They always come back...

[Andonyx]

Sigh.

http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/59847p-56042c.html


But Komissarov, a yellow cab driver who lives in Kew Gardens, Queens, counters that Natalia was pressured and that her powers require her to be calm.

Komissarov, a former chemical engineer who hopes his teachings may one day help blind people, says he will contest Randi's judging, first in an upcoming book, "Looking at the World, with Their Eyes Wide Shut," and possibly in court.

[arcticpenguin]

"Randi did something very unfair" but I can't say what. Uh-huh.

[Reb]

Have we found Lucianarchy ...?:eek:

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Reb
Have we found Lucianarchy ...?:eek:

I didn't know we were looking...

[SFB]

"But Komissarov, a yellow cab driver who lives in Kew Gardens, Queens,"

Did the man suffer from jaundice???

:D

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by SFB
"But Komissarov, a yellow cab driver who lives in Kew Gardens, Queens,"

Did the man suffer from jaundice???

:D

And with that, the thread was immediately whisked away to the bogus or brilliant forum.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Andonyx


And with that, the thread was immediately whisked away to the bogus or brilliant forum.

What do you mean?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
"Randi did something very unfair" but I can't say what. Uh-huh.

He made her try to look through the blindfold rather than around it.
:cool:

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by SFB


What do you mean?

That was my pompous roundabout way of groaning at your joke.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Andonyx


That was my pompous roundabout way of groaning at your joke.

Roundabout, yes, as it left me confused how to understand your post; dunno about the pompous part.

Hold on, ......... "groaning"??? Is that the pompous part??

The whole point of calling the man a "yellow" Cab taxi driver hinges on simple capitalization. I think the joke thus hinges on more than just a typo, hence the deserved joke. The writer/editor should have caught so simple a mistake as this.

But because you're pompous, maybe you understood all this?

:D

But more importantly, if I keep this up, is the thread in danger of being moved to the dreaded folder???

Now, don't try to tell me I'm hi-jacking this thread.

:D

[Purple Tentacle]

Originally posted by Andonyx

Komissarov, a former chemical engineer hopes his teachings may one day help blind people [/B]

blinding people with chemicals ?! ? whats the point of that ?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle
blinding people with chemicals ?! ? whats the point of that ?

Well, it's easier to do than blinding people with prayer.

[Robson]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Well, it's easier to do than blinding people with prayer.

Hey,,,,,,,,a working hand make more than a hundread hands praying:D

Falow!!!

[geni]

Has she made any attampt to reclaim yet?

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by geni
Has she made any attampt to reclaim yet?
"[...]Which brings me to this news:

Yes, Natalia Lulova is back, a year after her failure in the preliminary test of her "eyeless vision" claim a year ago. Armed with a different lawyer, she's ready to once again be blindfolded and presented with reading material. And this is the first ever repeat applicant! We'll work out a new protocol, or use the old one, as she wishes. We have to wonder that new wrinkles the Russian schoolgirl has developed…. We'll keep you posted on this matter, and it comes along just when a major TV program has asked to cover a JREF million-dollar test event. Of course, that will only occur if Miss Lulova agrees to it." Commentary - March 14, 2003 (http://www.randi.org/jr/031403.html)



From the article:
"Last year, [Natalie] failed an attempt at the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, administered by James Randi." ...
"[Randi] added black duct tape around the edges and over Natalia's nose."
More details here: http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html

Ahem.

“The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place.” Source (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

“Our tests are always done by independent, capable, qualified, third parties.” Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/08-31-01.html)

“All testing is done by qualified, independent, parties. We're not involved.” Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html)

Randi: “[…] I'm not involved in the testing procedure […]” Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/062802.html)

[TheBoyPaj]

Yeah, I've always questioned that claim. Randi is plainly involved in some of the tests, and it seems silly to suggest otherwise.

[Suezoled]

well, when a young girl is barraged with "it's not your fault (you failed the test)" coupled with the expectation that her mother has placed on her... I feel rather sorry for her.

[Answer]

you all should pay attention. how can you fail to see reality is consensual? is arises in the Brain; what you see is an image, a representation, an interpretation. are you ignorant of the effects of certain drugs? all things can be hallucinated.. what is heard, what is seen, what is felt, what is tasted. pain can be hallucinated. gravity can be hallucinated. all of these things can be created by the Brain, the Reality that exists without the Brain to interpret can not be known.

we share the same dream. "objective reality" is just agreement between >1 mind. if half the population has seen God in a physical form and half say that they have never seen such a thing, who is correct?

what do you think occurs when a single mind is convinced that it is capable of reading without seeing and multiple minds believe it is not possible? consensual is consensual, the majority will determine whether this quantum-possibility occurs.

how about when many minds agree that it is possible and they have witnessed the phenomenon itself? it becomes reality for those minds.

both parties are convinced that they are correct and both are. for the believers it exists, for the non-believers it does not.

only one thing can be proved: there exists something. you can never prove that this something is what is seen, because it is not. subjectivity is the basis of unreal-Reality. right and wrong are interpretation, neither are correct.

[Answer]

.. and because unreal-Reality is consensual, mr. Randi will NEVER be proven wrong until he himself believes in a specific quantum-occurence. his mere presence will cause contradicting beliefs to clash and cancel each-other out, limiting possibility to that which is agreed on by all minds.

perhaps he is already aware of this and the test exists only to sell DVDs or whatever it is that makes him money. there is always the excuse that all applicants cannot be tested; he is free to pick and choose those he knows will fail.

[Hagrok]

Actually, as I recall from 2002, she failed in the preliminary test.

The actual description of the test is here (http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html).

From what I can understand, it looks like there was an "aborted preliminary test" by Andrew Harter, then she came back and Randi administered another preliminary test, which she failed. Do the rules exclude Randi from administering the preliminary tests?

It's, er, a little difficult to follow Randi's writing sometimes, at least for me. He kind of writes "stream of conciousness" style.

--Dan

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Answer
you all should pay attention. how can you fail to see reality is consensual? is arises in the Brain; what you see is an image, a representation, an interpretation. are you ignorant of the effects of certain drugs? all things can be hallucinated.. what is heard, what is seen, what is felt, what is tasted. pain can be hallucinated. gravity can be hallucinated. all of these things can be created by the Brain, the Reality that exists without the Brain to interpret can not be known.

we share the same dream. "objective reality" is just agreement between >1 mind. if half the population has seen God in a physical form and half say that they have never seen such a thing, who is correct?

what do you think occurs when a single mind is convinced that it is capable of reading without seeing and multiple minds believe it is not possible? consensual is consensual, the majority will determine whether this quantum-possibility occurs.

how about when many minds agree that it is possible and they have witnessed the phenomenon itself? it becomes reality for those minds.

both parties are convinced that they are correct and both are. for the believers it exists, for the non-believers it does not.

only one thing can be proved: there exists something. you can never prove that this something is what is seen, because it is not. subjectivity is the basis of unreal-Reality. right and wrong are interpretation, neither are correct.

Did anyone catch the score of the game?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by SFB
"But Komissarov, a yellow cab driver who lives in Kew Gardens, Queens,"

Did the man suffer from jaundice???

:D

Those dang yellow cab drivers. They're yellow, if you know what I mean.

Back in the 1970s in New York City, I was what was then called a "gypsy" cab driver. I drove an old beater that certianly not had a "medallion", that is a licence to pick up people who hailed me on the street.

Medallion cabs were and are required by law to be painted chrome yellow.

On the books, I was a chauffeur, a limousine driver dispatched to called-in pickups.

Limousine, what a laugh. It was a beat up old Ford Galaxie.

Most of my business was picking up hails in bad neighborhoods where the yellows would not usually go.

Yes the law says that yellow cabs must deliver fares to anywhere in the city. But do they drive around in bad neighborhoods looking for customers?

In this context bad means dark skins.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by Answer
you all should pay attention. how can you fail to see reality is consensual?

And if you and I agreed and believed with every fiber of our being that a cobra was a rope, we would still get bit in handling it. Only dogmas are consentual. Reality is not.

[Answer]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Those dang yellow cab drivers. They're yellow, if you know what I mean.

Back in the 1970s in New York City, I was what was then called a "gypsy" cab driver. I drove an old beater that certianly not had a "medallion", that is a licence to pick up people who hailed me on the street.

Medallion cabs were and are required by law to be painted chrome yellow.

On the books, I was a chauffeur, a limousine driver dispatched to called-in pickups.

Limousine, what a laugh. It was a beat up old Ford Galaxie.

Most of my business was picking up hails in bad neighborhoods where the yellows would not usually go.

Yes the law says that yellow cabs must deliver fares to anywhere in the city. But do they drive around in bad neighborhoods looking for customers?

In this context bad means dark skins.

cheers to the Mad Arab!

[Answer]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon


And if you and I agreed and believed with every fiber of our being that a cobra was a rope, we would still get bit in handling it. Only dogmas are consentual. Reality is not.

does the snake still believe he's a snake?

[Answer]

Originally posted by Answer


does the snake still believe he's a snake?

you will see, that in a pair of three he and she destroy each-other leaving an imperfect mirror image. truly those who see will find the space that is free if they but only knew that an eight is a 3. there is not moral, no intention but the wond of God master wizard do not be afraid to act for the fear itself is fear of Self.

[Question]

Originally posted by Answer
you all should pay attention. how can you fail to see reality is consensual? is arises in the Brain; what you see is an image, a representation, an interpretation. are you ignorant of the effects of certain drugs? all things can be hallucinated.. what is heard, what is seen, what is felt, what is tasted. pain can be hallucinated. gravity can be hallucinated. all of these things can be created by the Brain, the Reality that exists without the Brain to interpret can not be known.

we share the same dream. "objective reality" is just agreement between >1 mind. if half the population has seen God in a physical form and half say that they have never seen such a thing, who is correct?

what do you think occurs when a single mind is convinced that it is capable of reading without seeing and multiple minds believe it is not possible? consensual is consensual, the majority will determine whether this quantum-possibility occurs.

how about when many minds agree that it is possible and they have witnessed the phenomenon itself? it becomes reality for those minds.

both parties are convinced that they are correct and both are. for the believers it exists, for the non-believers it does not.

only one thing can be proved: there exists something. you can never prove that this something is what is seen, because it is not. subjectivity is the basis of unreal-Reality. right and wrong are interpretation, neither are correct.

Why don't you test your belief by going out in the desert alone and jumping off a cliff? Since you are the only one around, you would be the only one who has to consent to the reality that you can fly.

Sheesh!
LOL!

You've really lost it, haven't you? You're stuck so deep in your own Peter Pan-fantasy world that you think everyone else is too. Why hasn't the world consented to doing away with starvation and disease, dingbat? It's sad that people like you can brainwash yourselves so well.

[Answer]

Originally posted by Question


Why don't you test your belief by going out in the desert alone and jumping off a cliff? Since you are the only one around, you would be the only one who has to consent to the reality that you can fly.

Sheesh!
LOL!

You've really lost it, haven't you? You're stuck so deep in your own Peter Pan-fantasy world that you think everyone else is too. Why hasn't the world consented to doing away with starvation and disease, dingbat? It's sad that people like you can brainwash yourselves so well.

we are a single quantum machine. the reason space appears curved is because we are staring into a blackhole, which is the connection to the "CPU" itself. matter is the information sotred on the machine. in actuality there exists nothing but the consensual imagination of the single non-local mind. we have envisioned Satan's existence, so he has real power over others; indeed, this collective belief creates him. Satan=Ego=Ego=Satan deja-vu, imagined mistakes, etc, these are not things that actually exist. Satan knows he is merely a concept, so he must keep himself re-infirced byu the human mind.

that is my extension of StringTheory and human emotional interconnectedness. i wait patiently to see if string theory is proved. it will mean a revolutionary new era for humanity, because all that is opssible can exist. we control this reality. it was created by the fir st singuklar microscopic ogrnaism. we exist beuopnd Life we are Eternal.

[Answer]

Originally posted by Question


Why don't you test your belief by going out in the desert alone and jumping off a cliff? Since you are the only one around, you would be the only one who has to consent to the reality that you can fly.

Sheesh!
LOL!

You've really lost it, haven't you? You're stuck so deep in your own Peter Pan-fantasy world that you think everyone else is too. Why hasn't the world consented to doing away with starvation and disease, dingbat? It's sad that people like you can brainwash yourselves so well.

ahh, i think i know who you are now. our relative beliefs our compatible, kind sir. consider it public domain :)

[Interesting Ian]

Forget it, out of date.

[Question]

Originally posted by Answer


we are a single quantum machine. the reason space appears curved is because we are staring into a blackhole, which is the connection to the "CPU" itself. matter is the information sotred on the machine. in actuality there exists nothing but the consensual imagination of the single non-local mind. we have envisioned Satan's existence, so he has real power over others; indeed, this collective belief creates him. Satan=Ego=Ego=Satan deja-vu, imagined mistakes, etc, these are not things that actually exist. Satan knows he is merely a concept, so he must keep himself re-infirced byu the human mind.

that is my extension of StringTheory and human emotional interconnectedness. i wait patiently to see if string theory is proved. it will mean a revolutionary new era for humanity, because all that is opssible can exist. we control this reality. it was created by the fir st singuklar microscopic ogrnaism. we exist beuopnd Life we are Eternal.

Spewing moronic imbecile, you wouldn't know an operator or a Fourier transform if one hit you on the head. You couldn't integrate a function if Newton was there helping you. Your reference to string theory, as if it had any experimental support at all, places your understanding of physics below that of any high school dropout reading a popular science magazine. Idiot. String theory is based on the principles of quantum mechanics just like all the other attempts at quantum gravity. You clearly don't know a thing about either. Airhead, there is a huge difference between "possible" and "probable" -- on the order of 10^(10^23). You write, "space appears curved because we are staring into a black hole." If you can't see that this statement is circular reasoning, you have no knowledge of physics. If you can't see that it's stupid and nonsensical, you have your head shoved completely up your ass. Tell your "reality is consensual" arguments to the IRS; you obviously imagined them, too. Hey, idiot, if you weren't totally clueless, why didn't you send your drivel through a spell checker?

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by Hagrok
Actually, as I recall from 2002, she failed in the preliminary test.

The actual description of the test is here (http://www.randi.org/jr/021502.html).

From what I can understand, it looks like there was an "aborted preliminary test" by Andrew Harter, then she came back and Randi administered another preliminary test, which she failed. Do the rules exclude Randi from administering the preliminary tests?

It's, er, a little difficult to follow Randi's writing sometimes, at least for me. He kind of writes "stream of conciousness" style.

--Dan

Admittedly, I've taken 'testing' and 'tests' (see quotes above) to mean all stages: the baseline trials, prelims and formal test stage but I don't think it's too unreasonable an assumption. Randi repeatedly states no involvement by the JREF yet examples from his commentaries (remember the Lithuanian healer, anyone?) show otherwise. What goes?

[gnome]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
Admittedly, I've taken 'testing' and 'tests' (see quotes above) to mean all stages: the baseline trials, prelims and formal test stage but I don't think it's too unreasonable an assumption. Randi repeatedly states no involvement by the JREF yet examples from his commentaries (remember the Lithuanian healer, anyone?) show otherwise. What goes?

I agree with the previous statement, that this rule applies to the "official" test, the one that counts for the million, and not the "preliminary" test done informally.

In the rules: "Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives."

If it was ambiguous in a previous statement, it is made clear with this statement: the JREF administers the preliminary test.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Purple Tentacle


blinding people with chemicals ?! ? whats the point of that ?

Blinding yourself can be hard work. People need help.

[NullPointerException]

To quote Aquaman from the Justice Leaque: "You presume too much." What did you do? Read Michael Talbots Holographic Universe and Nueromancer on the same day and put the two together in a dream that night? Your analogy also shows a distinct misunderstanding of how computers work. If we were indeed a component of a computer we would serve one of five functions:
Input Device
Output Device
Control Unit
Datapath
Memory

-If we are an input device we are more likely the front end of a trash compactor not a computer
-If we output information we are connected to one stupid computer and the physical relationship would be inverted, meaning we would be staring at a point black hole which all of our data would be taken from and a universe would be subsequently generated. The fundamental error here is that an output device would need to have a secondary function to alter the information it displays to perform the functions you associate with humans. Thus it would be a combination device, both an output and datapath, or perhaps an input/output coupled together. In such a case though the source and return addresses would be point not enveloping and black holes are not even points they are voids.
-If we are control units we are inferior, perhaps we are transistors with each one of us storing a value only when important, but most of the time we store either complete garbage or parts of garbage. In which case maybe god is the "control" or "datapath" who manipulates 32 specific human being to represent the active memory and control reality. Even so, this theory becomes extremely convoluted and its physical ramifications are null and void since if reality was consensual you still couldn't alter it. ^_^

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by gnome


I agree with the previous statement, that this rule applies to the "official" test, the one that counts for the million, and not the "preliminary" test done informally.

In the rules: "Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives."

If it was ambiguous in a previous statement, it is made clear with this statement: the JREF administers the preliminary test.

I bring your attention to rule 4 of the application (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) ...

"JR may be present at some preliminary or formal tests, but will not interact with the materials used."

Randi should not be involving himself in the implementation of the testing. Period.

[Toastrider]

Answer said a whole bunch of stuff.
Are you related to Gene Ray?

--Toasty

[JimTheBrit]

An excerpt from a query I sent to Randi regarding my concerns ...

"-Repeatedly, you state that the JREF is not involved in the testing, which is completed by a mutually agreed independent third party.

“The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place.” http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Yet in the commentaries of 22nd Feb 2002 (http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html) and 1st Oct 2000 (http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html), you describe your direct involvement in the testing of Natalie Lulova and a healer from Lithuania (an apparent contravention of rule 4 of the challenge rules). Were you simply over-enthusiastic in these cases or should I take it that testing is always done independently from the JREF except in certain cases in which the foundation has special interest (and then only with the consent of the challenger)?"

Response from JR:
"That was their choice. If they choose to have me do the tests -- and in some cases, they INSIST on it -- I do so. That applies to all aspects, to suit the applicant."

[gnome]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
An excerpt from a query I sent to Randi regarding my concerns ...

"-Repeatedly, you state that the JREF is not involved in the testing, which is completed by a mutually agreed independent third party.

“The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place.” http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Yet in the commentaries of 22nd Feb 2002 (http://www.randi.org/jr/022202.html) and 1st Oct 2000 (http://www.randi.org/jr/10-01-2000.html), you describe your direct involvement in the testing of Natalie Lulova and a healer from Lithuania (an apparent contravention of rule 4 of the challenge rules). Were you simply over-enthusiastic in these cases or should I take it that testing is always done independently from the JREF except in certain cases in which the foundation has special interest (and then only with the consent of the challenger)?"

Response from JR:
"That was their choice. If they choose to have me do the tests -- and in some cases, they INSIST on it -- I do so. That applies to all aspects, to suit the applicant."

And what's your opinion on the response?

[princhester]

My opinion on the response (and I know you didn't ask for it, but you're getting it anyway :)) is that it is fair enough.

Ultimately, it is about keeping the claimant happy (while ensuring they don't cheat etc). If the claimant wants something then the best thing to to is give it to them: that way they have no "out" when they fail.

If they want to do the test on a Tuesday in a month with a "y" in it, then do the test when they want so they don't make excuses later. If they want Randi to do the test then Randi should do the test.