Zammit

[Kess]

I just visited Victor Zammit's site (www.victorzammit.com) to see what he had to say about wanting to cancel the planned testing of Chris Robinson (apparently he "advised Chris to pull out because his success would make these debunkers look like fools" - nice of him to wish to avoid hurting Randi's feelings).

Anyway, what really prompted this post is Zammit's subsequent bizarre/sick comments about those killed by the terrorist bombs in Spain:
"Inevitably those who have knowledge of the afterlife would have a much easier crossing over and would be able to operate normally within a reasonably very short time in the afterlife dimension. Others ignorant of afterlife matters will take longer to adjust to the new conditions. We have it from excellent sources that in the afterlife, it is known beforehand when people will be crossing over and there will be spirit helpers to help as much as they can with the transition from the physical to the spiritual world."
Is he for real? I'm surprised he didn't go all the way and suggest that grieving relatives should head straight for their nearest medium. And what about that comment that "in the afterlife it is known beforehand when people will be crossing over" - perhaps a word of warning would've been nice...

[Kopji]

Well, I think he does not like Mr Randi:
...And inevitably they will CHEAT, LIE and DECEIVE to protect their asses.

Fact is, the asses are well cared for in a corral near Blythe California, and have no need of various methods of deception.

Zammit's real diabolical plan, (revealed by his minion), is to try and steal skeptical women from JREF and start a colony on Norfolk Island.

Zammit's proposals for how Randi's $1 million challenge could be changed to be made acceptable to himself is a good measure of his mindset. yeah, I have a feeling this has already been discussed.

From zammit:

For a realistic and practical challenge the following minimal conditions have to be observed:

the challenge be absolutely and unqualifiedly subject to the jurisdiction of the courts (some acceptable redrafting of the skeptic's offer would be essential).

the offerer's initial test (before the main psychic demonstration) be dispensed with in the case of accredited psychics.

that on successful completion of a psychic demonstration the monies be handed over to the psychic demonstrator forthwith ie, immediately after the applicant has fulfilled the fundamental condition of the challenge.

that the offerer not be anywhere where the psychic phenomenon is being demonstrated. This is because the offeror is technically an intruding negative extraneous variable and will inevitably make nugatory otherwise successful psychic tests - he exudes too much negativity for sensitives to operate properly. The offerer to appoint his agent acceptable to the applicant. He of course could watch and conduct the proceedings through closed circuit television.

that at the time of meeting the challenge the conduct of the agent be neutral - specifically, no gratuitous aggression, no hostility or any other socially unacceptable conduct that would be construed to be an intrusion to the testing. Aggression precipitates negative vibrations which interferes with optimum psychic activity.

that the challenger allows agents of the applicants to negotiate on behalf of the applicant at all times.

that any envisaged changes to any of the agreed procedures or conditions be given in advance with 21 days notice in writing.

that any experimentation be jointly controlled and agreement reached that there will be absolutely no interference whosoever during the performance of the psychic.

that written agreement as to what will constitute a successful demonstration of psychic phenomenon be made at least three weeks prior to any demonstration.


For all the yap yap yap about the meaning of 'skeptic' being open minded, he clearly has already decided and is presupposing the 'afterlife' conclusion.

So by his own definition, posted all over his site, he is not a skeptic at all.

And it is after all, Randi's money, why should the courts have a say in it? Only because Zammit's huge ego equates himself with knowing Truth.

Probably some genuine insanity here... he might be a dangerous guy, or harmless. People who view themselves as ultimate jury and judge are capable of much.

[princhester]

I think you'll find Kopji that a court could already become involved in the awarding of the prize. Nothing about the existing challenge rules attempts to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts as far as awarding the prize is concerned, which is the main thing. Often I have seen detractors suggest that Rule 7 has that effect, but they ignore the last sentence:

"When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize. "

Emphasis added.

This rule is only to stop actions for injuries etc incurred in testing, a common term in any ordinary business contract.

Zammit may be a lawyer, but he's either an inept one or not intellectually honest.

[Kopji]

princhester
Thanks. The impression I got was that bring the courts into it would serve the same purpose the 'escrow' account does. Since he is a lawyer maybe it's just more ego talking.

Btw, does Zammit offer his million in a reserved account?

Zammit is from Australia, and some laws seems quite different than in the US. This does not however, seem to prevent him from pontificating as if he knew all about US law...

Mostly though, how could he decide if being disagreeable had any effect on psychic ability if he did not already believe in it? By his own definition he is not a true skeptic.

[princhester]

Well Kopji, I'm a lawyer, and an Australian one at that. There are certainly some differences between Aust. and US law but on basic areas of principle (contract interpretation and enforceability) I don't think there's too much difference. Basically I think when it comes to Zammit, we are talking about a woo woo first and foremost, and a lawyer a very very distant second.

[Kess]

There's some great material on Victor's site. From the "About Victor" page:
Victor was initially suspicious of the New Age Movement for its blatant commercial exploitation of people’s basic instinctual tendency for spiritual development. However he did have a number of psychic/spiritual experiences which set him questioning, reading and researching. Adopting a scientific criterion, Victor was able to select that information which could withstand and pass the many rigid tests of objectivity.So he considers himself scientific, yet offers a $1million to anyone who can prove there is no afterlife, i.e. prove a negative.

And he reckons that if science can confirm "one aspect of psychic phenomena to be valid, genuine and acceptable THEN ALL OTHER PSI ... inevitably are valid and have to be accepted as genuine". Huh?

And he is/was a Australian lawyer of some prominence (well, "Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the New South Wales and the High Court of Australia" does sound rather impressive). Scary.

[princhester]

Yeah, and I'm a "Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland and the High Court of Australia".

It just means he's an Australian lawyer. You know an Australian lawyer is a try-hard wanker when he tries to use the above formulation to impress people.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Kess
There's some great material on Victor's site. From the "About Victor" page:
So he considers himself scientific, yet offers a $1million to anyone who can prove there is no afterlife, i.e. prove a negative. For the nth time, THERE IS NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT PROVING A NEGATIVE!

[Kess]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For the nth time, THERE IS NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT PROVING A NEGATIVE! [/B]Well, OK, you can prove negative statements like "black is not white" or "2 + 2 does not equal 5".

But how could anyone possibly prove that there is no afterlife?

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
For the nth time, THERE IS NOTHING IMPOSSIBLE ABOUT PROVING A NEGATIVE! [/B]

That reminds me you still haven't proved that your posts don't cause cancer.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Victor Zammit: "Inevitably those who have knowledge of the afterlife would have a much easier crossing over and would be able to operate normally within a reasonably very short time in the afterlife dimension. Others ignorant of afterlife matters will take longer to adjust to the new conditions.

Yeah, right. And who or what exactly determines who is ignorant and who is not? A group of lawyers, with Zammit on the panel? Saint Peter? Are the "crossers-over" interviewed, or are their minds read and put on record prior to "crossing over"?

We have it from excellent sources that in the afterlife, it is known beforehand when people will be crossing over and there will be spirit helpers to help as much as they can with the transition from the physical to the spiritual world."

What excellent sources? John Edward? Sylvia Browne? Winston Wu? Gary Schwarz? Oh - I think I know: Either it's Victor Zammit himself, as his brain certainly has been known to cross over soon - if it hasn't already done so, or it's a message from Montague Keen, which just proves there is an afterlife!

If a moron like Zammit believes his own crap, why doesn't he just recommend all grievers and bereft ones to commit suicide - after all, they would have nothing to lose and would be able to join up with their loved ones once again. Oh, I forgot - then the psychics couldn't charge the bereft ones extortionate amounts for their "services".

If Zammit really was a lawyer (BTW has anyone checked the veracity of his puported credentials?) I'm glad I've never had to deal with him.

I'll go on record here and for the first time in a public forum I'll refer to someone, in a simple ad hominem attack, in this case Victor Zammit, due to his support of predatorial "psychics", as an idiot.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
If Zammit really was a lawyer (BTW has anyone checked the veracity of his puported credentials?) I'm glad I've never had to deal with him.

If you search on his name on Google, there are a few mentions of him as being a lawyer, although it's hard to tell if the source is in every case him.

[Zep]

I have done a fair amount of research in the past on Zammit, the lawyer, and yes, he HAS represented at least one person as a legal representative. I say that because I can find only ONE case in the official on-line case law database where he is mentioned (Princhester, you may be able to find more, I suspect).

However he says he has officially given up his law practice (although his term for this is "retired") to concentrate on "afterlife research". Now that sounds like a really sensible decision, :) doesn't it! :)

[princhester]

Well Zep if he practiced in corporate law as he says, his name would rarely if ever be mentioned in case notes. In fact, solicitors are very rarely mentioned in case notes at all. If you can find one reference to him, that's one more than you'd find for me, and I'm a litigator and have been for 14 years.

[dann]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Inevitably those who have knowledge of the afterlife would have a much easier crossing over and would be able to operate normally within a reasonably very short time in the afterlife dimension. Others ignorant of afterlife matters will take longer to adjust to the new conditions. We have it from excellent sources that in the afterlife, it is known beforehand when people will be crossing over and there will be spirit helpers to help as much as they can with the transition from the physical to the spiritual world."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds very convincing to me!
Isn't it inevitable that people with knowledge of Santa Claus find it so much easier to adapt to the fact that their rooms are suddenly full of Christmas presents and nobody seems to have entered through the door?
Isn't it true that people with knowledge of vampires are so much better at warding off vampire attacks because they see to it that their pantries never run out of garlic and crucifixes?
Isn't it typical that in countries with no general knowledge of the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy, you hardly ever find coloured eggs in your garden or coins left on your bedside table? (NO! Bank notes left on your bedside table is something else!)
How many people suffer from insomnia merely because they haven't heard of the sandman?
And don't even get me started on the disastrous effects that ignorance of the stork and its influence on human reproduction has had on the birth rate in Denmark!