Montague Keen - Was 79

[SteveGrenard]

I regret to inform you of the tragic death of my beloved husband, Montague Keen, on the 15th January. He died whilst attending a debate at the Royal Society of Arts, London. In accordance with his wishes, he will be cremated at 4pm on Thursday 22nd January at Hendon Crematorium, Holders Hill road, NW7. He will be in our home from 10am Wednesday until the time of the cremation. All friends welcome.

72 Southway, Totteridge, London N20 8DB.

Only family flowers, please; donations may be sent to the British Heart Foundation.

Veronica Keen


Some details from Dr. Bruce Greyson:

He was in the front row of the audience at the Royal Society of Arts for a debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, the British skeptic. During the question-and-answer period, Monty rose to speak in support of Rupert, and in mid-sentence his voice faded and he lost consciousness from a heart attack. Two doctors in the audience immediately tried to resuscitate him, but he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass. He died as he would have wished, championing the cause of survival.



Bruce



Bruce Greyson, M.D.
Carlson Professor of Psychiatry
Division of Personality Studies
Department of Psychiatric Medicine
University of Virginia Health System

[specious_reasons]

Did Montague Keen have any plans or methodologies to enable contact with him after his death?

Seems like the kind of thing he'd want to try....

[Ed]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Did Montague Keen have any plans or methodologies to enable contact with him after his death?

Seems like the kind of thing he'd want to try....


Don't look for anything more from him. Dead is dead.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Ed

Don't look for anything more from him. Dead is dead.

Not expecting to, but since Keen was a proponent of "survival after death", I was curious if he had planned for some after death contact verification, like Houdini and wife....

I figured Steve might know.

[SteveGrenard]

I think it is a little soon to start discussing this and we will have to see what Veronica and others closer to him say about that. Although I have had lengthy correspondences with him, (as many of you here know since I was asked to post these corespondences here) I only had the rare privilege of spending a mere 2 days with him to myself. In that brief time I sopped up as much of his profound knowledge on the paranormal that he cared to share. Both he and Veronica graciously invited me to visit them in a friend's apartment at Lincoln Center for two successive Sundays in a row a few months ago when they visited NY briefly en route elsewhere.

In the meantime Ed, for what its worth, thanks for the post. It is exactly in the spirit and is the kind of a challenge Monty loved. I think he wouldn't have been so happy in his retirement were not for skeptics like you...and I mean that with all sincerity.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Ed



Don't look for anything more from him. Dead is dead.

Sorry Steve, that was a snotty remark. Apologies all around.:(

[shemp]

Steve Grenard wrote:

I regret to inform you of the tragic death of my beloved husband, Montague Keen...

Steve, I don't think your marriage to him was legal. This is being hotly debated in another thread.

[SteveGrenard]

Shemp:

If you read the first announcement carefully you will see it is signed by
Veronica Keen. It is a message from
Montague Keen's wife.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: Shemp: If you read the first announcement carefully you will see it is signed by Veronica Keen. It is a message from Montague Keen's wife.The problem is not with Shemp's cognitive abilities. He has a keen mind and an even sharper wit. My advice to you is to consider a different interpretation of his reply to you.

[SteveGrenard]

You are both, obviously morons and your comments are in the worst possible taste given the circumstances of this thread. Probably too young yet to appreciate death or what it means but remind me when your child, wife mother or a friend dies, and if we are both still posting here, I'll see how you feel when people make light of that situation.

What is most appalling is your high and mightly advice to consider a different interpretation to his feeble attempt at humour. Shemp is truly emblematic of the moronic personna his avatar represents. And you are not far behind.

Pathetic sick sonsofbitches.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are both, obviously morons and your comments are in the worst possible taste given the circumstances of this thread. Probably too young yet to appreciate death or what it means but remind me when your child, wife mother or a friend dies, and if we are both still posting here, I'll see how you feel when people make light of that situation.

What is most appalling is your high and mightly advice to consider a different interpretation to his feeble attempt at humour. Shemp is truly emblematic of the moronic personna his avatar represents. And you are not far behind.

Pathetic sick sonsofbitches.

Some of us learned a long time ago that you don't announce the death of a friend or relative on the internet and not expect to get sledged.

[SteveGrenard]

Keen was not only a friend, he was the subject of several James Randi commentaries as well as extensive discussions on this forum. In fact we were waiting for the publication of some research he did to discuss it further here.

Actually I thought hard about reporting this passing here but decided to do so anyway. Can't say I am not surprised by the igorant blatherings of xouper and shemp, both of whom by their profile should be more in tune with what is going on here. Add yourself to that list.

Your obvious ignorance regarding who Keen was and why I was compelled to report his passing here is excused. If this is the reason shemp and xouper sledged me, so be it. They are morons at best, pathetic sick little juveniles at worst.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Keen was not only a friend, he was the subject of several James Randi commentaries as well as extensive discussions on this forum. In fact we were waiting for the publication of some research he did to discuss it further here.

Actually I thought hard about reporting this passing here but decided to do so anyway. Can't say I am not surprised by the igorant blatherings of xouper and shemp, both of whom by their profile should be more in tune with what is going on here. Add yourself to that list.

Your obvious ignorance regarding who Keen was and why I was compelled to report his passing here is excused. If this is the reason shemp and xouper sledged me, so be it. They are morons at best, pathetic sick little juveniles at worst.

I was merely trying to tell you that if you sit under an elephant's @$$, you have to expect to get sh@t on.

Chew on this: If you were a half-way reasonable poster on JREF, with an open mind, or at least willing to own up to a glaring factual error occasionally; or if, failing this, you weren't such an obnoxious person in general, you might find more sympathy to MK's death.

Since you continue to be obnoxious, and to search for enemies where there aren't any, I'm forced to rise to the bait.

The Death of Montague Keen

Upon his grave shall be writ:

HAH! Bet No-One Saw THAT Coming!

[SteveGrenard]

What fallacy are you perpetrating here? Only sympathetic prior posters at JREF can expect sympathy for future posts? What an absurd argument... but it is intellectually telling if not downright scary. You are defending the morons shemp and xouper based on this and some sick Hoytian analogy to being crapped on by elephants? You guys get more weird and more pathologically perverse w/each successive post. I know you have a fixation on toilet humor. Please don't insult elephants either. They have a lot more intelligence and sensitivty than shemp, xouper or yourself. Now run along and play children. And don't torture any cats along the way.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What fallacy are you perpetrating here? Only sympathetic prior posters at JREF can expect sympathy for future posts? What an absurd argument... but it is intellectually telling if not downright scary. You are defending the morons shemp and xouper based on this and some Hoytian references to being crapped on by elephants? You guys get more weird and more pathologically perverse w/each successive post. Please don't insult elephants either. They have a lot more intelligence and sensitivty than shemp, xouper or yourself.

You didn't read the bit where I said, "or if, failing this, you weren't such an obnoxious person in general." Comprehension seems to be a problem with you.

Montague Keen gets up in defence of Rupert "It's Not Coincidence I Tells Ya, It's Telepathy" Sheldrake when, suddenly, a revelation occurs to him. Mr Keen realises that he's been talking crap all his life.

Barely has this thought crossed his mind when he keels over, dead from shock.

RIP Monty- at least you saw the truth in the end.

[shemp]

Get real Steve. You didn't post this obit just to show your respects to the man. You did this because he was an associate of Rupert Sheldrake, who is either a fraud or deranged, and Victor Zammit, who is a gadfly and regular attacker of James Randi.

Those who do not know anything about those named above may check out some of these links and decide for themselves:

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/montague.html

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/montaguereplies.html

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/further.htm

http://eureka.ya.com/cadernostci/congresotci/keen.htm

http://www.livejournal.com/use

Here is an excerpt from the last of these, written by Mr. Randi, which I think sums up Mr Keen nicely:

I promised last week that I'd try to prepare a detailed response to the irresponsible attack being made on me and on the JREF via the Internet, by one Montague Keen. In doing so, I will not be gentle; my "other cheek" is not easily turned. I'll answer his attack in kind, but without any veneer of false manners, the way academics maneuver about to be politically correct. Keen knows better. He's well-educated, intelligent, and perceptive in some ways, which allows him no escape from censure for his unfair and virulent assault against me. He is practicing willful ignorance; he knows the truth, but chooses not to use it. This has caused much joy among the grubbies, who exult mightily whenever one of their standard-bearers marches forth to proclaim the imminent demise of the skeptics and delivers a tirade that Shakespeare seems to have anticipated in Scene V of Macbeth. The Keen attack is, considering its errors, hyperbole, and lack of real substance, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Keen delights in dragging in academics who appear to be supporting his bizarre beliefs. Two weeks ago, I pointed out that such luminaries as Jacques Benveniste and Brian Josephson suffer from that certain kind of intellectual myopia that clouds the perception of so many academics. That is unfortunate for their appreciation of reality, but more so because people like Keen can quote these misguided souls to lend illusionary support for nonsense.

In short, Keen was either deranged or a fraud, and unworthy of intellectual support. I am sorry that the man has died. My joke was simply intended to show in a roundabout way that the two of you were in bed together in your cause and beliefs.

As for being too young to understand death or feel its effects, I am 46 and have lost both my mother and my first wife. I am not callous about the personal effects of death, and I did not joke about Mr. Montague's death, but rather his intellectual record, or lack thereof, and your support for his beliefs.

My sympathies to you for having lost a friend. But I stand behind the meaning of my remark, though it was too flip for such an occasion.

[SteveGrenard]

I love people who divine other people's motives. Its the fallacy of reading things into other people's words which arn't there. Now that's paranormal. No, its abnormal.

It doesn't make any difference if you're 6 or 46, you are still acting like an arkward child who hasn't learned what's supposed to be funny and what's not.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I love people who divine other people's motives. Its the fallacy of reading things into other people's words which arn't there. Now that's paranormal. No, its abnormal.

It doesn't make any difference if you're 6 or 46, you are still acting like an akward child who hasn't learned what's supposed to be funny and what's not.

Too true. Was his wife there when it happened? Did she cry out, "Is there a psychic surgeon in the house?"

[shemp]

I am going to say this, then I have better things to do than debate with an idiot:

Steve, do you post the obit of every friend, relative, associate, etc. here? When you do, then we will stop looking for motives behind your postings.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: You are both, obviously morons and your comments are in the worst possible taste given the circumstances of this thread. Probably too young yet to appreciate death or what it means but remind me when your child, wife mother or a friend dies, and if we are both still posting here, I'll see how you feel when people make light of that situation.

What is most appalling is your high and mightly advice to consider a different interpretation to his feeble attempt at humour. Shemp is truly emblematic of the moronic personna his avatar represents. And you are not far behind.

Pathetic sick sonsofbitches.Wow, such vituperativeness. Where did that come from??

It must be frustrating when the point sails over your head like that. What's pathetic is your attempt to twist it into a slam on Keene's passing. It was not. You are a master builder of straw men, for sure.

Another point that you seemed to miss is that you posted someone else's words without introducing them as not your own. So when people start reading your opening post, it is automatically assumed that they are your words. It isn't until a few paragraphs later that we find out the truth, that they aren't your words.

This has been a recurring problem with you, posting other poeple's words as your own. Granted, you did credit the source at the end, but the proper thing to do is alert readers that the words they are about to read are not your own.

Shemp's initial reply in this thread was a rather witty observation of that point. Shemp knew full well whose words they were, but you incorrectly assumed he wasn't able to figure that out. Your subsequent outburst says a whole lot more about you than it does about Shemp or myself.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by shemp
I am going to say this, then I have better things to do than debate with an idiot:

Steve, do you post the obit of every friend, relative, associate, etc. here? When you do, then we will stop looking for motives behind your postings.

You will stop looking? You promise. My oh my. Isn't that something.

You know I don't post every obit that comes along. This was the first such announcement I made here. Again, Keen's very heavy involvement in a very long, very highly read thread on police and psychics due to come to fruition and dsicussion by the end of January ended up motivating me to post this news here.

The fact that you don't know this and decided to take a crass shallower point of view regarding my reasons for announcing this only confirms the belief that many people here are posting knee-jerk reactions and don't think before they hit the keyboard. The other name for this is "free association" testing. If someone posts something, let's see how people react to it. Makes an interesting analysis of the different personalities that populate this and other forums. As far as you you unholy three are concerned, the scientific descriptors idiot, moron, sick whacked out freaks come to mind. You are no better than the sick freak who threatened Hal and the memory of his late wife. That person is lower than vomit. Join the club. In fact, I am now beginning to wonder if this sort of pathology isn't spreading here.

Don't try and back peddle now. The post by Mrs. Keen and the subsequent e-mail from Dr. Greyson were both self explanatory. You needn't use such perverse and pathetic sick humor to point out a formatting inconsistency if that is what you are trying to say it was. You read the post, missed Mrs. Keen's name at the end of the note or, if you noticed it, didn't acknowledge it and misattributed it in order to fabricate you little lolly-la game. This is so typical of people who like to hear themselves talk and don't care what they are saying.

[shemp]

The idiot, moron, sick whacked out freak Steve Grenard breezed through town on his white horse Mescalito and wrote:

You will stop looking? You promise. My oh my. Isn't that something.

No, I said I would stop debating. Any further posts in this thread from me will be cheap shots at an easy target.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by shemp
TNo, I said I would stop debating. Any further posts in this thread from me will be cheap shots at an easy target.

Here's what you wrote:

Originally posted by shemp
Steve, do you post the obit of every friend, relative, associate, etc. here? When you do, then we will stop looking for motives behind your postings.

Highlighted "we will stop looking ..." for emphasis.

You and your pals cannot only not read what others write, you can't read what you yourselves write. Which is par for the course. Morons.

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by Elmer Gantry
Oh, hell's big bells! Looks to me like you posted here knowing damn right well some of these jokers would take pot shots. Now you're cryin' about it. Don't make them right but c'mon, you can't say you dint expect what you got. Kinda like ol B'rer Rabbit sayin' "Don't throw me in that briar patch B'rer Fox!"

Geezus ...what is wrong with yur kinfolks elmer? This was a simple announcement involving a person involved in two major threads on this board: The Jacqui Poole Murder Case and Psychics and the Police. He responded to numerous arguments from this board, and we were expecting to discuss this further when a publication came available in the weeks ahead. This is the third time I said this.

Instead the subject has become the object of some beyond poor taste posts by a triad of morons who have nothing better to do. The limits of poor taste, being discussed elsewhere, has been demonstratred here.

I did indeed consider hard whether I should post this announcement but thought I had better do so lest other morons accuse me of not doing so later on when further questions arise. This was a death notice. It did not require the sort of comments it received from the three stooges.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: Instead the subject has become the object of some beyond poor taste posts by a triad of morons who have nothing better to do. The limits of poor taste, being discussed elsewhere, has been demonstratred here.

I did indeed consider hard whether I should post this announcement but thought I had better do so lest other morons accuse me of not doing so later on when further questions arise. This was a death notice. It did not require the sort of comments it received from the three stooges.Steve, you continue to characterize me as a moron and a stooge simply because I challenged your interpretation of Shemp's initial post in this thread. You have some nerve criticizing the manners of others, considering the vitriol you have spewed forth in this thread. I think there's a word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypocrite) for that.

[Roadtoad]

Steve, first of all, my condolences on your loss. It's obviously painful to you, and having lost loved ones, family and friends, you have my deepest sympathies.

Having said this: since you have been on this board for some time, as near as I can tell, why are you surprised, shocked, or even irritated at Shemp's and Xouper's remarks? They do this. They are not cuddly, lovable teddy bears, they're stone cold skeptics, and at times they have and probably will continue to make remarks that are both pointed, and many times humorous to those of like mind.

I didn't know much about Montague Keen, though perhaps I should have. From the little bit I've picked up here and there, it seems that Mr. Keen was not particularly fond of James Randi's continuing research and examination. Given who foots the bill for this Forum, why are you surprised that people who respect Mr. Randi are coming forward in Mr. Randi's defense? And why are you surprised that Mr. Keen is taking shots even at the end of his life? I'm sorry, but I think you're being somewhat dishonest, both with yourself and with us.

I will repeat this: I'm sorry for your loss. But have sufficient respect for Mr. Keen and his memory by accepting that those who are hearing your news aren't going to have the same sentiments as you. Mr. Keen and Mr. Randi were at intellectual odds. Posting this news on Mr. Randi's Forum is not going to make you a real popular guy, nor will it garner the response you want.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Elmer Gantry

Shoot, he did get the response he wanted.

Then he's not a hypocrite. He's a masochist.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Elmer Gantry

Uh. Nope. Uh. More like he wants to show how rotten skeptics are. How rotten JREF is. KNowing he got a room full of smart alecks, he threw out a bone sure to draw the dogs. Now he can point at this thread and say "I told you so." Whats that old saw? Waiting with bated breath, that's the one.

Yeah, you're probably right. But I would think, since he's saying he was so close to Mr. Keen, that he would want the man's memory respected.

Seems a sh**ty way to remember a friend, using his memory for such a transparent attempt at a smear.

[Clancie]

Posted by Mr. Manifesto

Some of us learned a long time ago that you don't announce the death of a friend or relative on the internet and not expect to get sledged.
Maybe so, Mr. Manifesto, but didn't Lord Kenneth get a three day suspension for an insensitive comment to Billiefan about the death of his friend or relative? (I think LK said something not as harsh as some of the comments above, something like telling Billiefan, "Dead is dead".)

Steve knew Keen personally. I don't see the reason for people to try to rag on them both, especially under these circumstances.

[shemp]

[cheap shot]Bite me Steve, you skinny little rat-faced git![/cheap shot]

[shemp]

Originally posted by Clancie

Maybe so, Mr. Manifesto, but didn't Lord Kenneth get a three day suspension for an insensitive comment to Billiefan about the death of his friend or relative? (I think LK said something not as harsh as some of the comments above, something like telling Billiefan, "Dead is dead".)

Steve knew Keen personally. I don't see the reason for people to try to rag on them both, especially under these circumstances.

However, I will debate with this other clod.

My remark has been explained above. Montague Keen was a cad and a cur. Sorry he died, but tough cookies. Nuff said.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Clancie

Maybe so, Mr. Manifesto, but didn't Lord Kenneth get a three day suspension for an insensitive comment to Billiefan about the death of his friend or relative? (I think LK said something not as harsh as some of the comments above, something like telling Billiefan, "Dead is dead".)

Steve knew Keen personally. I don't see the reason for people to try to rag on them both, especially under these circumstances.

Digusting, isn't it? This forum ought to be shut down.

Wait... THAT'S IT!!?! We'll shut the forum down!

:confused: But wait... How will we do it? :confused:

I know! Let's ask Steve!

[T'ai Chi]

Hi Steve,

I'm sorry to hear about Mr. Keen.

:(

Steve, do you know if any of this http://www.afterlife101.com/Light_display.html was caught on videotape?

[Zep]

Steve,

I'm sorry to hear that Mr Keen has passed away. But among the reasons I'm sorry is that it no longer seems possible that we will hear his learned arguments, such as those propounded by the noted scholar and empiricist, Victor Zammit.

However, should life-after-death actually exist, and reliable proven contact can be made through such gifted seers as Sylvia Browne and John Edwards, then there is no need whatsoever to be sorry that Mr Keen has "passed over". He should be able to continue to pass on to us all the wisdom he had beforehand.

I await keenly his ongoing communications.

[JimTheBrit]

Damn. :( Missed this announcement, just found out from the ISS web site. Condolences to his wife.

[Reginald]

It's a shame when anyone dies. It's all experience lost forever. However SG, once again you kick the beehive and wonder why you get stung.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It doesn't make any difference if you're 6 or 46, you are still acting like an arkward child who hasn't learned what's supposed to be funny and what's not.
Steve, you're the one who's sounding like a six-year old. I've only been here on this board about 6 weeks, but I could have predicted exactly what sort of response I would have got if I'd posted something like your intial post.
There are several posters here who take every opportunity to make snide, sharp, hurtful, sarcastic comments. That is their right, if the board mods allow it. You can choose whether or not to ignore them; that is your right.
You should all know that by now. If you can't handle critical, hurtful posts without throwing a strop, you ought to go to some other board.

[CFLarsen]

Strange. I can't find any reference of this in the media.....seems like Keen was not a big shot name to even register on the news wire.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I think it is a little soon to start discussing this and we will have to see what Veronica and others closer to him say about that.

Why not? Isn't ADC about grief counselling? Coming to terms with the loss of your dearly departed?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Although I have had lengthy correspondences with him, (as many of you here know since I was asked to post these corespondences here)

No, we don't. We only have your word for it, and your word means nothing.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are both, obviously morons and your comments are in the worst possible taste given the circumstances of this thread.

And your claim that I moved back to Denmark because of laxer laws on pedophilia was a classic example of taste?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Probably too young yet to appreciate death or what it means but remind me when your child, wife mother or a friend dies, and if we are both still posting here, I'll see how you feel when people make light of that situation.

That's the Steve we know and loathe: Always ready with the vitriol. You have so much hate in you, Steve, that I cannot see how you can function.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pathetic sick sonsofbitches.

How eloquent.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Keen was not only a friend,

We only have your word for that, and your word means nothing.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In fact we were waiting for the publication of some research he did to discuss it further here.

Yes, that's the usual story: We are always waiting for those publications to come out. They never emerge.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Actually I thought hard about reporting this passing here but decided to do so anyway. Can't say I am not surprised by the igorant blatherings of xouper and shemp, both of whom by their profile should be more in tune with what is going on here. Add yourself to that list.

If you are not surprised, and even expected this, why did you post it, then? Do you really think this is such a good way to honor a man's memory? To use his death as a ploy to invoke sympathy for yourself?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You guys get more weird and more pathologically perverse w/each successive post. I know you have a fixation on toilet humor.

Listen to yourself, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Please don't insult elephants either. They have a lot more intelligence and sensitivty than shemp, xouper or yourself. Now run along and play children. And don't torture any cats along the way.

You really have the most atrocious fantasies.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I love people who divine other people's motives. Its the fallacy of reading things into other people's words which arn't there. Now that's paranormal. No, its abnormal.

Glad you can see your own faults.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Geezus ...what is wrong with yur kinfolks elmer?

Steve, your complaints about people being rude would carry a heck of a lot more weight, if you could refrain from being rude yourself. But, I suppose, you can be rude to others, while others can't.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This was a simple announcement involving a person involved in two major threads on this board: The Jacqui Poole Murder Case and Psychics and the Police. He responded to numerous arguments from this board, and we were expecting to discuss this further when a publication came available in the weeks ahead. This is the third time I said this.

We do not know if it was Keen who responded. You claimed to be a messenger boy, and we only have your word for it that it really was Keen who wrote it. Your word means nothing, and given your past record of stealing the works of others, I don't think we should trust you.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I did indeed consider hard whether I should post this announcement but thought I had better do so lest other morons accuse me of not doing so later on when further questions arise. This was a death notice. It did not require the sort of comments it received from the three stooges.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't? Either way, you come off as a victim. Nice work, Steve....

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe so, Mr. Manifesto, but didn't Lord Kenneth get a three day suspension for an insensitive comment to Billiefan about the death of his friend or relative? (I think LK said something not as harsh as some of the comments above, something like telling Billiefan, "Dead is dead".)

If you think suspension is an appropriate response, I urge you to contact the moderators.

Originally posted by Clancie
Steve knew Keen personally. I don't see the reason for people to try to rag on them both, especially under these circumstances.

You don't know that Steve knew Keen personally. If you take Steve's word for anything, you are not just gullible, you are also asking to be abused by him.

[Mr Manifesto]

This is weird... I can't find an obituary for him online. What are the chances of that? Wouldn't at least one of his relatives or followers slap one online?

[JamesM]

An announcement of Keen's passing was made on the Victor Zammitt website last week, and a similar message to the one quoted by Steve was given on the Fortean Times messageboard, supposedly from an email from Rupert Sheldrake, but I can't find much else, either.

[CFLarsen]

Found one on SurvivalAfterDeath.org:

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/news.htm#keen

Now, this is interesting. Take a look at Steve's original post:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I regret to inform you of the tragic death of my beloved husband, Montague Keen, on the 15th January. He died whilst attending a debate at the Royal Society of Arts, London. In accordance with his wishes, he will be cremated at 4pm on Thursday 22nd January at Hendon Crematorium, Holders Hill road, NW7. He will be in our home from 10am Wednesday until the time of the cremation. All friends welcome.

72 Southway, Totteridge, London N20 8DB.

Only family flowers, please; donations may be sent to the British Heart Foundation.

Veronica Keen


Some details from Dr. Bruce Greyson:

He was in the front row of the audience at the Royal Society of Arts for a debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, the British skeptic. During the question-and-answer period, Monty rose to speak in support of Rupert, and in mid-sentence his voice faded and he lost consciousness from a heart attack. Two doctors in the audience immediately tried to resuscitate him, but he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass. He died as he would have wished, championing the cause of survival.



Bruce



Bruce Greyson, M.D.
Carlson Professor of Psychiatry
Division of Personality Studies
Department of Psychiatric Medicine
University of Virginia Health System

Note what Dr. Bruce Greyson says. Then compare this with what Sheldrake says on the SurvivalAfterDeath.org page:

According to Rupert Sheldrake, "Monty was making a point [during the question period] when his voice faded, and he lost consciousness. Two doctors in the house tried to resuscitate him, and the ambulance arrived quickly. They did all they could, but he was dead on arrival at the hospital, and probably died almost immediately of a heart attack. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass."

Hmmmm.....seems like we have a ghost (writer) in the house...

[NoZed Avenger]

This is not the time, place, or thread for debating Mr. Keen's legacy nor Mr. Grenard.

Let it be. Let it go. Let some time pass.

Please.

This is not the thread to make a case against anything.

[CFLarsen]

NoZed Avenger,

You're right. I just find it incredible that Steve would use the death of another person to provoke any kind of response, which he would use to point out just how baaaad JREF'ers are.

If he didn't post it, he would complain that we would chastise him for not posting it. If he did post it, he would complain that we replied to him. He made this very clear.

N/A, just remember that Steve will stop at nothing to bring JREF down. He tries every dirty trick in the book, even the death of another person. Incredible.....simply incredible.

[Roadtoad]

I think I made a similar point earlier. Personally, I think Steve has shown remarkable stupidity in thinking that people would make nice after his announcement, particularly after Keen's own criticisms of Randi.

Then again, CF, you're probably right. Maybe Steve just wants everyone to get their licks in, so he can copy it off and riff about how nasty folks are here. If you're looking to smear someone, why else would you post like that?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Then again, CF, you're probably right. Maybe Steve just wants everyone to get their licks in, so he can copy it off and riff about how nasty folks are here. If you're looking to smear someone, why else would you post like that?

My sentiments exactly. And, hey....Steve made it abundantly clear that I was right.

Steve must really hate that he cannot go back and edit his posts after a while. Am I the only one who have noticed, that Steve frequently edits his posts, until he runs out of time?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Am I the only one who have noticed, that Steve frequently edits his posts, until he runs out of time?

Not the only one who notices.

Just the only one who cares.....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Not the only one who notices.

Just the only one who cares.....

Thank you for proving (once again) that you do not have me on ignore.

Now, since you do not have me on ignore, could you please address my points, instead of making snide personal remarks?

Or, are you going to "pretend" that you have me on ignore, thereby making a complete jackass of yourself? Perhaps you like to maintain the illusion that your spies tipped you off, once again, so you could make a "stinging rebuke"?

You are not fooling anyone. Change that sig of yours, so you - at the very least - don't turn yourself into a hypocrite.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And your claim that I moved back to Denmark because of laxer laws on pedophilia was a classic example of taste?


If that were the case, wouldn't The Vatican relocate to Copenhagen? :D

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Clancie


Not the only one who notices.

Just the only one who cares.....

No, a lot of people hate Steve's editing habits. Including Bidlack. I believe Steve was largely the reason why the 1 hour time limit was introduced.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


No, a lot of people hate Steve's editing habits. Including Bidlack. I believe Steve was largely the reason why the 1 hour time limit was introduced.

That's too bad. It's one thing to edit to correct a grammatical error, or even a factual one, (provided on the latter, you note what you've done), but what Steve Grenard was doing, if I read you right, is going back and changing his posts to make himself out to be some sort of victim.

Which, naturally, is a pantload. If you haven't the cojones to own up to what you've written, then maybe you ought to go someplace where your dishonesty is accepted. Perhaps the Rapture Ready board.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
If you haven't the cojones to own up to what you've written, then maybe you ought to go someplace where your dishonesty is accepted. Perhaps the Rapture Ready board.

Or, Steve's own SS-board. Which he had to close. He was basically posting to himself, after mass-bannings of people who showed how wrong he was.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I regret to inform you of the tragic death of my beloved husband, Montague Keen, on the 15th January. He died whilst attending a debate at the Royal Society of Arts, London. In accordance with his wishes, he will be cremated at 4pm on Thursday 22nd January at Hendon Crematorium, Holders Hill road, NW7. He will be in our home from 10am Wednesday until the time of the cremation. All friends welcome.

72 Southway, Totteridge, London N20 8DB.

Only family flowers, please; donations may be sent to the British Heart Foundation.

Veronica Keen


Some details from Dr. Bruce Greyson:

He was in the front row of the audience at the Royal Society of Arts for a debate between Rupert Sheldrake and Lewis Wolpert, the British skeptic. During the question-and-answer period, Monty rose to speak in support of Rupert, and in mid-sentence his voice faded and he lost consciousness from a heart attack. Two doctors in the audience immediately tried to resuscitate him, but he died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. He was 79 and had had a triple bypass. He died as he would have wished, championing the cause of survival.



Bruce



Bruce Greyson, M.D.
Carlson Professor of Psychiatry
Division of Personality Studies
Department of Psychiatric Medicine
University of Virginia Health System

WOW! He was in that ch5 TV programme a few months back in the UK. :( He was only allowed about 30 secs though to argue the case for survival, because Randi had to be allowed 5 mins to show a card trick

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/jamesrandi.htm

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed



Don't look for anything more from him. Dead is dead.

But you have to reasons or evidence to justify this stance. Yeah, I know :rolleyes:

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


WOW! He was in that ch5 TV programme a few months back in the UK. :( He was only allowed about 30 secs though to argue the case for survival, because Randi had to be allowed 5 mins to show a card trick

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm

http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/jamesrandi.htm

Bilge.

After reading this, it seems to me Mr. Keen had less to offer, save a load of petty carping. I don't always agree with Randi, Ian, but it would seem he can be more trusted than Keen.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
I think I made a similar point earlier. Personally, I think Steve has shown remarkable stupidity in thinking that people would make nice after his announcement, particularly after Keen's own criticisms of Randi.

For the record, I tried. Not knowing enough about Keen to say something good or bad, I asked a question that I thought may be relevant to Steve's posting and what I know about Keen's interest.

I am a little disappointed it didn't move the topic in a little more positive direction.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


For the record, I tried. Not knowing enough about Keen to say something good or bad, I asked a question that I thought may be relevant to Steve's posting and what I know about Keen's interest.

I am a little disappointed it didn't move the topic in a little more positive direction.

Frankly, I thought it was a civilized response. (Rather wished I'd followed suit.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


Bilge.

After reading this, it seems to me Mr. Keen had less to offer, save a load of petty carping. I don't always agree with Randi, Ian, but it would seem he can be more trusted than Keen.

Petty carping?? You need to read and understand. Randi is one of the very last people on earth I would trust. I really don't know how far Mr Keen could be trusted, but I never read any bad things about him unlike Randi.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Petty carping?? You need to read and understand. Randi is one of the very last people on earth I would trust. I really don't know how far Mr Keen could be trusted, but I never read any bad things about him unlike Randi.

So, you'd believe bad things about a person, just like that?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Petty carping?? You need to read and understand. Randi is one of the very last people on earth I would trust. I really don't know how far Mr Keen could be trusted, but I never read any bad things about him unlike Randi.

I do understand, Ian. I can't explain as well, but I do get it.

And, I'm sorry if you disagree. Maybe through further discussion, we can figure things out. Or not.

No, I haven't heard anything about Montague Keen, at least not until I read this thread. I've done some more reading, and there are more questions that come to mind than answers. At least James Randi openly accepts into this Forum those who disagree with him.

And as to bad things being said about Randi, I've read through them as well. Much of what I've read, (in fact, I'd say 99% of it), is sour grapes. They couldn't beat him, so they bitch about him. That's dishonest. Sort of like that Russian girl situation. (I wouldn't mind slapping her parents around for what they pulled on their kid.)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, you'd believe bad things about a person, just like that?

I'd say that revokes someone's Skeptic's Card. :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, you'd believe bad things about a person, just like that?

And especially from my email correspondance with him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And especially from my email correspondance with him.

Referring to hidden messages to argue your point is very lame. Very lame.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
[B]

I do understand, Ian. I can't explain as well, but I do get it.

And, I'm sorry if you disagree. Maybe through further discussion, we can figure things out. Or not.

No, I haven't heard anything about Montague Keen, at least not until I read this thread. I've done some more reading, and there are more questions that come to mind than answers. At least James Randi openly accepts into this Forum those who disagree with him.



It would be pretty peculiar if he didn't! Just imagine this place if only people like BillHoyt, TBK and Claus were allowed! :eek:



And as to bad things being said about Randi, I've read through them as well. Much of what I've read, (in fact, I'd say 99% of it), is sour grapes.



Oh yes? Even an ardent skeptic like Susan Blackmore has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors".



They couldn't beat him, so they bitch about him. That's dishonest. Sort of like that Russian girl situation. (I wouldn't mind slapping her parents around for what they pulled on their kid.)


Oh wake up to yourself! :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Referring to hidden messages to argue your point is very lame. Very lame.

Hidden? I've posted the full email correspondance before on this board.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It would be pretty peculiar if he didn't! Just imagine this place if only people like BillHoyt, TBK and Claus were allowed! :eek:

Oh, please! Don't give me that paranoid Steve Grenard ****.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh yes? Even an ardent skeptic like Susan Blackmore has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors".

Where has she stated that? What "errors"?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hidden? I've posted the full email correspondance before on this board.

Where?

[Interesting Ian]

(My contributions are in indigo, Randi's contributions are in blue. The exchange has not been altered in any shape or form. I am "Mr Enigmatic")



Dear Mr Randi,

I would just like to clear up a couple of things about the challenge. In order to determine whether someone has actually passed the challenge, is there an objective, independent judging or adjudication made by people who are competent to judge whether the claim has been met? Further, do these people represent a fair cross section over the whole spectrum of belief,
including believers in certain psi phenomena, "skeptics", and those who have yet to decide, or is there a predominance of skeptics? More importantly, who picks these people and what criteria do they use in so choosing?

Finally, can I be assured that you yourself have absolutely no say or influence on whether the contestant has demonstrated the phenomenon in question?





Read the rules on the web page. And PLEASE don't ask me questions that are already answered on the web page. That's why we HAVE a web page. When you see a tag on a sweater in Macy's stating the laundry instructions, the fibre content, and the price, do you ask the clerk, "How much is this sweater, what's it made of, and how do I clean it?"


James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. 12th Street (E. Davie Boulevard)
Fort Lauderdale FL 33316-1815
USA

phone: +1 954 467 1112
fax: +1 954 467 1660
Web Page: www.randi.org
e-mail: randi@randi.org




Dear Mr Randi,

I had already read the conditions/rules on the appropriate web page. The reason why I contacted you was because I was unclear as to their precise meaning. The only part which appears to be relevant to my original questions is the part which states "tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" (inverted commas as in original) procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules
which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place".

I have my reservations whether results will *inevitably* be self-evident to all observers. Specifically, I suspect there may on occasions be a disagreement between the claimant and yourself. Given that there may be disagreement, *somebody* has to decide whether the contestant has demonstrated the phenomenon in question. Who are these people? Are they
completely impartial? If the claimant vehemently disagrees with their decision, what then? It is *imperative* that an independent body decides whether the claimant has passed/failed the
challenge, otherwise the challenge is simply meaningless.

I would also like to know what sort of challenge will be accepted by you? My concern here is that you will not agree to a comparatively mundane demonstration of a claimants "paranormal" powers. That is to say that I am
concerned that you will draw up the rules and conditions in such a way so as to make the claimants task that much harder, and hence, in effect, make the challenge impossible to win. What have you to say to this?


Ian Wardell



Message text written by "Mr Enigmatic"

>Given that there may be disagreement, *somebody* has to >decide whether the contestant has demonstrated the >phenomenon in question.

Never. If a claimant says he can guess at least 18 out of 20 playing cards correctly, and that has to be HIS decision, for example, the rules are drawn up this way: AND in advance, everyone signing off on them, agreeing.

1 correct = failure

2 correct = failure

3 correct = failure

4 correct = failure

5 correct = failure

6 correct = failure

7 correct = failure

8 correct = failure

9 correct = failure

10 correct = failure

11 correct = failure

12 correct = failure

13 correct = failure

14 correct = failure

15 correct = failure

16 correct = failure

17 correct = failure

18 correct =success

19 correct = success

20 correct = success


Now, suppose the claimant makes the 20 guesses, and gets 14 correct. Look at the table. That means a "failure." You follow?
No argument, no judging, no doubt. Understand? WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

>It is *imperative* that an independent body decides whether >the claimant has passed/failed the challenge, otherwise the >challenge is simply meaningless.

No, IT IS NOT! There IS NO DECISIUON TO BE MADE! The results are self-evident. Wrong is wrong, right is right!

>I would also like to know what sort of challenge will be accepted >by you?

Thousands of kinds. Specify. But first, read the rules. Yes, you said you did. This time, try to understand them.

>My concern here is that you will not agree to a comparatively >mundane demonstration of a claimants "paranormal" powers.


Hey, that's RIGHT! Why would I? If a man says he can play the violin, merely stroking the bow across the strings will not suffice. We would have an agreed-upon set of things he would have to do. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE IDEA?

>That is to say that I am concerned that you will draw up the >rules and conditions in such a way so as to make the claimants >task that much harder, and hence, in effect, make the challenge >impossible to win.

READ THE DAMN RULES! I don't "draw up" ANYTHING! The CLAIMANT does! So long as an independant group -- of HIS choosing -- decides that the rules and conditions are adequate to prove the claim, WE DO IT!

>What have you to say to this?<

That's it. You seem incredibly slow to understand all this, "Enigmatic." You should change your name to "Dense."

James Randi

Randi




Dear Mr Randi,

The reason why I first contacted you was because so called "skeptics" continually refer to the failure to win the $1 million challenge to justify their "skepticism". My concern here is that this "skepticism" extends to their rejection, not just of the "wild" claims regarding the paranormal, but also of the existence of any phenomena falling within the purview of that particular subset of paranormal phenomena referred to as parapsychology. However, I cannot but conclude that the
failure of anyone to win the challenge has little if any implications for this phenomena, both because people taking the challenge generally attempt to demonstrate abilities/phenomena not encompassed by this subject matter, and more importantly because, they attempt to demonstrate phenomena/abilities way beyond what parapsychological studies suggest can be easily replicated in any case. I therefore ask you whether you would agree that the failure of anyone to meet the challenge has absolutely zero implications for the existence of that particular type of phenomena which parapsychologists study?

Now to address the contents of your last e-mail. The playing card example you cite conceivably may be deemed to be pretty clear cut on the question of whether a claimant has passed the
challenge, but I did state "I have my reservations whether results
will *inevitably* (emphasis as in original) be self-evident to all
observers". I wasn't suggesting that you would be unable to think of a challenge of the top of his head where the results were unambiguous!

I also find your assertion that it is the *claimant's* (emphasis as
in original) decision that he can guess correctly 18 cards out of 20
somewhat implausible. Leaving aside whether you are talking about "playing cards", and whether the claimant knows which 20 cards these are, why should he decide that he can guess 18? I mean think of the astronomical odds! Why should he not stipulate that he can guess just say 1 out of the 20 cards if it is purely *his* (the testees) decision? Besides which, you directly contradict yourself here when you affirm that you will not agree to a comparatively mundane demonstration of a claimants abilities. Mind you, you then contradict yourself *yet again* when you assert "READ THE DAMN RULES! I don't "draw up" ANYTHING! The CLAIMANT does"! If you do not draw up *ANYTHING*, and in fact the claimant does, then, in the card
example, there would be nothing to prevent the claimant from drawing up the rules in the following way:

0 = fail (correct/incorrect inapplicable).

1 correct = success

2 correct = success

3 correct = success

4 correct = success

5 correct = success

6 correct = success

7 correct = success

8 correct = success

9 correct = success

10 correct = success

11 correct = success

12 correct = success

13 correct = success

14 correct = success

15 correct = success

16 correct = success

17 correct = success

18 correct =success

19 correct = success

20 correct = success

I await your reply with interest.

Ian


END OF RANDI EXCHANGE

[Roadtoad]

You're surprised by the conclusion? Why? The rules were painfully clear. I had no trouble understanding them the first time I read them.

For God's sake, Ian, why would you waste the man's time like that?

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

I did not ask for the emails themselves, I asked where you had published them on this forum. But thanks anyway.

What, in these emails, make you think badly about Randi?

What else make you think badly of Randi?

Do you have a reference where Blackmore "has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors"."? (It's the second time I ask you this, just in case you hadn't noticed)

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

I did not ask for the emails themselves, I asked where you had published them on this forum. But thanks anyway.

What, in these emails, make you think badly about Randi?

What else make you think badly of Randi?

Do you have a reference where Blackmore "has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors"."? (It's the second time I ask you this, just in case you hadn't noticed)

Maybe we ought to cut to the chase and ask, "What were you thinking!?!?!?!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
You're surprised by the conclusion? Why? The rules were painfully clear. I had no trouble understanding them the first time I read them.

For God's sake, Ian, why would you waste the man's time like that?

Huh?? Are you a complete airhead or what?? I asked him the question because skeptics kept insisting that the failure to pass his challenge proves that no anomalous phenomena exists whatsoever. Therefore I was trying to assess how much merit this assertion has by contacting him directly. Could you kindly inform how the flying f*ck this could be considered a waste of time??

I guess you're right though as he never did respond to my last email :rolleyes:

And I still don't understand the rules. He flatly contradicts himself in his emails to me!

For Chr*st sake, reading the f*cking exchange between us and don't waste my f*cking time anymore.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? Are you a complete airhead or what?? I asked him the question because skeptics kept insisting that the failure to pass his challenge proves that no anomalous phenomena exists whatsoever. Therefore I was trying to assess how much merit this assertion has by contacting him directly. Could you kindly inform how the flying f*ck this could be considered a waste of time??

I guess you're right though as he never did respond to my last email :rolleyes:

And I still don't understand the rules. He flatly contradicts himself in his emails to me!

For Chr*st sake, reading the f*cking exchange between us and don't waste my f*cking time anymore.

I did read the exchange. Why did you have so much trouble understanding it? I didn't.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]Ian,

I did not ask for the emails themselves, I asked where you had published them on this forum. But thanks anyway.

What, in these emails, make you think badly about Randi?



He's a cantankerous old bastard, he contradicts himself all the time, and he's as thick as f*ck. And he's breathtakingly rude to boot.



Do you have a reference where Blackmore "has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors"."?



No.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


I did read the exchange. Why did you have so much trouble understanding it? I didn't.

I didn't have any trouble understanding it whatsoever. And if you also didn't, you'll realise that he failed to answer my questions, and also directly contradicts himself.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I didn't have any trouble understanding it whatsoever. And if you also didn't, you'll realise that he failed to answer my questions, and also directly contradicts himself.

:bs:

:hb:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? Are you a complete airhead or what?? I asked him the question because skeptics kept insisting that the failure to pass his challenge proves that no anomalous phenomena exists whatsoever. Therefore I was trying to assess how much merit this assertion has by contacting him directly. Could you kindly inform how the flying f*ck this could be considered a waste of time??

Ian, when you start cussing, it is clear that you are in trouble.


Which skeptics insist that the failure to pass his challenge proves that no anomalous phenomena exists whatsoever?
Where do they do that? (References, please)
Does Randi himself claim that?
If so, where? (References, please)
Why do you think badly of Randi because you don't understand the rules?
Where exactly does Randi contradict himself in his emails to you?
What, in these emails, make you think badly about Randi?
What else (beside these emails) make you think badly of Randi?
Do you have a reference where Blackmore "has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors"."?


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
For Chr*st sake, reading the f*cking exchange between us and don't waste my f*cking time anymore.

Yes, that's nice. Please answer the questions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Ian, when you start cussing, it is clear that you are in trouble.



I only ever do so because of the unmitigated stupidity of the remarks tossed at me. I get pissed off with stupid people, and certainly not when people make intelligent comments. It's beyond my comprehension why people would imagine I would start "cussing" if somebody actually had anything worthwhile to say!



Which skeptics insist that the failure to pass his challenge proves that no anomalous phenomena exists whatsoever?
Where do they do that? (References, please)



Every single skeptic I ever used to talk to insisted on this. This was about 3 years ago in newsgroups and it is when I had that email exchange. People don't generally say this on here and this has been a pleasant surprise.



Does Randi himself claim that?



I have no idea. He never addressed this despite me raising it.


Why do you think badly of Randi because you don't understand the rules?



Answer already supplied.


Where exactly does Randi contradict himself in his emails to you?


He claims that both the testee does, and does not determine what he must achieve in order to win the million.



What, in these emails, make you think badly about Randi?



Again, already answered. See my previous post to you in this thread.


What else (beside these emails) make you think badly of Randi?


Already answered.


Do you have a reference where Blackmore "has stated that she really cannot recommend his book so riddled is it with what she politely calls "errors"."?



Already answered.



Yes, that's nice. Please answer the questions.

I have now answered all questions. Now you answer one of mine.

Why are you and a good proportion of other skeptics seemingly incapable of having an intelligent thoughtful discussion over the possible existence of anomalous phenomena, instead of continually being petty, and obnoxious and trying to score cheap points?

[Ed]

Ian:

I think the rules are painfully obvious. For arguments sake, why don't you conjure up some bit of "paranormal" behavior that you think would not be suseptible to the rules and let us just see if we cannot come up with something objective. Sometimes a demonstration is in order.

It really did seem as though you were picking a fight.

Seriously, try to come up with something.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I only ever do so because of the unmitigated stupidity of the remarks tossed at me. I get pissed off with stupid people, and certainly not when people make intelligent comments. It's beyond my comprehension why people would imagine I would start "cussing" if somebody actually had anything worthwhile to say!

So, you lose your temper because you think people misunderstand you, yet you cannot explain where or why they misunderstand you?

And you really don't see that the problem lies with you and not others?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Every single skeptic I ever used to talk to insisted on this. This was about 3 years ago in newsgroups and it is when I had that email exchange. People don't generally say this on here and this has been a pleasant surprise.

I asked you, specifically, who. Please name them, and show where they claimed this.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea. He never addressed this despite me raising it.

Then that cannot be the reason why you think badly of Randi.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Answer already supplied.

Your answer is that, since you don't get it, it must be Randi's fault?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
He claims that both the testee does, and does not determine what he must achieve in order to win the million.

Where, exactly?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Again, already answered. See my previous post to you in this thread.

Your answer is that, since you don't get it, it must be Randi's fault?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Already answered.

Where, exactly?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Already answered.

Where, exactly?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have now answered all questions. Now you answer one of mine.

Liar. You have not answered them. E.g., you have not answered where Blackmore has stated what you claimed she stated.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why are you and a good proportion of other skeptics seemingly incapable of having an intelligent thoughtful discussion over the possible existence of anomalous phenomena, instead of continually being petty, and obnoxious and trying to score cheap points?

I cannot answer for others, but I am not trying to "score cheap points". I am trying to get some answers.

So far, you have done very little to provide them.

I answered your question, you have not answered mine.

Nice going, Ian.

[JimTheBrit]

You pose some very interesting questions, Ian. I think this news article (http://www.bocaratonnews.com/index.php?src=news&category=LOCAL%20NEWS&prid=6778) may be helpful.

In answer to CFL's third point:

Which skeptics insist that the failure to pass his challenge proves that no anomalous phenomena exists whatsoever?
# Where do they do that? (References, please)
# Does Randi himself claim that?

No, he doesn't.

“Speaking for myself, I only say that reluctance to take up my challenge indicates — strongly — that they know they may not be able to meet the requirements of the challenge. It does not prove that their claims are spurious, nor have I ever claimed this, but they certainly could prove that they're not spurious, simply by taking up the challenge.” http://www.randi.org/jr/08-10-01.html

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
(My contributions are in indigo, Randi's contributions are in blue. The exchange has not been altered in any shape or form. I am "Mr Enigmatic")

....snip....

I await your reply with interest.

Ian
[/color]

END OF RANDI EXCHANGE [/B]

Randi is right - maybe you should have called yourself Mr. Dense.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
For Chr*st sake, reading the f*cking exchange between us and don't waste my f*cking time anymore.

You know, this sounds exactly like an even ruder version of the email exchange from Randi that you are complaining about.

So next time, he should just say something along these lines (dramatization):

Mr. Enigmatic:

For Chr*st sake, read the f*cking RULES and don't waste my f*cking time any more.

Randi

Irony, thy name is Ian.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

:wow2: Randi really is grumpy! This is a good thing! He clearly uses his anger against nonsense that we know doesn’t exist!

The challenge disproves the supernatural! The credibility of the challenge and Randi is not to be questioned!

It’s all so frickin clear! I mean this challenge is completely objective and not for attention or any other motive! The challenge is as close to being perfect as materialism will allow! No other experiment (besides for the experiments proving materialism) come close to the credibility and objectiveness seen in the million dollar challenge! That’s right! Materialism!!!

[Mr Manifesto]

Hmm, Ian starts crapping on about something terribly important in this thread, starts sinking under the weight of questioning, then !Xx+-Rational-+xX! pipes in with something-or-other. I think it's time the SockPuppet-Finder General dunked someone in a well to see if he sinks.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hmm, Ian starts crapping on about something terribly important in this thread, starts sinking under the weight of questioning, then !Xx+-Rational-+xX! pipes in with something-or-other. I think it's time the SockPuppet-Finder General dunked someone in a well to see if he sinks.

Must all trolls be sockpuppets!? No!!!

Randi reminds me of angry wet cat!

Randi in cat form!
http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/angrywetcatnotamused.jpg

If I ever create a sockpuppet angry wet cat will be my avatar!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hmm, Ian starts crapping on about something terribly important in this thread, starts sinking under the weight of questioning, then !Xx+-Rational-+xX! pipes in with something-or-other. I think it's time the SockPuppet-Finder General dunked someone in a well to see if he sinks.

I agree, though a well dunking isn't nearly as fun as pressing the suspected sock puppet with stones, or even better, a good old fashioned session on the rack until they confess.

[c0rbin]

Ian said:
It would be pretty peculiar if he didn't! Just imagine this place if only people like BillHoyt, TBK and Claus were allowed!

You just described the opposite of the failed Survival Science board. It was sad, really. Provide a place to discuss the issue of "life after death" in whatever form you subscribed to (or didn't). Then fence in any discussion the moderator (Steve and Pam(?)) decided was trolling--ie anything that questioned what a proponent of SS had to say.

Ian, you're lucky you have a place like this to question what people think.

If only you could find a polite and consice way of going about it.

Thank you asked:
Why are you and a good proportion of other skeptics seemingly incapable of having an intelligent thoughtful discussion over the possible existence of anomalous phenomena, instead of continually being petty, and obnoxious and trying to score cheap points?

Please point me to an "anomolous phenomena" that isn't a semantical game and I would love to discuss it. I got to this forum because I liked ghost stories and UFO pictures and the Loch Ness Monster. But I am brave enough to put away childish notions and take on the landscape as it is.


PS, Manifesto, I apologize for calling you a "dork" all the time. It is immature.

[JimTheBrit]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
(My contributions are in indigo, Randi's contributions are in blue. The exchange has not been altered in any shape or form. I am "Mr Enigmatic")

Snip Ian's first message and Randi's initial reply, for brevity.
Dear Mr Randi,

I had already read the conditions/rules on the appropriate web page. The reason why I contacted you was because I was unclear as to their precise meaning. The only part which appears to be relevant to my original questions is the part which states "tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" (inverted commas as in original) procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with the rules
which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing procedure taking place".

I have my reservations whether results will *inevitably* be self-evident to all observers. Specifically, I suspect there may on occasions be a disagreement between the claimant and yourself.

In addition to the 'disagreement' mentioned in the article linked in my previous post, there's another one in this article (http://ww2.mcgill.ca/uro/Rep/r3013/randi.html), last paragraph.

Given that there may be disagreement, *somebody* has to decide whether the contestant has demonstrated the phenomenon in question.

I don't understand how adding a further *somebody* into the proceedings, as an additional arbiter, would be beneficial. How would they be in any better position to judge what is 'self-evident' than the original participants?

Who are these people? Are they
completely impartial? If the claimant vehemently disagrees with their decision, what then? It is *imperative* that an independent body decides whether the claimant has passed/failed the
challenge, otherwise the challenge is simply meaningless.

I would also like to know what sort of challenge will be accepted by you? My concern here is that you will not agree to a comparatively mundane demonstration of a claimants "paranormal" powers. That is to say that I am
concerned that you will draw up the rules and conditions in such a way so as to make the claimants task that much harder, and hence, in effect, make the challenge impossible to win. What have you to say to this?

As I understand it, the test protocols must be agreed as fair by both the JREF and the applicant before the testing commences. If the applicant is concerned that the proposed rules are unfair, he withholds approval. In the event that either party is unsure as to whether the proposed rules are fair or not, they may confer with others for advice, as long as the involvement of these new participants is mutually agreed.

Ian Wardell



Message text written by "Mr Enigmatic"

>Given that there may be disagreement, *somebody* has to >decide whether the contestant has demonstrated the >phenomenon in question.

Never. If a claimant says he can guess at least 18 out of 20 playing cards correctly, and that has to be HIS decision, for example, the rules are drawn up this way: AND in advance, everyone signing off on them, agreeing.

1 correct = failure

2 correct = failure

3 correct = failure

4 correct = failure

5 correct = failure

6 correct = failure

7 correct = failure

8 correct = failure

9 correct = failure

10 correct = failure

11 correct = failure

12 correct = failure

13 correct = failure

14 correct = failure

15 correct = failure

16 correct = failure

17 correct = failure

18 correct =success

19 correct = success

20 correct = success


Now, suppose the claimant makes the 20 guesses, and gets 14 correct. Look at the table. That means a "failure." You follow?
No argument, no judging, no doubt. Understand? WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?

>It is *imperative* that an independent body decides whether >the claimant has passed/failed the challenge, otherwise the >challenge is simply meaningless.

No, IT IS NOT! There IS NO DECISIUON TO BE MADE! The results are self-evident. Wrong is wrong, right is right!

>I would also like to know what sort of challenge will be accepted >by you?

Thousands of kinds. Specify. But first, read the rules. Yes, you said you did. This time, try to understand them.

>My concern here is that you will not agree to a comparatively >mundane demonstration of a claimants "paranormal" powers.


Hey, that's RIGHT! Why would I? If a man says he can play the violin, merely stroking the bow across the strings will not suffice. We would have an agreed-upon set of things he would have to do. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE IDEA?

>That is to say that I am concerned that you will draw up the >rules and conditions in such a way so as to make the claimants >task that much harder, and hence, in effect, make the challenge >impossible to win.

READ THE DAMN RULES! I don't "draw up" ANYTHING! The CLAIMANT does! So long as an independant group -- of HIS choosing -- decides that the rules and conditions are adequate to prove the claim, WE DO IT!

Well, this seems to fly in the face of Randi's oft quoted remarks about the protocols being designed by both the JREF and the applicant.

>What have you to say to this?<

That's it. You seem incredibly slow to understand all this, "Enigmatic." You should change your name to "Dense."

James Randi

Randi




Dear Mr Randi,

The reason why I first contacted you was because so called "skeptics" continually refer to the failure to win the $1 million challenge to justify their "skepticism". My concern here is that this "skepticism" extends to their rejection, not just of the "wild" claims regarding the paranormal, but also of the existence of any phenomena falling within the purview of that particular subset of paranormal phenomena referred to as parapsychology. However, I cannot but conclude that the
failure of anyone to win the challenge has little if any implications for this phenomena, both because people taking the challenge generally attempt to demonstrate abilities/phenomena not encompassed by this subject matter, and more importantly because, they attempt to demonstrate phenomena/abilities way beyond what parapsychological studies suggest can be easily replicated in any case. I therefore ask you whether you would agree that the failure of anyone to meet the challenge has absolutely zero implications for the existence of that particular type of phenomena which parapsychologists study?

Now to address the contents of your last e-mail. The playing card example you cite conceivably may be deemed to be pretty clear cut on the question of whether a claimant has passed the
challenge, but I did state "I have my reservations whether results
will *inevitably* (emphasis as in original) be self-evident to all
observers". I wasn't suggesting that you would be unable to think of a challenge of the top of his head where the results were unambiguous!

I also find your assertion that it is the *claimant's* (emphasis as
in original) decision that he can guess correctly 18 cards out of 20
somewhat implausible. Leaving aside whether you are talking about "playing cards", and whether the claimant knows which 20 cards these are, why should he decide that he can guess 18? I mean think of the astronomical odds!
Those are perfectly acceptable odds to someone who has absolute confidence in his supernatural abilities and is totally convinced he will take the million.
Why should he not stipulate that he can guess just say 1 out of the 20 cards if it is purely *his* (the testees) decision?
Besides which, you directly contradict yourself here when you affirm that you will not agree to a comparatively mundane demonstration of a claimants abilities. Mind you, you then contradict yourself *yet again* when you assert "READ THE DAMN RULES! I don't "draw up" ANYTHING! The CLAIMANT does"! If you do not draw up *ANYTHING*, and in fact the claimant does, then, in the card
example, there would be nothing to prevent the claimant from drawing up the rules in the following way:

0 = fail (correct/incorrect inapplicable).

1 correct = success

2 correct = success

3 correct = success

4 correct = success

5 correct = success

6 correct = success

7 correct = success

8 correct = success

9 correct = success

10 correct = success

11 correct = success

12 correct = success

13 correct = success

14 correct = success

15 correct = success

16 correct = success

17 correct = success

18 correct =success

19 correct = success

20 correct = success

I await your reply with interest.

Ian


END OF RANDI EXCHANGE [/B]