams etc). You were provided with a quote from that website to the effect that there is underground water almost everywhere.

The fact remains, you refuse to see the big picture.

I’ve told you this many times gbut you cannot understand it. The cites you provide do not contradict me in any way.

Please try to understand.

You have a field. you want a well. There is likely to be water somewhere under your field. somewhere within that patch of land there is likely to be a good supply of water.

Buit actually finding the spot is hard. If you just sink a well at random, you will probably hit a spot with only a tiny amount of water.

You have shown nothing that contradicts that point.

[Peter_Morris]

@Bryan Ekers

Assuming for the moment that Randi has this big blind spot where underground rivers are concerned, and he’s too proud to admit his error…

… so how does that justify all the personal attacks, Peter? You’ve said at length how much of a scumbag Randi is, but all your arguments seem to come back to this one single solitary issue.

No, I keep on citing new stuff.

It’s idiots like Princhester that keep on obsessing about old debates. Princhester keeps starting threads to argue about “dry spots.”

It’s a serious blunder that Randi keeps producing, but that’s far from all.

Even if Randi was completely wrong and had heaped oodles of undeserverd abuse on you, how does that justify disparaging all of Randi’s debunking work? Do you feel any of it had value?

Not really, no. He’s so wrong so often that little he says can be trusted as either true or accurate.

Bad Prin for resurrecting this thread. Bad, bad Prin! [slaps with rolled-up newspaper]

He is a bit of a twit, isn’t he. :rolleyes:

[kaylasdad99]

Is there any way someone could be persuaded to ask a mod to change the title of this thread, just a little? All this talk of “dry spots” plants an idea in my head, and I’ve needlessly changed the sheets on my bed every day for the past two weeks.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Peter Morris

No, I keep on citing new stuff.

Yeah? Like what?

Not really, no. He’s so wrong so often that little he says can be trusted as either true or accurate.

Yeah? Like when?

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

You have a field. you want a well. There is likely to be water somewhere under your field. somewhere within that patch of land there is likely to be a good supply of water.

This is flatly contradicted by the cites provided to you. “Ground water occurs almost everywhere beneath the land surface” is what the cites say. Which part of “almost everywhere” don’t you understand?

The cites in question say nothing that supports your position. Nothing. Nada. Zip. You say otherwise, you provide cites Peter, cites, not your word. Actual quotes. Not “Peter summaries”. Cites and quotes.

If you just sink a well at random, you will probably hit a spot with only a tiny amount of water.

You can continue to call over half a million gallons a year tiny, you can continue to ignore what the US Geological Survey says, you can continue to call 1440 gallons a day tiny, you can continue to think that enough water to supply several US households with their annual water needs is dry and you can continue to make yourself look a fool. What do I care.

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

For the most part, no. Although you could have been a little more polite. There were a couple of points where I’d have liked some further clarification - but you refused to accept any more questions from me.

[my emphasis]

This is one of the most ungrateful, despicable pieces of snide lying I have ever had the misfortune to witness. Don’t ever darken my PM message box again, scumbag.

[Dunderman]

@Peter Morris

You obviously believe that.

Seek help now.

Whereas you’re perfectly healthy, what with your pathological hatred of James Randi (what did he do, anally rape your mother while pouring sugar in your gas tank?) and claiming to know better than I what I meant? Puh-leeze.

Princhester, if you still have the stamina to wrestle with this little weirdo, you’re a better man than I.

[Peter_Morris]

Let’s face it, everyone is a better man than you.

[Peter_Morris]

[QUOTE=Princhester]
This is flatly contradicted by the cites provided to you. /QUOTE]

No, they confirm it.

You just have trouble with reading comprehension.

[Peter_Morris]

@Princhester

[my emphasis]

This is one of the most ungrateful, despicable pieces of snide lying I have ever had the misfortune to witness. Don’t ever darken my PM message box again, scumbag.

And yet more abuse.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Peter Morris

And yet more abuse.

Y’know, most people take that as a hint.

If I may suggest, stop referring to Randi-fans as “rabid” or any other negative adjective. In fact, stop referring to Randi fans altogether (I think you’re the only one who does this, actually). It’s possible to agree with Randi on several points without being a fan of his, and it’s possible to disagree with you on several points without being a fan of his, so it serves no purpose but alienating a large part of a potential audience, i.e. the readers of this board.

[Princhester]

@Peter Morris

No, they confirm it.

You just have trouble with reading comprehension.

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?

You may think you’re an honest and trustworthy fellow but believe me you don’t want me to take a poll on that around here.

You can say whatever the hell you want. No one is going to believe you till you can come up with actual quotes from actual, reputable cites that support what you say.

You said earlier that “99%” (that was your words) of the site in question supported you.

99% of a multipage detailed USGS site supports you, you say, but you have as yet put no information in front of me to deter me from my present conclusion namely that that is a flat out lie. If you want to defend yourself against that assertion, provide a quote, provide a cite.

Put up or 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.