Well, among other things, how you manage to consider 1gal/minute to be ‘dry’. You claim that ‘most people’ would consider that ‘dry’. Now while I wouldn’t want to run a house on that amount of water, I wonder that if I could pour a gallon of water per minute on your head, would you call yourself ‘dry’.
I consulted geologists, I’m basing it on what they said.
They know they’re talking about. You don’t.
We’ve seen how you take such ‘cosultations’. Quite frankly you are a liar about what is said.
Only in Peter’s Randi-hating world would 1 gallon a minute be considered ‘dry’.
I think the geolgist may have told you something and you heard what you wanted to hear.
Look at it this way.
You take a bath. You get out. You are wet. You rub yourself with a towel. Now you are dry.
But are you really dry? How dry are you? If you examine your skin closely, you will find moisture on the surface. You will never get rid of all the liquid on your skin, but you can still say you are “dry.”
In practice, “dry” is a relative term. You can identify a level of moisture, X, and say that less than X water is “dry.” If there is more than X on your skin, you are wet, or damp, if there is less than X on your skin, you are dry.
So, Randi says there is water under 90% of the Earth’s surface. I asked a geologist if that’s correct. He said “It depends what you mean by water. Does a gallon per minute count?”
If you need water for industrial or agricultural purposes, or to supply drinking water to a town, a flow of 1GPM is trivial. The geologist is expressing doubt that 1GPM is enough to count as water.
In practical terms, a well that gave 1GPM or less would be considered “dry”
This your usual trick. Randi is provably wrong, but his obsessed fanatic tries to word-game it away.
Oh, yeah, my usual trick of lying by6 telling things the way they are.
You of course, tell the truth by fantasising the way things ought to be. Hey we know that Randi is a wonderful man, the truth is whatever he says. Here’s a geologist that seems to disagree with him. Quoting the exact words of the geologist are a lie. Fantasising about what he ought to have said is the truth. Reality say he proved Randi wrong. Reality is lying, the truth is that he agreed with Randi. Even though he thinks he showed Randi wrong, wrong is right in the truth of Randi worship.
Does anyone else participating in this thread(or on Earth) consider themselves “dry” after coming out of a bath?
I didn’t think so.
Let me see if I read this correctly-
We are the ones playing word-games?
We are the ones obsessed with Randi?
:rolleyes: 
Read my words.
“You take a bath. You get out. You are wet.”
Poor obsessed Randi lover, so desperate to find some way of attacking me. I feel sorry for you sometimes.
:wally
No, I rub myself with a towel I still have quite a sheen of moisture. Its very handy on hot nights when I don’t want to run the AC. Just get wet, towel myself off and I am able to be cooled almost chilly by a simple fan.
I hardly consider myself ‘dry’.
Sounds like he’s asking for your definition. If you were dying of thirst, and all you found was a well with a flow of 1 gallon a minute. I’d say you’d hardly bypass it saying it was ‘dry’.
You failed to answer his inquiry, and made assumptions that he was saying that 1GPM is ‘dry’.
That a 1GPM well cannot serve the needs of a western American household, that is true, but that has to do with the needs of our society and businesses. A 1GPM flow would be quite useful to a remote village in the third world, where they consume much less water
We’re not the ones claiming a gallon of water a minute is ‘dry’.
Indeed.
But the geologist that Princhester cited in support of Randi DOES claim that.
He (the geologist) knows what he’s talking about. You do not.
No, he does not.
Little help for poor andros here?
Can someone please explain to me precisely what the fuck is going on here, in plain English?
As near as I can tell it’s this: Jim Randi is a liar, and charlatan, and out to get all the poor defenseless paranormalists in the world. He’s completely wrong about everything, and therefore everything he says is wrong. Since he says that psychic abilities don’t exists, and he’s wrong, then they do exist. QED.
But there’s no way that can be all of it, because that’s completely idiotic. Obviously, giving the benefit of all possible doubt, I’m missing something.
So, little help?
Bearing in mind, of course, that my abyssmal spelling and grammar today are purely a result of being about a quart low in the caffeine department.
:rolleyes:
Sure, whatever you say. Lets not let inconvienient facts get in the way of Randi’s wondewrful truth.
When he said “does a gallon a minute count?” it’s because he is sure that it does, not because he finds it questionable. And when he said it’s “very easily possible” to find a dry spot within 100 metres of a well, it really means it’s impossible. He thinks he’s proving Randi wrong, but Randi fans know he’s proving Randi right.
Inconvenient facts like what the USGS has to say.
Your geologist is still not saying what you want him to say. In fact, you seemed to avoid replying to him in an effort to scavange what little you could by twisted interpetations.
Well, it’s like this. There’s this guy called Randi. He really hates the paranormal. Totally detests any mention of it. He hates it so much that he has dedicated his life to attacking it any damn way he can. And, boy, he spews out the vitriol.
The trouble is, he’s not all that bright. He really doesn’t know a lot. So he makes up a lot of crap. He delivers lectures on the stuff he makes up , telling people that it is informed and accurate.
There’s a lot of other people who also hate the paranormal. They want to hear people attack it. Those with shoe-size IQ’s are amused by Randi’s attack. They think anyone attacking the paranormal must be clever and honest. They think anything he says must be true, since it’s against the paranormal.
Randi wants to attack dowsing. He wants to discredit tales of dowsers finding water. He doesn’t know much, so he makes a lot of stuff up. First of all he says that there is water underground in large quantities almost everywhere. Virtually anywhere you dig will produce enough water to make a successful well. This is totally wrong. Most places will produce little or no water. But Randi doesn’t care about that, it impresses his audience. What does it matter to him it he’s giving them wrong information.
So, to continue his attack on dowsing, Randi makes a boast. He declares how he has challenged dowsers to prove their ability. He will give a large sum of money to anyone that succeeds, he says. And to claim all they have to do is find a “dry spot.” He brags about how he has offered this test to dowsers, but they always turn him down. Now, this is simply a lie. He has never really done this. He doesn’t really offer this test to dowsers, they have never turned it down. But he makes a nice living telling stories like this.
So, I call bullshit on his sordid little tale. I tell him that finding a dry spot is easy, they are a damn sight more common than he thinks. And you know what - he chickens out of the test. All his boasting about being willing to test claims fairly, all his stories about dowsers turning down his test were the lies of a charlatan. He is the one that wont do it. He claimed that it was just a “figure of speech” and ran away.
Of course, other paranormal-bashers make excuses for him. They cannot face the facts that he was simply lying. The tale Randi told never actually happened, but this isn’t dishonest to Randi-fans. No, the fictional tale Randi told was a mere “figure of speech.” Randi is not in any way at fault for telling this fiction. No, somehow, I’m at fault for pointing out the fictional nature of the tale. To question it, I must have taken it seriously. And taking such an obvious piece of bullshit seriously is stupid. According to the Randi fans, it was obvious that Randi was bullshitting, and the obviousness eliminates the di9shonesty.
Well, with all the respect they deserve, I disagree. Randi fans can forgive the lies and figures of speech. To me, they are dishonest.
And to answer your last question: No, Randi’s patent dishonesty does not make the dowsers claims true. That’s something they have to prove.
Yeah, I twisted his meaning by quoting him exactly. You told the Randi-truth by ignoring what he said, and quoting what he ought to have said.
I gave him Randi’s words, and asked him if Randi was right. His reply : “who knows”
I “twist” the meaning of that. I present it as a disagreement.
In the bizarro-world of Randi fandom, “who knows” is a direct agreement with Randi.
A gallon per minute does not constitute “dry” by any reasonable criterion. I was inspecting a broken valve, last week, that I estimated at about 1/2 gallon per minute. The water department decided that they could live with that flow, since the line is scheduled to be taken out of service in the next couple of weeks and the cost of sending a crew to dig up and replace a valve that would only be in service for fewer than twenty days was too high to justify. However, the homeowner on whose front lawn the water was accumulating at a rate of 720 gallons a day was not nearly so thrilled. At a gallon per minute, I could fill a 1,000 gallon tank each day while wasting almost a third of the water coming out of the ground. 1 gallon per minute is not enough to supply immediate demand for many uses, but it produces a lot of water.
I think we have discussed this in another thread.
But since others haven’t seen it, here is the link again:
http://www.randi.org/jr/032902.html
You’ll notice that the dowser claims a 100% success rate, and duly achieves it in an ‘open’ test (where he can see the target). This shows his ‘powers’ are working.
Incidentally he achieved success 20 times at a chance of 1 in 10. This equates to a 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance, which makes your odds above look pretty puny!
The actual test was MUCH EASIER than this impressive demonstration.
He only had to manage 10 successful ‘detections’, with the target concealed.
He managed 1 out of 10, which is what you would expect from chance.
Sounds perfectly scientific to me.
And then making all kinds of fun interpetations to suit your needs. Look at your pathetic line-by-line analysis to Princhester
“Princhester thinks this supports him. He’s missed the point of the comment, and failed to see the sarcasm in the reply.”
[QUOTE[
You told the Randi-truth by ignoring what he said, and quoting what he ought to have said.
[/QUOTE]
I read whast he said, and it is not an endoresement of either Randi nor you. But that has to do with your poor wording and line of questioning. You failed to follow up on the matter
Which is not the same as “Randi is full of it”
Which it isn’t.
Oh, please.