[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
They can and they have. James Randi himself has been accused of hiding his “psychic” abilities after he has duplicated the feats of supposed psychics using trickery.
[/QUOTE]
cite?
please provide proof of the claims you make. Name the individual that said that, provide some evidence that the event actually happened.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
cite?
please provide proof of the claims you make. Name the individual that said that, provide some evidence that the event actually happened.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t hear the Magic Word.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
because I’m about 1/20th as interested in Randi as you are..
[/QUOTE]
Where’s the “laugh uproariously” smiley when you need it?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Perhaps if you apologized, then said “please”.
[/QUOTE]
apologize for what?
I stand by my statement. you deliberately and repeatedly distort facts to suit your own agenda. You’ve done it many times in the past, and you will doubtless continue to do so.
I will apologize if you can actually back up your claims with facts.
put up or shut up.
[QUOTE=]
Peter: Please provide proof of the claims you make.
Czarcasm: I didn’t hear the Magic Word.
[/QUOTE]
reading comprehension problems?
put up or shut up.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Wrong and wrong. Every test is subject to Randi’s approval, usually he imposes the conditions, and the applicant has to agree to Randi’s demands.
[/quote]
To support your claim, please provide evidence and a cite of where any conditions were changed by Randi after both parties agreed.
To support your claim, please provide at least one example and evidence of any MDC preliminary test where Randi was present.
Or, to quote someone we all know and love,
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
reading comprehension problems?
put up or shut up.
[/QUOTE]
Your assignment is to read the sticky at the top of Great Debates titled Liars, lying, and lies in Great Debates, o.k.?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
If the Challenge continues, should it be run by a general committee, or should it have a public figurehead? If figurehead, who? I’m against Penn for two reasons:
Who I’d like to see is someone along the lines of Bill Nye or Michael Shermer.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but Penn has one great advantage.
Randi was willing to put somebody else’s money where his mouth is.
If Penn takes over, he will be putting HIS OWN money where his mouth is.
Aaannnd, back to the non-Pit part of our show, folks.
Is there a limit to what abilities should be tested? Should everyone that fills out the application form properly be tested, no matter what their claim is, or should there be a “silliness limit”, so to speak?
[QUOTE=Musicat]
To support your claim, please provide evidence and a cite of where any conditions were changed by Randi after both parties agreed.
[/QUOTE]
Easy. James Randi stated in public, many times over the course of at least 25 years that an ability to find dry spots in the ground would be evidence of paranormal ability. Someone agreed to the test exactly as specified by Randi, and sent in a formal application following all the rules to the letter. Right there you have your protocol agreed to by both parties. And of course, Randi refused to honour the agreement.
You knew this already, of course.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Easy. James Randi stated in public, many times over the course of at least 25 years that an ability to find dry spots in the ground would be evidence of paranormal ability. Someone agreed to the test exactly as specified by Randi, and sent in a formal application following all the rules to the letter. Right there you have your protocol agreed to by both parties. And of course, Randi refused to honour the agreement.
You knew this already, of course.
[/QUOTE]
Cite for application turned in, please?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Your assignment is to read the sticky at the top of Great Debates titled Liars, lying, and lies in Great Debates, o.k.?
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I wasn’t aware that the rules had been changed recently. I hardly ever come to GD.
I shouldn’t have used the word liar, and I withdraw it.
Nevertheless, I stand behind what I said. Czarcasm is a person who makes statements that are untruthful. I say that you have made false claims in this thread, and I challenge you to back them up.
You have listed what you claim are common excuses made by people who won’t take Randi’s test. I say that they are mostly fictional.
I dare you, Czarcasm, to provide a cite for the claims you made.
Put up or shut up.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
reading comprehension problems?
put up or shut up.
[/QUOTE]
Did he ever say that the magic word was “please”? Perhaps it’s “glockenspeil”.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Is there a limit to what abilities should be tested? Should everyone that fills out the application form properly be tested, no matter what their claim is, or should there be a “silliness limit”, so to speak?
[/QUOTE]
Quite the contrary, I’d require there to be a ‘sanity limit’; it’s been my vague and unformed understanding that that Randi’s rules were tolerant enough to allow relatively pedestrian physical phenomena to pass if you can catch the Foundation in a moment of sufficient ignorance on the subject to agree to the test. A sufficiently spry particle physicist might have won the challenge if they’d put off submitting that paper for peer review long enough. Right?
I definitely don’t want that. I want to limit it to people who are specifically claiming unexplained, magical powers, -you know, the usual type of woo. And sure, bring on the psychic urination. It was hilarious seeing lekatt try to pretend that wasn’t a valid example of a test on ick factor alone. 
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
Czarcasm is a person who makes statements that are untruthful.
[/QUOTE]
We should invent a word for that.
Oh, and…uh…put up or shut up.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Aaannnd, back to the non-Pit part of our show, folks.
Is there a limit to what abilities should be tested? Should everyone that fills out the application form properly be tested, no matter what their claim is, or should there be a “silliness limit”, so to speak?
[/QUOTE]
For example, the recent testing of Rosemary Hunter. On the plus side, she managed to fill out the application form coherently, stating an ability that would be considered paranormal by just about anybody, and showing a willingness to be tested.
On the minus side, her stated ability was (as far as has been determined so far)unique-the ability to make people urinate themselves with the power of her mind. How much effort should be put into testing abilities like this?
*submitted after begbert 2’s post above.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
Cite for application turned in, please?
[/QUOTE]
Given many times. I’ve provided in past threads full details of the application I made.
go email Randi and ask him if he received it.
Failing that, I know that you are a member of Randi’s forums. Or at least there is a person with a name identical to yours and a personality only slightly nastier than yours there. I’ve discussed the matter there, and Randi’s assistant has acknowledged receipt of my application. I’m sure you can find the thread with little trouble.
I think you knew this already, but pretend not to know, because you are a habitual non-truth telling person.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
A sufficiently spry particle physicist might have won the challenge if they’d put off submitting that paper for peer review long enough. Right?
[/QUOTE]
I believe the rules always were, if they accepted the application and you passed, it didn’t matter how you passed, which is why they took so much time to make such every chance for cheating was covered. The explanation for the ability didn’t matter if they accepted the application-just do it.
My God. Do you actually expect people to go pawing through every post you’ve made to try and find a cite that you may or may not have actually posted? Is it really that hard to copy and paste a link? If you can’t even extend such basic courtesy to others, why should we even bother to give you the time of day?
[QUOTE=Garula]
My God. Do you actually expect people to go pawing through every post you’ve made to try and find a cite that you may or may not have actually posted? Is it really that hard to copy and paste a link? If you can’t even extend such basic courtesy to others, why should we even bother to give you the time of day?
[/QUOTE]
May I assume you weren’t referencing the post right above yours?
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I believe the rules always were, if they accepted the application and you passed, it didn’t matter how you passed, which is why they took so much time to make such every chance for cheating was covered. The explanation for the ability didn’t matter if they accepted the application-just do it.
[/QUOTE]
for once you are telling the truth. I agree with the statement that you have just made. Now, the statement that you have made, you know that to be true. But many times in the past you have ignored it, and tried to claim otherwise. Cognitive dissonance, much.
For example, I openly admit that my own claimed ability isn’t paranormal in the slightest. And under Randi’s rules, as you have just quoted, that doesn’t matter. The explaination for my ability doesn’t matter, as you say.
Let’s have no more of your false claims that “it must be paranormal”, eh? We both know that isn’t true. As you say, it doesn’t matter how it works, and we both know that.
Have you found evidence for your other claims yet? Put up or shut up.