“So in other words, it doesn’t matter at all to you whether or not his claims are true or false, just as long as he annoys people you don’t like.
Can’t say that comes as a surprise…”
David, I’m really proud of they way that such a fair and even-handed moderator such as yourself avoids putting words into the mouths of the users of this forum. The way that you refuse to get emotional and resort to insulting those with different viewpoints stands as an example to all that aspire to conduct themselves rationally.
Hat’s off to you buddy for yet another classy post!
It occurs to me that since I didn’t make contact with this guy (Riley G)…and IF none of you guys did either…that there’s only 3 ways to explain his finding and responding to this thread:
Riley G has been a long-time lurker and signed-up as a member to respond when he saw his name mentioned in an OP
Some other lurker contacted him to let him know about the OP
Coincidence…he just happened to surf into the SDMB…
His “pyschic” abilities alerted him…and lead him to this thread…
Which of the 4 possibilities do you think explains things?
Riley G…If you are reading (or sensing) this, please respond to let us know…
I had originally figured you’d contacted him. But I’ll take you at your word when you say you didn’t. That said, I’d bet on #2 (presuming, of course, that this is the real Riley G).
I find it particularly pathetic, if this is the real Riley G that:
He thinks that “police departments seeking his help” means he actually did any solving of cases. (ObIrony: There is a particularly funny example of some schmoe heloing police find three missing bodies in Florida when all the “psychics” failed to help at all in the current SI.)
He can’t actually demonstrate the existence of his claimed psychic powers under controlled conditions so he resorts to lawsuit filing and petty accusations for his little get-rich-quick scheme. Just like all the other so-called paranormalists who fall under the “con man” category.
I found out about this web presence while checking my web domain stats. They listed this site with some 60 hits in one day to the a Riley G vs. James Randi pages on my web site.
Just a note here to all participants in this thread: Please be careful what you say and how you say it. We’re not trying to prevent the free flow of discussion, but you have to remember that some of these guys are notoriously litigious. For example, Uri Geller has sued Randi and others a number of times based on statements they’ve made. And, of course, this whole thread is about Riley suing somebody.
Since the Reader operates the board and attempts to moderate it (as opposed to the the free for all on Usenet), their liability is greater, so please try not to get them sued.
FWIW, that also means the SD is covered, DB. If C#3 manages to file a suit, you may rest assured that “one poster assured another poster that he had no doubts” will not constitute a basis for successful litigation.
Has anyone else checked out “Riley G.”'s profile? It lists Occupations as Actor/Entertainer. Nothing about being a psychic detective, or even a psychic, not even under Interests.
Just seems a little odd to me.
I have as much authority as the Pope; I just don’t have as many people who believe it! - George Carlin
You can’t call him names 'cus we have rules against insults. If you wish to question any abilities that anybody may proclaim for himself, or point out any flaws in any arguments that are posted, that is up to you.
I could take a course on how to decipher illogical arguments, or you could try to structure your statements will some semblance of rationality. Which do suppose I prefer?
And here’s the original quote:
I suppose that one could assume from that statement that you heard the program, but you never actually said that. Should I automatically assume that any event you describe is one that you actually witnessed? Regardless, my point was that you had not made a distinction between being told that Randi had been challenged and refused that challenge, and actually knowing that Randi refused the challenge. I believe that the point remains valid.
I have yet to see any evidence that Randi offered the Million Dollar Prize; the e-mail which allegedly came from Randi refers only a million dollar prize. I believe I have already demonstrated how much difference capitalization can make. The link you supplied does not apply at all to the e-mail:
The claim that Randi is wrong is not a supernatural claim.
Riley agreed to the rules after the “agreement” took place.
(emphasis mine) This is the most important of the rules, and it clearly has not been fulfilled. Randi never agreed what would considered a positive or negative result. Riley has unilaterally declared what the terms of the agreements are, and then demanded that Randi comply.
You have still not presented conclusive evidence that Randi even sent the e-mail in the first place. Of all the forms of communications, e-mail is probably the easiest to fake. Why should I “accept and deal with it” when all I have is Riley’s word that it happened?
Even if Randi did send an ill-thought out e-mail, that does not mean that he hasn’t done important work in exposing frauds.
Contestant #3 posted 10-02-1999 09:12 PM
I think I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you made a typo, and actually do understand the difference between 3 and 4. But isn’t is rather arrogant to say that you are absolutely sure that you’ve identified all of the possibilities, especially since Riley G. gave a complete completely different explanation? Your post makes as much since as the Lord, Liar or Lunatic position put forth in the “Who was Jesus anyway?” thread.
