Snappy Retorts To Lame Excuses For Not Taking The Challenge

[Peter Morris]

Really?

The assertions I have made:

1) Your list is a work of fiction. You have invented 'excuses' that nobody ever gave.

2) You have refused to include and answer actual excuses that real people have given.


These are proven facts, Larsen.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Really?

The assertions I have made:

1) Your list is a work of fiction. You have invented 'excuses' that nobody ever gave.


And when shown that such excuses were actually made, you when off on irrelevant tangents.

Your assertions are completely unproven.

[Peter Morris]

Your usual BS.

Somebody gave a cite that was slightly similar to one item on Larsen's list. but even then not quite the same. Somebody said the money has "bad energy." I've yet to see any cite for fsomeone saying the money has a "curse" as Larsen reports. Let alone a cite for Sylvia Browne saying anything similar, as was attributed to her.

The rest of the items on Larsen's list, he has no cite for. They are made up.

My assertions are completely proven.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Somebody gave a cite that was slightly similar to one item on Larsen's list. but even then not quite the same. Somebody said the money has "bad energy." I've yet to see any cite for fsomeone saying the money has a "curse" as Larsen reports. Let alone a cite for Sylvia Browne saying anything similar, as was attributed to her.


I see, your such a blatant nitpicker that 'bad energy' is somehow totally foreign to 'curse'. That's pretty weak.

So spare us the usual Morris spin, it has a poor track record.

[Peter Morris]

No, Kook. Randi fanatics have provided a cite for ONE item on the list. The rest have been made up. Even that one item has been distorted.


But, as usual, you don't let facts get in the way of your cosy self-delusions.


The facts remain:

1) Most of the items on the list have been made up, or at least distorted.

2) Larsen has refused to include actual stated reasons given by real people.

These are proven facts.

[Dr Adequate]

You still whining on?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]No, Kook. Randi fanatics have provided a cite for ONE item on the list. The rest have been made up. Even that one item has been distorted.


That is unproven by you.

Claus Larsen started this thread on the basis that there are common lame excuses people use to avoid the challenge, and some suggestions of what replies counter them. He asked for feedback and examples of excuses. Feedback was given from people who had encountered excuses.

Claus then wrote an article. It was not laden with cites becuase it was not that kind of article. It didn't neeed to be, this stuff wasn't made up. This stuff has been encountered before.

Along comes Peter Morris, a spoiled whiney child who complains because the article is not written the way he wants. He misuses the fact that the excuses are not taken verbatim to incorrectly call the excuses "straw man" a misuse of the fallacy. Peter demans cites for every single excuse, when they are given, he ignores them or simply moves the goal posts. Peter also complains that "real excuses" are being ignored, but the evidence he provides comes from internet kooks known for negotiating in bad faith.

That is all there is.

[Ashles]

The facts remain:

1) Most of the items on the list have been made up, or at least distorted.

2) Larsen has refused to include actual stated reasons given by real people.

These are proven facts.

1) They haven't been made up as I have seen many of them before as have many other people on this site.
I have no inclination to cite proof of this solely for you Peter Morris so whether you believe this or not is entirely irrelevant. We are not talking about scientific claims or anything of the sort here. This isn't something that requires any great level of proof to back up.
Lots of people claim paranormal abilities, most don't apply for testing. A variety of reasons are given. Those are proven facts.
Larsen's list in my experience is pretty representative of some of the excuses given.

So your 1) is not a 'Proven fact' until you can prove that no-one has ever said these things - good luck with that.

2) The best example you have given involves a disagreement of protocol betwen Australian Sceptics and the claimant.

This isn't a 'lame' excuse (can you actually read the title of the thread Peter), it's a fair enough one, along with "I tested myself again properly and discovered I couldn't really do what I claimed".
Although generally when someone can't agree a protocol it does appear that it is because Randi's protocol is preventing them from cheating consciously or unconsciously as mentioned earlier on this thread.

So if you try reading through the thread again perhaps you will come to understand that Larsen wasn't trying to make a full and detailed list of every reason ever for pulling out, but a 'highlight' list of the lame ones.

If you haven't encountered these lame excuses before then all I can say is I don't really care anywhere near enough to hunt them down for you.

Why you keep whining about it is really the biggest mystery around here.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The facts remain:

1) Most of the items on the list have been made up, or at least distorted.

2) Larsen has refused to include actual stated reasons given by real people.

These are proven facts.

By second-hand anecdote? Your standards of proof need a wee bit of strengthening.

[Peter Morris]

So your 1) is not a 'Proven fact' until you can prove that no-one has ever said these things - good luck with that.

Well, you are making the claim that people said these things. It's up to you to supply the proof. The fact that you have admitted your inability to provide cites speaks volumes.

I think none of you have ever seen this. You only have hearsay that someone made these excuse. And you have deluded yourselves into thinking you've seen it first hand. Randi fans have a great capacity for self-delusion.

This isn't a 'lame' excuse (can you actually read the title of the thread Peter), it's a fair enough one,

Exactly. It's a fair enough one. And Larsen refuses to include fair enough ones in his fawning list. Point proved.

along with "I tested myself again properly and discovered I couldn't really do what I claimed".

That isn't exactly what he said. He said he tested himself under the conditions offered bt Kramer, and couldn't get it to work under those precise conditions. He still thinks he can dowse, under different conditions, but knows he won't succeed in Randi's test.

Originally posted by Ashles


So if you try reading through the thread again perhaps you will come to understand that Larsen wasn't trying to make a full and detailed list of every reason ever for pulling out, but a 'highlight' list of the lame ones.

And if you try reading through the thread again you will see that that is exactly what I'm objecting to. Larsen has highlighted the 'lame' excuses. His article isn't a serious attempt to examine the reason why people refuse Randi's test. It is a dishonest attempt to make Randi's opponents look 'lame.' So, he highlights the 'lame' excuses, and refuses to include those that sound more reasonable. Larsen isn't interested in truth or accuracy - he just wants another fawning article saying how great Randi is, and how lame his opponents are. To acheive this end he has slanted the facts, and omitted the ones that contradict him.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
People are asked why they don't take Randi's challenge. They reply : I tried to negotiate with him, I was unable to agree on a suitable protocol with him.


Of the Examples given you have shown a dowser who had trouble with the Australian skeptics, but was still in negotiations with Kramer when he withdrew. Poor example, since negotiations were still in progress.

You included John Benneth, with whom a protocol was properly negotiated. But Benneth was negotiating in bad faith. Poor example.

You even have listed yourself. But by your own admission you had not the powers you claimed. You were negotiating in bad faith. Poor example.



But that excuse sounds reasonable. Larsen only wants 'lame' excuses, so he refuses to include that one. He doesn't want to acknowledge that people might havea valid reason for not taking Randi's test.


Unproven by you. But feel free to write your own article. Its seems that Bruce Kettler has passed on, maybe you can take up the Benneth torch.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

You even have listed yourself. But by your own admission you had not the powers you claimed. You were negotiating in bad faith. Poor example.
.

The Kook is lying again.

I never claimed "powers."


What a deluded moron.

[kookbreaker]

Wrong , but also irrelevant. The point is that you were trying to take a challenge designed to find alleged powers without even the benefit of believing that you had such abilities. You were attempting an end-run. When Randi figured that out, he cut off negotiations.

You were negotiating in bad faith.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
You were negotiating in bad faith.

Tsk, tsk. Wrong tense.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Wrong , but also irrelevant. The point is that you were trying to take a challenge designed to find alleged powers without even the benefit of believing that you had such abilities. You were attempting an end-run. When Randi figured that out, he cut off negotiations.

You were negotiating in bad faith.

Bull. You'e lying again.

I have never made false claims, unlike you. I have never claimed a paranormal ability, nor any ability that I don't have.

[Ashles]

Well, you are making the claim that people said these things. It's up to you to supply the proof. The fact that you have admitted your inability to provide cites speaks volumes.
This isn't a claim for the JREF prize (or any sort of prize). If we were trying to prove this for monetary reward or to the world in general then, yes we would hunt around and find the quotes. Just for you Peter? No.
I think none of you have ever seen this. You only have hearsay that someone made these excuse. And you have deluded yourselves into thinking you've seen it first hand. Randi fans have a great capacity for self-delusion.
Generalisation, assumption, unfounded claims... hang on don't you HATE all those things Peter? Aren't they exactly what you're moaning about? Aren't you being a hypocrite here?
Don't try to tell me what I have or haven't read because you start to look even more foolish and embittered than you already do.
That isn't exactly what he said. He said he tested himself under the conditions offered bt Kramer, and couldn't get it to work under those precise conditions. He still thinks he can dowse, under different conditions, but knows he won't succeed in Randi's test.
Well let's just see what the man ACTUALLY said himself (before going through the Peter Morris Magical Reinterpretation Mincing Machine):
I was very confident that I could dowse sulfide mineralisation under all conditions but today I did an extensive blind-fold test with work colleagues and the results were all over the place.

Candour in this situation is probably the best approach. I am not ready to submit to a test and so I am forced to withdraw my challenge, or, at least, postpone it. I am, however, still intrigued by dowsing.

No criticism of Kramer or the request. Merely a failure under conditions conducted by his own work colleagues.
What you mean by "precise conditions" Peter? That he can't look at the terrain? Is that an unreasonable request?
He also declares that he needs to investigate more as to whether he can dowse or not - he feels he is on the right track but needs to investigate further.
There is nothing in his statements or inference that it is Randi (or anyone else's) unfair restrictions that are making him fail. You will remember that it was nothing to do with any sceptic organisation tha he failed his own test.

Larsen has highlighted the 'lame' excuses. His article isn't a serious attempt to examine the reason why people refuse Randi's test. It is a dishonest attempt to make Randi's opponents look 'lame.' So, he highlights the 'lame' excuses, and refuses to include those that sound more reasonable. Larsen isn't interested in truth or accuracy - he just wants another fawning article saying how great Randi is, and how lame his opponents are. To acheive this end he has slanted the facts, and omitted the ones that contradict him.
Well it's his article to slant however he wishes. He does not claim to be writing EVERY excuse put down, he is just detailing some of the more interesting and controversial ones.
"I withdraw because I can't actually do it when I tested myself" would actually make the applicants look pretty lame anyway (why don't they try this before applying).
Would adding this to the list make the claimants look any less foolish? I don't think so. Maybe slightly less fraudulent, but it wouldn't alter the tone of the list in any particular way.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

I have never made false claims, unlike you. I have never claimed a paranormal ability, nor any ability that I don't have.

Then why were you applying for a challenge specifically made for testing paranormal abilities?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Then why were you applying for a challenge specifically made for testing paranormal abilities?

One also needs to wonder why Peter Morris felt the need to check on what he thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:lIVvhp0iqooJ:groups.tutorgig.com/g/misc.legal/138481+peter+morris+JREF&hl=en)

Interesting sidelight, no?

[BillHoyt]

I hear the zen-like sounds of many mice clicking...

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
One also needs to wonder why Peter Morris felt the need to check on what he thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit. (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:lIVvhp0iqooJ:groups.tutorgig.com/g/misc.legal/138481+peter+morris+JREF&hl=en)

Interesting sidelight, no?

That's just plain sad.

Better Link here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=408D9155.EE589BED%40sprintmail.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26q%3DPeter% 2BMorris%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dmisc.legal.*)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
That's just plain sad.

Better Link here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=408D9155.EE589BED%40sprintmail.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26q%3DPeter% 2BMorris%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dmisc.legal.*)

Thanks, kookbreaker, I was trying to find the full thread, but only came up with that cached bit. It is sad, isn't it, but it is also clear nobody bought his concern-for-JREF ruse.

Slinker likes hobbitses, yesssssss.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


That isn't exactly what he said. He said he tested himself under the conditions offered bt Kramer, and couldn't get it to work under those precise conditions. He still thinks he can dowse, under different conditions, but knows he won't succeed in Randi's test.



Well, i think you did not describe what he said either, because in the challenge application i read:

"Dear Carl,
Please suggest a test protocol that you feel can best and most easily verify your sulfide mineralization claim. - KRAMER, JREF
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Kramer,
I will need to be taken to areas where there is known sulfide mineralization but be denied any information as to its location. I will probably have to be blindfolded, because even the location of blind deposits (mineralization with no surface expression) might be guessed from the distribution of surface hole drills.

A panel of independent geologists could be formed to select appropriate test sites. Western Australia is well endowed with gold, nickel, copper and zinc mineralization and would be an ideal place to do the test. There is also a large community of exploration and mining geologists in Perth for you to chose from, and who would be very interested in the results. - Carl Brauhart

=============================================="

So Kramer did not suggest any test protocol for the mineral dowsing, he asks for one the claimant thinks good, the claimant gives some ideas and based on his own ideas the claimant makes and fails a test.

So correct version of your above statement is "He said he tested himself under the conditions offered bt himself, and couldn't get it to work under those precise conditions."

Carn

[Peter Morris]

Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

Talking to yourself?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

Word games? There are no word games here.

Brauhart was very specific: He himself designed a test, which he failed.

Do you still stand by your claim that he was tested under conditions "offered" by Kramer?

Why were you applying for a challenge specifically made for testing paranormal abilities?

Why did you feel the need to check on what you thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit?

Is it fair to say that you bear a grudge against JREF and Randi in particular?

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

Peter Morris couldn't recognize a FACT if it was tied to his own butt, with cowbells on it.

This is like trying to play baseball with a parapalegic.

I mean, really; what's the point?

OK, it's entertaining (laughable, in fact), but just how many times can you watch the same old reruns?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Peter Morris couldn't recognize a FACT if it was tied to his own butt, with cowbells on it.

This is like trying to play baseball with a parapalegic.

I mean, really; what's the point?

OK, it's entertaining (laughable, in fact), but just how many times can you watch the same old reruns?

Oh, he recognizes it just fine. He just has a different agenda than he lets on.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

I see Peter is down to his "one-line spitting retreat" mode.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, he recognizes it just fine. He just has a different agenda than he lets on.

How do you translate "I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you" into Danish?

[Ashles]

I like word games - let me rearrange the letters in the following sentence:

'Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.'

I rearrange them and get

'I really mucked up this argument. The actual text from the claimant entirely disagrees with what I was claiming. Why didn't I just quit while I was behind? Now I look really foolish. I'd better just toss out a random and meaningless sentence then disappear from this thread.'

I think I did it right.

It certainly looks the same to me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
How do you translate "I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you" into Danish?

"Jeg er chokeret! Virkelig chokeret!"

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Jeg er chokeret! Virkelig chokeret!"

okay, i'll stick to writing, not pronouncing, it.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Play stupid word games all you like, it's not going to change the facts.

So you think its irrelevant whether the dowser failed a test required by JREF or a test he devised himself?

Carn

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Word games? There are no word games here.

That's all you got, liar.

Brauhart was very specific: He himself designed a test, which he failed.

Do you still stand by your claim that he was tested under conditions "offered" by Kramer? [b]

Well, liar, here we see your word game. I didn't claim that he was tested at all.

Why were you applying for a challenge specifically made for testing paranormal abilities?

Desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

But since you raise it, you ought to direct your hate at Randi. It was his idea, not mine. He made a point of claiming it as a test for paranormal ability. His bad, not mine.

Why did you feel the need to check on what you thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit? =

desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

And is there any reason why I shouldn'#t ask?

Is it fair to say that you bear a grudge against JREF and Randi in particular? [/QUOTE]

Now, liar, are you going to :
- eliminate the fictional items from your list
- include the real ones that people commonly give

or will you continue to lie?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
That's all you got, liar.

We shall see if I am a liar.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, liar, here we see your word game. I didn't claim that he was tested at all.

I was talking about the test he did by himself:

I was very confident that I could dowse sulfide mineralisation under all conditions but today I did an extensive blind-fold test with work colleagues and the results were all over the place.

Candour in this situation is probably the best approach. I am not ready to submit to a test and so I am forced to withdraw my challenge

So far, I'm not a liar.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

But since you raise it, you ought to direct your hate at Randi. It was his idea, not mine. He made a point of claiming it as a test for paranormal ability. His bad, not mine.

Did he force you to apply?

So far, I'm not a liar.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

And is there any reason why I shouldn'#t ask?

I asked you a question: Why did you feel the need to check on what you thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit?

Please answer it.

So far, I'm not a liar.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Now, liar, are you going to :
- eliminate the fictional items from your list

There are no fictional items on the list.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
- include the real ones that people commonly give

You have not been able to show that these are the "real ones" that people "commonly" give. And you don't tell me what I put in my articles.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
or will you continue to lie?

So far, I'm not a liar.

Please answer the question: Is it fair to say that you bear a grudge against JREF and Randi in particular?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We shall see if I am a liar We've seen it already.
The fact that you have lied repeatedly throughout this thread proves that you are a liar.

I mean, you aren't even a very bright liar. Only an idiot would claim that he had evidence of the curse on the money.

Then to deny that you had said that was almost as stupid, considering your words were a matter of record.



I was talking about the test he did by himself:


wordgame weasel out. Liar.

Did he force you to apply?

Hoooo, boy. That is the single dumbest question I've ever seen in my life.

No, Larsren, he did not force me to apply. I chose to contact him because :

1) I recongnised the fact that he was lying, and this seemed like a good way of demonstrating that fact. He didn't force me to expose his lies. It was an entirely voluntary act on my part. Only my own sense of honesty forced me to do that.

2) I wanted to find out first hand what happens to someone trying to negotiate a protocol. Again, Randi didn't force me to do so. If he actually puiblished details of past applications I wouldn't have needed to, but he didn't force me. It was my own curuousity, and desire for accuracy. This concept must seem peculiar to you, Larsen, in contrast to your list of made up excuses that nobody ever offered.


I asked you a question: Why did you feel the need to check on what you thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit?

What a desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Is it any of your business why I asked a question on another forum?


There are no fictional items on the list.

Then why is it impossible to provide cites for them.

You have not been able to show that these are the "real ones" that people "commonly" give. And you don't tell me what I put in my articles.

I have given cites for them. You have not. Mine have at least one instance of someone giveing them. Yours are simply made up.


Please answer the question: Is it fair to say that you bear a grudge against JREF and Randi in particular?


Not at all. Why would I have a grudge? What makes you think that?

For me to bear a grudge, Randi would have had to do me some personal harm. He never has. Apart from the offense he has caused through his vile personality, and the annoyance he has caused by repeatedly spreading incorrect information.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
We've seen it already.
The fact that you have lied repeatedly throughout this thread proves that you are a liar.

I mean, you aren't even a very bright liar. Only an idiot would claim that he had evidence of the curse on the money.

Only an idiot would claim that I said I had evidence of the curse on the money.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Then to deny that you had said that was almost as stupid, considering your words were a matter of record.

Hey, show me where I said that there was a curse on the money!

Originally posted by Peter Morris
wordgame weasel out. Liar.

Nope. He did a test, he failed. No suggestions from Kramer, like you claimed.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Hoooo, boy. That is the single dumbest question I've ever seen in my life.

No, Larsren, he did not force me to apply. I chose to contact him because :

1) I recongnised the fact that he was lying, and this seemed like a good way of demonstrating that fact. He didn't force me to expose his lies. It was an entirely voluntary act on my part. Only my own sense of honesty forced me to do that.

2) I wanted to find out first hand what happens to someone trying to negotiate a protocol. Again, Randi didn't force me to do so. If he actually puiblished details of past applications I wouldn't have needed to, but he didn't force me. It was my own curuousity, and desire for accuracy. This concept must seem peculiar to you, Larsen, in contrast to your list of made up excuses that nobody ever offered.

So, nobody forced you. And you lied when you claimed to have paranormal abilities. Way to go.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What a desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Is it any of your business why I asked a question on another forum?

Yes. When you come on this board and start raving about how baaaaaaad Randi is and how baaaaaaad the Challenge is, then it is everybody's business here why you asked a question on another forum. Now, answer the question:

Why did you feel the need to check on what you thought was the illegality of Randi starting a lawsuit?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Then why is it impossible to provide cites for them.

It isn't. I already showed you one. And I have explained that they are examples.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I have given cites for them. You have not. Mine have at least one instance of someone giveing them. Yours are simply made up.

You can believe that, and you will, no matter what evidence is put before you.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Not at all. Why would I have a grudge? What makes you think that?

For me to bear a grudge, Randi would have had to do me some personal harm. He never has. Apart from the offense he has caused through his vile personality, and the annoyance he has caused by repeatedly spreading incorrect information.

No, he wouldn't have had to do you some personal harm. All he would have to do is see through your charade. Which he did. And we all do.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]Only an idiot would claim that I said I had evidence of the curse on the money.

Hey, show me where I said that there was a curse on the money!


I listed the exact words a while back. look them up, if you like:

It went approximately like this.

Peter : Here's some direct quotes from a dowser that says Randi's behaviour blocks test negotiations. Put that on your list, Larsen.

Larsen : I'd love to, but where's the evidence.

Peter : Why do you want evidence? You didn't demand evidence when a psychic claimed there was a curse.

Larsen : I've got evidence of the curse. Where's the evidence of dowsing.

Peter : You confuse me. What evidence do you mean? Is it:

1) you want evidence that the dowser said this, and you claim you have evidence the psychic said this?

2) you want evidence that dowsing works, and you claim evidence of psychic powers

3) you want evidence that Randi really is unreasonable, and claim that you have evidence there really is a curse

Larsen : No, I'm not asking for proof he said this. no I'm not asking for proof that dowsing works. It's no 3. Prove that Randi is unreasonable. And I have already given evidence of the curse.

Repeat several times. Larsen repeatedly claiming proof of a curse.


So, nobody forced you. And you lied when you claimed to have paranormal abilities. Way to go.

And Larsen lies again.

I never claimed paranormal abilities, you liar.


I quote the thing you said, and point out they are lies.

You make up stuff I never said, and claim that makes me as dishonest as you.

Pathetic. Simply pathetic.


Larsen, you've dodged the question several times.

Why did you demand "evidence" of the reasons I listed? Does a claim need to be true before it goes on your list?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I listed the exact words a while back. look them up, if you like:

It went approximately like this.

And I just did a search of the JREF forum. I searched for "CFLarsen" using the words "cursed" and "Morris" in a post. Read the posts. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. He quoted someone else who made a hypothetical statement. Do you want that quote again? I'm not sure it would help you. The last times you quoted it back you obviously didn't understand it.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]You don't trust what people have said, why should anyone attach any significance to what you post?

Because there is a difference between arguments and evidence.

Nobody knows if you are really "Peter Morris". Prove it.

And exactly how is whether Peter is Peter germane to the argument?

Claus, sometimes you are not the most convincing advocate in the sceptic cause.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen O.....K. So, you don't believe in dowsing. Then, no such evidence can exist. Then, you cannot have any complaints about Randi.

Jesus Cwist on a Cwutch, Claus.

Why don't you just paint a target on your chest, hand Peter a gun and say shoot me?

Peter may have his peccadillos, but displaying this sort of non-logic ain't helping.

[princhester]

So anyway Peter, do you or do you not think that it is appropriate to interpret what people say in the context of the overall subject they are talking about?

Yes or no?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I listed the exact words a while back. look them up, if you like:

It went approximately like this.

No. We all know about your "approximations", they turn out to be falsehoods. Show me the exact quote.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I never claimed paranormal abilities, you liar.

So, you are a simple fraud, trying to scam a million bucks?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Why did you demand "evidence" of the reasons I listed? Does a claim need to be true before it goes on your list?

Already answered.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No. We all know about your "approximations", they turn out to be falsehoods. Show me the exact quote.

Plenty of them. Here's just one example.


Peter :
Why wont you include genuine comments from actual claimants in your list?

What is the "evidence" that you want. Some evidence that
- is missing from the dowsers statement
- yet present in the claim that the money is cursed.

You refuse to include the dowsers statement because you say there is no evidence.

You include the cursed money because there IS evidence.

Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

Larsen:

It's in my post. "Annet Kofoed".

Now, where is the evidence of dowsing you spoke of?

----------------------------

There you are, liar. A demand that I prove dowsing true, while claiming that you had proved the curse true. And you did this over and over.

Real dumb thing for you to say, but nobody ever thought you were smart.

So, you are a simple fraud, trying to scam a million bucks?

Larsen, This concept may be hard for you to understand, but I exposed Randi as a liar. We all know how you fawn over him and excuse his lies. We all know how you lie to excuse him, and yourself.

I have told the truth all the way. Exposing Randi's lies does not make me an fraud.



Already answered. [/B]

Then you won't have any problem answering it again.

Why did you demand "evidence" of the reasons I listed? Does a claim need to be true before it goes on your list?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
There you are, liar. A demand that I prove dowsing true, while claiming that you had proved the curse true. And you did this over and over.

Real dumb thing for you to say, but nobody ever thought you were smart.

ehh.......Peter? I referred to my post about Kofoed. Where, exactly, did I claim that the money is cursed?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen, This concept may be hard for you to understand, but I exposed Randi as a liar. We all know how you fawn over him and excuse his lies. We all know how you lie to excuse him, and yourself.

I have told the truth all the way. Exposing Randi's lies does not make me an fraud.

Applying for the challenge, when you know you don't have paranormal abilities makes you a fraud.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
ehh.......Peter? I referred to my post about Kofoed. Where, exactly, did I claim that the money is cursed? [/'quote]

Peter : where is the evidence of the curse?
Larsen: It's in my post.

claim repeated several times.


[quote] Applying for the challenge, when you know you don't have paranormal abilities makes you a fraud.

No, since I did it to expose Randi's lies.


Now answer the question:

Why did you demand "evidence" of the reasons I listed? Does a claim need to be true before it goes on your list?

[CFLarsen]

No evidence from you, then.

You are a bore.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, since I did it to expose Randi's lies.


Its almost amusing how you want to have it both ways:

You applied for the challenge knowing that you had no actual power, you lied. A lie much worse than anything you allege from Randi (and those allegations were wrong, BTW).

But when Randi figures out that you are just messing around, he cuts off negotiations and you go around claiming yourself as an example of being unable to come to terms. When in fact Randi was right to not waste his time with you.

In short, once again in your book, Randi can't win except to bow down before the egomaniacal Peter Morris and his useless, pedantic, petty whims and complaints. Spare us.

[CFLarsen]

No grudge...suuuuuuure.... (http://www.talkaboutabook.com/group/alt.books.isaac-asimov/messages/31039.html)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No grudge...suuuuuuure.... (http://www.talkaboutabook.com/group/alt.books.isaac-asimov/messages/31039.html)

Geez, talk about a stalker.

Hmph, I'd imagine if they hadn't totally laughed at his accusation he'd be claiming he 'consulted with Asimov experts' who 'cofirmed he was right about plagarism'.

What a desperate, desperate, child.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
There you are, liar. A demand that I prove dowsing true, while claiming that you had proved the curse true. And you did this over and over.
Peter Morris, your lies on this subject have been thoroughly exposed. Please choose something else to lie about.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, since I did it to expose Randi's lies.


Now answer the question:

Why did you demand "evidence" of the reasons I listed? Does a claim need to be true before it goes on your list?

Are you saying you lied to Randi?

[Ashles]

Peter tries to get help with the maths (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/m/502752/502752)

The full discussion in which stasticians disagree with Peter Morris (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/t/502752)

It's worth a read - Peter Morris asks the opinion of mathematicians about the 22% dowsing results and he is consistently told that this proves nothing.

Result - Peter STILL won't have it. He still knows better than anyone, even the experts he actually asks for advice!

Peter has been conclusively proved to have a bizarre obsession with the JREF. He couldn't care less about any of the actual claims or results, he just wants to criticise Randi and the JREF.

The reason for his behaviour is, of course, still a mystery.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ashles
Peter tries to get help with the maths (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/m/502752/502752)

The full discussion in which stasticians disagree with Peter Morris (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/t/502752)

It's worth a read - Peter Morris asks the opinion of mathematicians about the 22% dowsing results and he is consistently told that this proves nothing.

Result - Peter STILL won't have it. He still knows better than anyone, even the experts he actually asks for advice!

Peter has been conclusively proved to have a bizarre obsession with the JREF. He couldn't care less about any of the actual claims or results, he just wants to criticise Randi and the JREF.

The reason for his behaviour is, of course, still a mystery.

Ah, I love this bit of Morris drivel:

"Randi adds the three results together, and claims that subjects
got "13.5%, a figure well within expectation." Thus he neatly
dodges the point that in the water test the subjects got more
than double the expected value.

This is known as 'misdirection', which is the basis of
most magic tricks. Randi is an expert magician."

:rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Are you saying you lied to Randi?

It's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ashles

The full discussion in which stasticians disagree with Peter Morris (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/t/502752)


A quote from the thread, by an actual statistician, is:


"Multiple testing" does account for some that likelihood,
but I'm a little disappointed that Randi did not admit to the
leaning of the result, overall. - It has been my impression
that his (Randi's) debunking was good and fair,
but that seems a touch less that *totally* forthright.
Even if no individual could claim his prize.

It could have been proper to have designed that
experiment such that there would have been
followup and extended testing on individuals who
had done 'best'; and it was not clear to me what level
of performance *would* have won the prize money,
unless it was to match the near-perfect performance
that a dowser had promised.


There seems to be at least some thinking that there were/are flaws in the challenge tests/interpretation of the test results, and/or that there is room for improvement.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Not at all. Why would I have a grudge? What makes you think that?

Oh, just a crazy idea....

As for Randi, I think he is the biggest fraud of all. His tests are certainly unfair, even rigged. The fact that he hasn't paid out $1million proves nothing. Randi works on the principle that if it can be explained then it isn't psychic, so no money, and if it can't be explained then it doesn't exist so no money. He will never pay out, whatever the proof

...

Randi has made a fortune trading on the gullability of skeptics.

...

I came to the conclusion that he's a fraud from having personally watched his TV shows and read some of his writings and having seen for myself many misrepresentations he makes, and tests that were sooo obviously unfair. I mean, some of the people he tested were making ridiculous claims, which I didn't accept for a moment. Yet every single one of the tests he made struck me as biased in some way. It was only later that I discovered that a LOT of other people agree with my opinion.

...

Frauds like Randi...

Source (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=170935&perpage=50&pagenumber=2)


- his constant self-promotion, grandstanding and boasting. His tests are about making money for James Randi, not about any scientific endeavour.

...

How many lies do I have to expose in order to prove him a liar?

...

He is a liar. that is another fact.

...

Randi is STILL a liar.

...

No matter how you twist Randi's words, they still come out as a lie. Every interpretation, no matter how bizzare, (and yours is very strange indeed) is a lie. The man is a total fraud. It is beyond me why anyone is taken in by his crap.

Source (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=178616)

You're probably right, you don't have anything personal against Randi... :rolleyes:

[Ashles]

There seems to be at least some thinking that there were/are flaws in the challenge tests/interpretation of the test results, and/or that there is room for improvement.
I don't agree. Randi is not trying to conduct research (his budget would never allow it) he is trying to create a test that provides extremely strong evidence for these claims in a single set of experiments.

He agrees what will be considered 'successful' with the claimants beforehand.

In terms of research then by all means it would be interesting for Universities and other organisations to follow up on claimants they feel performed high enough above chance to potentially be displaying some form of effect.
But this is not the role of the JREF.

And I can only suspect that other organisations are not following up on these claimants because they do not feel that they have performed at a level worthy of further study (but this is only my take on the matter and might not be the actual reason)

[BillHoyt]

"First of all, I would like to suggest that dowsing does in fact work"

PeterMorris quote found on the straight dope site.


"Note: I personally do not believe in dowsing, but am open
to evidence."

Are there two of you out there, Peter? Or are there two of you in there, Peter? Or do we just have a slinker/stinker problem, golem?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Ashles
Peter tries to get help with the maths (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/m/502752/502752)

The full discussion in which stasticians disagree with Peter Morris (http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/t/502752)

It's worth a read - Peter Morris asks the opinion of mathematicians about the 22% dowsing results and he is consistently told that this proves nothing.

Of course, the fact is that I never CLAIMED it "proves" anything.

My comments were about Randi's misrepresentation of the results, and that is fully supported by the thread Ashless links to. Actual results of the test : more than double the expected results from chance. Randi twisted the figures to make it look like it was exactly chance. The people in the thread agree that Randi has misrepresented the data.

My point is that Randi lied about the results, not that the results "prove" anything.



Result - Peter STILL won't have it. He still knows better than anyone, even the experts he actually asks for advice!


I based my conclusions on the information they gave me. They agree that Randi has misrepresented the data.

Why you link to experts agreeing with me is beyond my comprehension.



Peter has been conclusively proved to have a bizarre obsession with the JREF. He couldn't care less about any of the actual claims or results, he just wants to criticise Randi and the JREF.

The reason for his behaviour is, of course, still a mystery. [/B]

No, I point out the man's lies. The fact that you twist facts to support him shows that YOU are the one with the bizarre obsession.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Peter Morris, your lies on this subject have been thoroughly exposed. Please choose something else to lie about. :dl:

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself.

Can you support that claim, you liar? I told the exact truth all the way.

I said right from the start that I was challenging his geology, not claiming any "paranormal" power.


Of course, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between truth and lies. You make a habit of twisting facts to support your Randi worship.


And you continue to dodge the question, coward. Does an excuse have to be "true" before you put it on your list?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
My point is that Randi lied about the results, [/B]

Which, of course, is simply not true.

Randi reports both combined and seperate tests accurately. Peter simply takes issue with the way Randi presents them and calls it 'lying'.

In other words, Peter once again Peter insists everything, including the writing up of tests be done his satisfaction.

Mike Hutchinson's comments on this matter (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=hdQQxAAP9Du2EwFf%40hutch.demon.co.uk&output=gplain) make it plain:


I thought I had made it clear that it [combing results] wasn't done in the 'first place'. The results of the brass, gold, and water dowsing were announced first for all to see and understand.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The people in the thread agree that Randi has misrepresented the data.

The problem with you Peter is and always has been one of having no sense of proportion, and no self awareness when it comes to your own hypocrisy.

What those in the thread agreed was the Randi had been "less than totally forthright".

That then becomes "agree that Randi has misrepresented the data" in your mouth.

I know, through having debated you for, what, about 18 months or so now (is that sad or what?) that you will not see the irony or hypocrisy in you:

1/ tearing strips off Randi for failing to be less than totally forthright but

2/ misrepresenting another poster's mild comment about Randi ("less than totally forthright") as a comment by that poster that Randi had "misrepresented the data".

[Peter Morris]

The problem with you, Princhester, is that you play these silly word games where you pick one word in someone's post, and argue the toss about the precise meaning of that particular word.

So, you grab at the word totally. And, somehow that changes the meaning of the whole post, and indeed the whole thread.

"Less than totally forthright" is a polite euphemism. Substitute "misrepresenting data" or "withholding information" or "massaging the figures" or "lying through his teeth."

[princhester]

If it suits you to take what someone says literally, there is no one on the planet more willing to do so than you. When Randi says "there are no underground rivers" you ignore any context and ignore any qualifying comments in surrounding paragraphs and ignore other comments on other occasions that clarify what he means and stick to the literal through thick and thin. He said No Underground Rivers, so he means No Underground Rivers. Period. Randi is wrong and a liar and don't you try to tell Peter he meant anything other than precisely what he said, and all Princhester does is try pathetically to interpret what Randi said as meaning something other than what Randi said.

But when it suits you to read something as a euphemism, then it's a whole other story. When the statistician you ask says Randi was merely "a touch less than totally forthright" suddenly that actually means Randi was "lying through his teeth". What he actually said doesn't matter, no sirree, what he meant was something else entirely.

You asked for an opinion from statisticians, they told you something, and now you're taking what they said and saying it's a polite eupemism for what you want to believe they said because what they actually said is not what you want to hear.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
My favorite one is Sylvia Browne's stuff about the JREF money being tainted and evil. She can't even give it to charity, you see, because it would carry with it the Curse Of Randi. But why can't she give it to someone she really dislikes? There must be some way for her to funnel the evil money to al Qaida. She offers them a million dollars, they take it, they shrivel up and die. What holds her back? Alternatively, in my capacity as witch doctor, I could de-curse the money for her. I'll take ten percent, I'm not greedy.
Hell, no! Give it all to me! I'll risk the curse for $1 million! C'mon, Randi, gimme the million! Please!

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

My point is that Randi lied about the results, not that the results "prove" anything.


...snip...


Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, since I did it to expose Randi's lies.


Now answer the question:

Why did you demand "evidence" of the reasons I listed? Does a claim need to be true before it goes on your list?

Are you saying you lied to Randi?

[rppa]

It took a little digging because this thread is so monstrous, but eventually I found where Morris' discussion of "you claim you have evidence of a curse" may have started. For the benefit of those like me who haven't been reading this thread from the start:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
However, and this is the point that confuses me, your list already contains the claim that some people refuse the test because the money is cursed.

So, I presume that you already have evidence of that? Since you need evidence before you include an item on your list.

Now a sane person, knowing the list in question was a list of excuses people have given, would think Morris is saying "before you list a curse as an excuse, you need evidence that somebody has used a curse as an excuse".

I can't think of a sane person or Morris saying that you can't put "curse" on a list of excuses unless you have evidence there really is a curse.

So how about it, Peter? When you said the claim is that some people refused on the basis of the curse, and asked for that claim to be backed up, what evidence were you talking about? What "evidence" is needed before putting something down on a list of excuses that were used?
(a) the excuse was used, or
(b) the excuse was grounded in fact

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The problem with you, Princhester, is that you play these silly word games where you pick one word in someone's post, and argue the toss about the precise meaning of that particular word.

So, you grab at the word totally. And, somehow that changes the meaning of the whole post, and indeed the whole thread.

"Less than totally forthright" is a polite euphemism. Substitute "misrepresenting data" or "withholding information" or "massaging the figures" or "lying through his teeth."
You win another irony award and a place in my sig.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
If it suits you to take what someone says literally, there is no one on the planet more willing to do so than you. When Randi says "there are no underground rivers" you ignore any context and ignore any qualifying comments in surrounding paragraphs and ignore other comments on other occasions that clarify what he means and stick to the literal through thick and thin. He said No Underground Rivers, so he means No Underground Rivers. Period. Randi is wrong and a liar and don't you try to tell Peter he meant anything other than precisely what he said, and all Princhester does is try pathetically to interpret what Randi said as meaning something other than what Randi said.



The exact opposite is true.

I have shown Randi's comments about underground rivers withi9n the context of speeches attacking dowsers, and comments repeated on several occasions, which eliminates any sensible doubt as to what he was talking about.

Princhester, by contrast takes one sentence, or a few words out of context, and tries to attach a meaning to ythose words that simply isn't there. He insists his interpretation of those particular words is right, ignoring the rest of what Randi said in that article, ignoring what Randui said on other occasions, ignoring everyone else's interpretation of the words.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
Are you saying you lied to Randi?

No, I'm saying that Randi lied and I exposed his dishonesty. I told the truth all the way.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I have shown Randi's comments about underground rivers withi9n the context of speeches attacking dowsers, and comments repeated on several occasions, which eliminates any sensible doubt as to what he was talking about.
Despite your not-sensible-at-all attempts to cast doubt on what he was talking about, yes. I was left in no doubt of what he was claiming.

So, doubtless inadvertantly, you have posted a whole paragraph which was true!

Admittedly, your intent was to deceive, because anyone reading this and not having read your gibble about "underground rivers" would think that in some way you'd proved Randi wrong.

Nontheless, it shows that it is possible for you to say something literally true, and that's a start. At this rate, we'll have you being completely honest... oooh... not long after the heat death of the Universe.

In the meantime, it's nice of you to keep bumping Larsen's excellent thread, which, without your tireless efforts, would have sunk into obscurity. Thanks to you, this post has been at or near the top of this forum for nigh on two months, attracting over 3000 views.

Larsen, I hope you're grateful.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by rppa


So how about it, Peter? When you said the claim is that some people refused on the basis of the curse, and asked for that claim to be backed up, what evidence were you talking about? What "evidence" is needed before putting something down on a list of excuses that were used?
(a) the excuse was used, or
(b) the excuse was grounded in fact

You ought to address your question to Larsen. He said the above, not me. Larsen claims that people refuse Randi's challenge because of a curse. Larsen demanded "evidence" before putting an excuse on his list. Larsen claimed that he had "evidence" of the curse.

He has been dodging the question for ages.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, I'm saying that Randi lied and I exposed his dishonesty. I told the truth all the way.

But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie.

So, you are a liar.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie.

So, you are a liar.

No, you liar. It was Randi that said the abilities were "paranormal." I always said it was perfectly ordinary and easy. I told Randi that he was mistaken to call it paranormal.

Lie as often as you like, you fawning fanatic. The fact remains, the lies were all told by Randi. I exposed him for the liar he is.

You are so desperate and pathetic, you have to invent things I never said. You just cannot face the truth, you poor deluded fanatic.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You ought to address your question to Larsen. He said the above, not me. Larsen claims that people refuse Randi's challenge because of a curse. Larsen demanded "evidence" before putting an excuse on his list. Larsen claimed that he had "evidence" of the curse.

He has been dodging the question for ages.
Or, for those who missed it:

(1) Larsen included "the money is cursed" on his list of lame excuses.

(2) The halfwit Morris asked him for "evidence of the cursed money".

(3) Larsen replied by posting evidence that "cursed money" has been used as an excuse.

(4)The halfwit Morris pretended that Larsen had himself claimed that the money was cursed, by playing on the ambiguity in his own post. Obviously asking for "evidence of the cursed money" was a request for evidence that this had been used as an excuse, as Larsen was claiming, and as he posted evidence to support rather than that the money was cursed as Larsen does not believe in the slightest, has never claimed, and characterises as "lame".

(5) Larsen has of course made no claim whatsoever that there is a curse on the money, but it hasn't stopped the halfwit Morris from whining and droning out the same pathetic transparent lie for, literally, weeks.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, you liar. Randi said the abilities were "paranormal." I always it was perfectly ordinary and easy. I told Randi that he was mistaken to call it paranormal.

Lie as often as you like, you fawning fanatic. The fact remains, the lies were all told byu Randi. I exposed him for the liar he is.

You are so desperate and pathetic, you have to invent things I never said. You just cannot face the truth, can you, so you have to invent lie after lie after lie.

O.......K. So your claimed ability was not "paranormal". Peter, you will have to explain to me what you consider paranormal. By examples, please.

It still doesn't change the fact that you lied: You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have. You are still a liar.

[Dr Adequate]

Indeed, I explained it to him a fortnight ago.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Now, listen, you revolting halfwit. When you asked Larsen for "evidence of the cursed money", he, like everyone else reading the thread, took you to mean evidence that this "cursed money" had been used as an excuse --- the point on which you were challenging him --- not evidence that the money was cursed --- a contention which he has never made.

This is amply shown by the fact that in response to your request for "evidence of the cursed money" he referred you to evidence that this had been used as an excuse --- the claim which he was making.

I have bothered to explain this to you as though you were a lunatic halfwit, because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. The more reasonable explanation is that you did not mistake his meaning at all, and are an lunatic halfwitted compulsive liar.

Now that I've cleared that up for the hard of thinking, would you care to choose a new way to make a fool of yourself?
Lunatic halfwitted compulsive liar it is, then.

[Prolix]

Morris said he casually wrote some sort of computer program to test some probabilities of winning the prize or similar test.

I guess CFLarsen doubted Morris, and asked for the source code. Seems to me it'd be easy for Morris to either send it, or casually write another program and send the new one.

Most of us would love the chance to so easily establish our credibility.

Do we need a "Peter's clock" like Sylvia's

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Or, for those who missed it:

(1) Larsen included "the money is cursed" on his list of lame excuses.

(2) The halfwit Morris asked him for "evidence of the cursed money".



The inadequate one is lying as usual.

Larsen was caught out in a lie. To justify himself, he told more lies. His own web of deceit trapped him into claiming the money was cursed. It was a stupid lie to tell, but that is what he said. The evidence is plain to see. I've provided the exact quotes several times.

Dr Adequate knows this well. He just hates me for exposing the lies of a fraud like Larsen.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
O.......K. So your claimed ability was not "paranormal". Peter, you will have to explain to me what you consider paranormal. By examples, please.

It still doesn't change the fact that you lied: You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have. You are still a liar.

Your lies get more and more desperate.

I can find dry spots. Anyone can. I never claimed abilities I don't have.

Larsen once again shows the usual tactics of the cornered rat.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Prolix
Morris said he casually wrote some sort of computer program to test some probabilities of winning the prize or similar test.

I guess CFLarsen doubted Morris, and asked for the source code. Seems to me it'd be easy for Morris to either send it, or casually write another program and send the new one.

Most of us would love the chance to so easily establish our credibility.

Do we need a "Peter's clock" like Sylvia's

Tell me, what do you imagine this has proved? I wrote a program months ago, I didn't keep it.

So, some whiney little baby demands that I send him this program, and when I don't, somehow baby reckons that he's proved something. Do you know what "clutching at straws" means?

What if I were to take the time to rewrite the program and send it to him? What would that prove?

Larsen is a proven liar, a desperate basket case. He'd just scream and pretend to find fault with it.

The fact that this is the best you've got, that you have to keep citing this because you have nothing else, that speaks volumes.

[apoger]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Larsen was caught out in a lie. To justify himself, he told more lies, then more, and more.


Peter Morris was caught ranting. To justify an old grudge, he ranted even more.

We pointed this out and asked him to get a grip. Sadly he did not take our advice, and he continues to embarrass himself on a continuing basis.

Peter, for goodness sakes... STOP!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Your lies get more and more desperate.

I can find dry spots. Anyone can. I never claimed abilities I don't have.

Larsen once again shows the usual tactics of the cornered rat.

Peter? Hello? I asked you to give me examples of what you consider paranormal.

Are you going to present those examples? Because if you don't, then we have no evidence that I am a "liar".

Do you want to claim that I am a liar, or do you want to prove it? You can only prove it by presenting examples of what you consider "paranormal".

I am (still) waiting...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The inadequate one is lying as usual.

Larsen was caught out in a lie. To justify himself, he told more lies. His own web of deceit trapped him into claiming the money was cursed. It was a stupid lie to tell, but that is what he said. The evidence is plain to see. I've provided the exact quotes several times.

Dr Adequate knows this well. He just hates me for exposing the lies of a fraud like Larsen.

I like people who expose the lies of frauds. Here, watch me do it myself.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

However, and this is the point that confuses me, your list already contains the claim that some people refuse the test because the money is cursed.

So, I presume that you already have evidence of that? Since you need evidence before you include an item on your list.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Originally posted by Peter Morris
However, and this is the point that confuses me, your list already contains the claim that some people refuse the test because the money is cursed.

So, I presume that you already have evidence of that? Since you need evidence before you include an item on your list.



Here you go:

Re the "dirty money" that Danish numerologist Annet Kofoed says, on that same Boesen site, that she doesn't want from the JREF, reader William Rentfrow suggests:

If the physical money is somehow "cursed," couldn't she just exchange it? "Hello, I'd like to exchange this for some non-cursed money, please." It's a practical approach.

Or give it away to an enemy...?
Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/062003.html)



She was asked, "Couldn't you just give the money away?" She answered:

I cannot give anything away which has bad energy. If I did give the money to the poor kids in Africa, they would simply receive bad energies, and I do not want to expose them to that.
Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/053003.html)

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Peter? Hello? I asked you to give me examples of what you consider paranormal.

Are you going to present those examples? Because if you don't, then we have no evidence that I am a "liar".

Do you want to claim that I am a liar, or do you want to prove it? You can only prove it by presenting examples of what you consider "paranormal".

I am (still) waiting...

Larsen, you have this habit of saying these incredibly stupid things. I have proven you a liar by listing various lies that you have told throughout this thread.

Your fawning article is a whole pack of lies, but aside from that you keep inventing things that I never said. Your lies include :

"It's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself." (No, I never said that I lied to Randi. Larsen invented that. )

But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie. (No, I never claimed paranormal abilities. Randi said that finding a dry spot would be "a better test" of paranormal ability. I said that he was wrong to make such a claim, dry spots are common and anyone is likely to hit one simply by random drilling)

"You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have." ( No, I claimed non-paranormal abilities that I or anyone else can do. )

I call you a liar, Larsen, because I can cite examples of lies you have told.


But, Here comes Larsen with his twisted logic. He demands that I give examples of what I consider paranormal. If I don't give examples, says Larsen, there's no evidence of his lies. As if quoting the lies he's told isn't evidence enough.

Even by the standards of Larsen's crazy logic, this is strange. What ios the connection between "what I consider paranormal" and his dishionesty? How does listing examples of what I consider paranormal demonstrate his lies?

Strange man.

But, since Larsen sees a connection here, I'll give him what he wants. Larsen insists that me listing what I consider paranormal will be evidence of Larsen's lies, so I'm happy to oblige. On his own head be it.

I would consider the following to be paranormal : ghosts, tarot cards, psychic spoon bending, palmistry, poltergeists, demonic possesion, astrology, prophetic dreams, telepathy, telekenesis, mind-reading, dowsing, healing crystals, faith healing, homeopathy. These are only a few examples, not an exhaustive list.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I like people who expose the lies of frauds. Here, watch me do it myself.

Exactly, QED. Thanks for showing Larsen's lie.

Which I'd already shown several times, but showing it again doesn't hurt me. Only Larsen.

[MetalLibrarian]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Tell me, what do you imagine this has proved? I wrote a program months ago, I didn't keep it.

So, some whiney little baby demands that I send him this program, and when I don't, somehow baby reckons that he's proved something. Do you know what "clutching at straws" means?

What if I were to take the time to rewrite the program and send it to him? What would that prove?

Larsen is a proven liar, a desperate basket case. He'd just scream and pretend to find fault with it.

The fact that this is the best you've got, that you have to keep citing this because you have nothing else, that speaks volumes.

You didn't keep code? Why? Geeks I know that write code keep them or post them.

It sounds interesting, I'd love to see it.

[Prolix]

What if I were to take the time to rewrite the program and send it to him? What would that prove?

It would show that you could at least recognize what a program looks like, and would at least keep open the possibility that you really did write some program off-the-cuff.

As it stands now you appear to have been caught in making a juvenile bluff you can't back-up.

[Prolix]

What if I were to take the time to rewrite the program and send it to him? What would that prove?

And an even greater opportunity for Peter Morris: If he sends this "source code " that he's written to CFLarsen and Larsen doesn't acknowledge it, then he's caught Larsen with his integrity down and can thoroughly torpedo LARSEN'S credibility at the same time he proves his own.

My guess is it would take paranormal powers for Peter Morris to write code (whatever that is). So, if he comes up with something, and it's not plaigarized, can I share in the million dollars?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Exactly, QED. Thanks for showing Larsen's lie.

Which I'd already shown several times, but showing it again doesn't hurt me. Only Larsen.

Wow. Peter's got Total Dissasociation from reality.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I would consider the following to be paranormal : ghosts, tarot cards, psychic spoon bending, palmistry, poltergeists, demonic possesion, astrology, prophetic dreams, telepathy, telekenesis, mind-reading, dowsing, healing crystals, faith healing, homeopathy. These are only a few examples, not an exhaustive list.

Good!

Dowsing is paranormal.

What, exactly, did you claim you could do, when you applied for the challenge?

Dowse.

You applied for the challenge, claiming that you had paranormal powers. Which you admit that you don't. It makes no difference what you claimed to be able to dowse for.

You are a liar.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Wow. Peter's got Total Dissasociation from reality.
Yes. There comes a point, methinks, when we're going to have to start feeding him cookie recipies. He actually thanks me for exposing his crass, transparent lie as though I'd proved his point. Do you think he's actually insane? Or perhaps severely autistic? I think he's sufficiently obsessive to be classed as mentally ill, certainly.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Good!

Dowsing is paranormal.

What, exactly, did you claim you could do, when you applied for the challenge?

Dowse.

You applied for the challenge, claiming that you had paranormal powers. Which you admit that you don't. It makes no difference what you claimed to be able to dowse for.

You are a liar.

Yet another out and out fabrication from Larsen.

I did NOT claim to be able to dowse.

This desperate pathetic loser keeps inventimng things I never said. He tells lie after lie in an attempt to discredit me. He hgas been shown to be a liar. He desperately seeks revenge for this, trying to find anything untrue I've said. He can't find any lies I've told, so he has to resort to inventing things I never said. This just shows how deeply dishonest he is.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yet another out and out fabrication from Larsen.

I did NOT claim to be able to dowse.

This desperate pathetic loser keeps inventimng things I never said. He tells lie after lie in an attempt to discredit me. He hgas been shown to be a liar. He desperately seeks revenge for this, trying to find anything untrue I've said. He can't find any lies I've told, so he has to resort to inventing things I never said. This just shows how deeply dishonest he is.

So, what did you claim to be able to do??

Can you paste what you said in your application?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yet another out and out fabrication from Larsen.

I did NOT claim to be able to dowse.

…snip…

Then at the least you are very confused about what the challenge is about i.e.

"…who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event… "

Why would you attempt to apply for the challenge for doing something you don’t consider is paranormal?

Surely that’s either because you were confused about what the challenge is for or were trying to cheat by getting the JREF to accept a challenge for something you knew wasn’t paranormal?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Prolix
And an even greater opportunity for Peter Morris: If he sends this "source code " that he's written to CFLarsen and Larsen doesn't acknowledge it, then he's caught Larsen with his integrity down and can thoroughly torpedo LARSEN'S credibility at the same time he proves his own.

My guess is it would take paranormal powers for Peter Morris to write code (whatever that is). So, if he comes up with something, and it's not plaigarized, can I share in the million dollars?

Larsen is a proven liar already. He has produced a constant stream of lies, accusing me of saying things that I never said.

Demanding that I send him my code is just another desperate pathetic attempt by this liar to discredit me. Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen is a proven liar already. He has produced a constant stream of lies, accusing me of saying things that I never said.

Demanding that I send him my code is just another desperate pathetic attempt by this liar to discredit me. Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy.
At which point you could post the code and prove him wrong.

What a pathetic excuse.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen is a proven liar already. He has produced a constant stream of lies, accusing me of saying things that I never said.

Demanding that I send him my code is just another desperate pathetic attempt by this liar to discredit me. Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy.

Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
Then at the least you are very confused about what the challenge is about i.e.

"…who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event… "

Why would you attempt to apply for the challenge for doing something you don’t consider is paranormal?

Surely that’s either because you were confused about what the challenge is for or were trying to cheat by getting the JREF to accept a challenge for something you knew wasn’t paranormal?


Look, it's quite simple. Randi told a pack of lies, I exposed the lies he told.

You seem very confused about the nature of the challenge, old chum. There's many people that get challenged by Randi who claim that what they do isn't paranormal. Randi ignores that, and demands that they prove their abilities. For the challenge, it's valid if Randi thinks it's paranormal, and it doesn't matter a damn what the applicant thinks.

This is one of those cases. Randi has many times over the course of several decades issued a challenge to "find [him] a dry spot." He declares that is "a better test" of paranormal ability.

I took him up on the challenge that he issued, having told him that dry spots are more common than he thinks. I never claimed to be a dowser. I never claimed "paranormal" ability. I never claimed an ability I don't have.

I told the truth all along. Randi was the liar. You are just trying to blame me for Randi's dishonesty.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.

What part of this don't you understand?

I wrote a program 18 months ago. I didn't bother keeping it. I no longer have it. It doesn't exist any more.

I'm not going to re-write it just because some whiney little baby demands to see it.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Look, it's quite simple. Randi told a pack of lies, I exposed the lies he told.


And I'm sure that one of these years you'll provide the evidence for this.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You seem very confused about the nature of the challenge, old chum. There's many people that get challenged by Randi who claim that what they do isn't paranormal. Randi ignores that, and demands that they prove their abilities. For the challenge, it's valid if Randi thinks it's paranormal, and it doesn't matter a damn what the applicant thinks.


It's not my fault if for the sake of winning a million dollars an applicant is willing to lie to Randi and the JREF. That's a matter for their conscience.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

This is one of those cases. Randi has many times over the course of several decades issued a challenge to "find [him] a dry spot." He declares that is "a better test" of paranormal ability.

I took him up on the challenge that he issued, having told him that dry spots are more common than he thinks. I never claimed to be a dowser. I never claimed "paranormal" ability. I never claimed an ability I don't have.

I told the truth all along. Randi was the liar. You are just trying to blame me for Randi's dishonesty.

I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything, just trying to get to the facts.

So far the only way you have been able to “support� any of your accusations is by playing these silly word games where you pick one word in one of Randi's emails or commentaries and argue the toss about the precise meaning of that particular word. And then conclude that somehow changes the meaning of the whole email or commentary and indeed everything else Randi has ever said or published.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What part of this don't you understand?

I wrote a program 18 months ago. I didn't bother keeping it. I no longer have it. It doesn't exist any more.

I'm not going to re-write it just because some whiney little baby demands to see it.

Well since you had just said "…Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy…." I was giving you an opportunity that meant you wouldn’t have to rely on one poster's honesty.

All we are left with is your word, and I'll use the evidence of your posts here and elsewhere to assign the appropriate value to that.

[Peter Morris]

"my word?"


What are you challenging, exactly?

Are you refusing to believe that I wrote a program?

Are you challenging the results generated by the program?


You don't seem to have a clear idea what you want. You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

[Kimpatsu]

Look, guys (and elegant ladies), Peter Morris is clearly off his goddamn rocker. No matter what we say will never make a blind bit of difference. I have read every singl;e post to this thread, and can objectively state the following: Mr. Larsen never lied at any point.
I also believe, but cannot state objectively, that Peter Morris is off his rocker.
Why don't we all just put this troll on ignore, and get on with the serious business of this forum.
Oh, wait, debunking woo-woos is the serious business of this forum, and Peter certainly qualifies.... :p

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
"my word?"


What are you challenging, exactly?

Are you refusing to believe that I wrote a program?


I am saying all we have is your word you did.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Are you challenging the results generated by the program?


I am saying all we have is your word the results were as you say they were.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You don't seem to have a clear idea what you want. You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.

You are confused, I haven't demanded anything from you.

I haven’t even asked you to do anything and I certainly haven’t demanded you send anything to anyone. (Don’t know who you mean by "the liar" since you have called quite a few people "liar" in your recent posts.)

I offered a solution to a problem you put forward i.e. you not being able to trust one person's evaluation of your program.

[Kimpatsu]

Darat, I think you've nailed it.
Pity you can't crucify him... :p :D

[Dr Adequate]

My explanation for Peter Morris's repeated self-humiliation.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Why is he doing this? Well, if a vicious, violent, half-witted lunatic is strait-jacketed and strapped down so that he can't physically assault his keepers, there is still one thing he can do to get at them, if his hatred and lunacy are sufficiently intense.

He can deliberately soil himself.

By doing so, of course, he degrades and debases himself and makes of himself an vile, sickening object of contempt and disgust. But one of his hated keepers will have the loathsome job of coming into contact with the dirty animal and cleaning up its stinking mess. This is the lunatic's one revenge.

In the same way, we have to keep on cleaning up after Peter Morris and his filthy lies. If you let it sadden or sicken you, then he's won, but, as I said, you don't have to feel sorry for him. If on the other hand you find it amusing, as I do, to watch a hideously unpleasant man smear himself with his own filth, then stick around and... enjoy.
Can anyone think of any other reason why he goes to such pains to invite disgust and contempt?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen is a proven liar already.

Peter is more and more trying to act like the late Bruce Daniel Kettler of USENET demi-fame. One of Bruce's favorite tactics was to say in a post that someone was a liar. He would not bother with a proof or anything, just the accusation.

Later on, he would state that someone was a 'proven liar'. Simply because he had said that person was.

In an above post, Dr. Adequate quotes both Peter and Larsen. The post is simple: Peter tantrums for evidence, and Larsen provides it.

Yet, down the page a bit Peter claims that Dr. Adequate has print a Larsen lie and thanks him? This is beyond chutzpah, this is some kind of insanity.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Look, it's quite simple. Randi told a pack of lies, I exposed the lies he told.


Funny is that lack of evidence you have.


You seem very confused about the nature of the challenge, old chum. There's many people that get challenged by Randi who claim that what they do isn't paranormal. Randi ignores that, and demands that they prove their abilities. For the challenge, it's valid if Randi thinks it's paranormal, and it doesn't matter a damn what the applicant thinks.


Some folks may claim that what they do isn't paranormal, but what they claim as results really are. They honestly beleive in what they can do and consider it an ability or at least a new branch of science. There are some liars, but they don't try to turn their own dishonesty into a fault with JREF. (Sylvia Brown and a few others excepted)

By comparison, you were trying to slip in on a weak technicality. You had no belief in any ability, you simply claimed to be able to find ill-defined 'dry spots'. JREF played ball with you, but when you balked at a very reasonable test, insisting on a very expensive and unpractical test which you would have to pay for, they realised you were merely wasting their time. You were negotiating in bad faith.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
My explanation for Peter Morris's repeated self-humiliation.

Can anyone think of any other reason why he goes to such pains to invite disgust and contempt?

I think you have expainaed why you do so. You hate me, you have no other answer than soiling yourself. You produce such vile filth as the above that makes me retch to read it. You talk about people souiling themselves in order to proke feelings of disgust. And its clear why you do it. You have no answers. This filth is your way of getting revenge, the only way you know.


As for me, I post because I can't abide dishonesty. I endeavour to expose lies when I see them. Some Kooks and inadequate people hate me for that, but it's their problem not mine. These poor people have these deep feelings of resentment against me just because I expose the lies of their hero.

Most of the time the hate doesn't bother me. Sometimes I get a real jerk who talks about soiling himself, which really makes me feel sick. But that apart, your stream of hate doesn't bother me.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Funny is that lack of evidence you have

I've cited dozens of examples of Larsen lying.




Some folks may claim that what they do isn't paranormal, but what they claim as results really are. They honestly beleive in what they can do and consider it an ability or at least a new branch of science. There are some liars, but they don't try to turn their own dishonesty into a fault with JREF. (Sylvia Brown and a few others excepted)

By comparison, you were trying to slip in on a weak technicality.

Another Kook lie.

I didn't try to "slip in" I tried to show Randi for a liar.

He boasted of offering the test and always being turned down. I told him I would accept the challenge he made because I knew his boast was a lie. I fully expected him to run away from his own challenge.



You had no belief in any ability, you simply claimed to be able to find ill-defined 'dry spots'. JREF played ball with you,

Another Kook lie. Randi's respobnse was abusive from the very first.

but when you balked at a very reasonable test,

Another Kook lie. I did no such thing.

Randi tried to railroad me into a dowsing test, even though I'm not a dowser.

Only a deluded fanatic would consider it a "reasonable test."

insisting on a very expensive and unpractical test which you would have to pay for, they realised you were merely wasting their time. You were negotiating in bad faith. [/B]

Another Kook lie. This was the test that Randi hiomself had proposed. Then when I accepted his challenge, he backed out.


Poor Kook cannot face reality. He has to live in this fantasy. He cannot bear the thought of Randi being dishonest, so he has to cocoon himself in these delusions.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I've cited dozens of examples of Larsen lying.


No, you've cited what you claim to be Larsen lying, but it is simply not so.


Another Kook lie.

I didn't try to "slip in" I tried to show Randi for a liar.


Well you've failed miserably, and made yourself out to be a liar in the process.


He boasted of offering the test and always being turned down. I told him I would accept the challenge he made because I knew his boast was a lie. I fully expected him to run away from his own challenge.


Except that he offered you a test. When you balked, he realised you weren't negotiating in good faith.


Another Kook lie. Randi's respobnse was abusive from the very first.


Can't say I'm impressed by such claims from you.


Another Kook lie. I did no such thing.


So you did not claim to be able to find dry spots? What was your application for then?


Randi tried to railroad me into a dowsing test, even though I'm not a dowser.


Then you were applying based on a non-existant ability.
Only a deluded fanatic would consider it a "reasonable test."


Another Kook lie. This was the test that Randi hiomself had proposed. Then when I accepted his challenge, he backed out.


There's your abililty to ignore reality again.


Poor Kook cannot face reality. He has to live in this fantasy. He cannot bear the thought of Randi being dishonest, so he has to cocoon himself in these delusions. [/B]

Once again, you claim things you have simply not proven.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I think you have expainaed why you do so. You hate me, you have no other answer than soiling yourself. You produce such vile filth as the above that makes me retch to read it. You talk about people souiling themselves in order to proke feelings of disgust. And its clear why you do it. You have no answers. This filth is your way of getting revenge, the only way you know.
Ah, the tu quoque. You are almost as intelligent as a parrot.

I have in fact answered all your stupid lies, some of them several times.
Originally posted by Peter Morris
As for me, I post because I can't abide dishonesty. I endeavour to expose lies when I see them. Some people hate me for that, but it's their problem not mine.
Take another Irony Award!

You are a compulsive liar, Peter. In a whole lifetime, you are the most hideous halfwitted pathetic incompetent implausible obsessive insane liar I have ever encountered. I find it alternately funny and disgusting to watch you drivelling out this filth.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate

You are a compulsive liar, Peter. In a whole lifetime, you are the most hideous halfwitted pathetic incompetent implausible obsessive insane liar I have ever encountered. I find it alternately funny and disgusting to watch you drivelling out this filth.

Though i think i might have a hard time to disprove this statement, don't you think you are insulting, which might be against forum rules?

Carn

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Carn
Though i think i might have a hard time to disprove this statement, don't you think you are insulting, which might be against forum rules?

Carn
Well, it is completely accurate. No hyperbole, nothing. He is the worst liar I've ever encountered.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
This is one of those cases. Randi has many times over the course of several decades issued a challenge to "find [him] a dry spot." He declares that is "a better test" of paranormal ability.

I took him up on the challenge that he issued, having told him that dry spots are more common than he thinks. I never claimed to be a dowser. I never claimed "paranormal" ability. I never claimed an ability I don't have.

What a pathetic trick!

Whether you called yourself a dowser or not is beside the point. What you claimed to be able to do was to dowse.

Ergo, you lied. You are a liar, Peter.

[kookbreaker]

One thing I do notice is that even if Peter was right (and he is most certainly not) then he must be absolutely horrible at convincing anybody. Note the following:

Peter seems to post regularly on two message boards: JREF and the SDMB. Looking at his posts here and there it is apparent that he has managed to convince nobody to support him on either board. Both boards possess intelligent, well thought people. So one would figure that if Peter was correct in his claims, somebody would support him in his arguements. But he really hasn't garnered much support.

But wait! This is the JREF, which is filled with Randi supporters, right? So we're all blind to any criticism, right?

Well, no. Even here Randi has his critics, even among some folks who consider themselves fans may find him to harsh or direct. There a million criticisms of Randi, even amongst his fans. If Randi were outright deceptive, someone would at least comment on it.

Even more so, there are people who are not Randi fans on this forum. Lucianarchy (although banned now due to a meltdown) and Interesting Ian come to mind. Given that II has supported some seriously lost causes with the tenacity of rabid dog, surely he might have shown up to support PM. But perhaps some meat is too rotten, even for a rabid dog.

Furthermore, one of PM's recent critics is Claus Larsen. Now Claus is probably the most criticized skeptic on this board, as well as on a couple of others, one would think that if Larsen was supporting an outright lie someone might have mentioned it. Larsen's been nailed in the past (right or wrongly) but except for Princhester criticizing him for barking up the wrong tree with regards to the code (which is not the same thing) there hasn't been much criticism of Larsen in this matter. Given that there are some folks who won't let Larsen post "2+2=4" without giving the hairy eyeball, I have but to wonder.

Then we get to the Straight Dope Message Board. Now I have lurked there, and I notice that it is much larger than the JREF, but also less focused. I have noted several folks who are not fans of Randi there, as well as many folks who have a strong interest in the paranormal. Those folks still do not like Randi, but they sure as heck aren't using Peter's claims of examples as to why they do not like him. I managed to spot one SDMB poster who expressed some sympathy to Peter, but did not think much of his claims.

So what does this say? It says that Peter is so wrong that even potential Randi-dislikers aren't willing to support him much, or Peter is right in his claims and is so bad at arguing his points that nobody wants to be seen working with him. Its not really a hard thing to figure out.

[Prolix]

He can deliberately soil himself.

By doing so, of course, he degrades and debases himself and makes of himself an vile, sickening object of contempt and disgust. But one of his hated keepers will have the loathsome job of coming into contact with the dirty animal and cleaning up its stinking mess. This is the lunatic's one revenge.

Thank you for this wonderful insight. It gives me "the everlasting peace" of cognitive closure. And lets me accept my human brother Peter Morris, soilage and all. ( But I will keep my distance from him, thank you.)

[rppa]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You ought to address your question to Larsen. He said the above, not me.

No, he didn't. Every single word I posted was taken from your post. That makes the statement above a lie. Here again are the words I quoted.

However, and this is the point that confuses me, your list already contains the claim that some people refuse the test because the money is cursed.

So, I presume that you already have evidence of that? Since you need evidence before you include an item on your list.

We can all go back in the thread and see that these are your words, not his. But it's really not necessary, is it? You aren't going to convince us that Larsen was talking to you about "your list" and "your claim that some people refuse the test", etc.

See, this is why lying is so difficult. You keep having to add new lies to try to keep your story self-consistent, and eventually it all breaks down in contradiction anyway.

Larsen claims that people refuse Randi's challenge because of a curse.

Yes.

Larsen demanded "evidence" before putting an excuse on his list.

Um, no. The words "Since you need evidence before you include an item on your list" are yours. "You include an item on your list", see? Whose list is it again?

So you said Larsen needed evidence before putting an excuse on his list of excuses used. Now address the question. What constitutes sufficient evidence to put an excuse on a list of excuses used? Would it be finding that somebody used the excuse?

Larsen claimed that he had "evidence" of the curse.

Nobody believes that. Probably not even you. Once again, look at the context in which you demanded evidence. They are your words. What evidence were you asking for?

[princhester]

This business of demanding Peter's little piece of software is driving me off my rocker.

Can we puh-lease review the facts? He says he wrote a little piece of code to arrive at a probability figure. He gave the figure: it was a bit over 1 in 100.

Then a couple of skeptic/statisticians chime in and say that they arrive at about the same *****' figure by calculation.

And then a number of people that I would have thought had enough brains to know better (and also Larsen) demand for page after page that Peter produce something he says he's thrown away. What are we being skeptical of here? That the result that Peter reported which has been independantly confirmed to be correct isn't correct? That Peter is incapable of calculating something that he manifestly calculated?

Some of you skeptics are skepticism's worst enemy.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The exact opposite is true.

I have shown Randi's comments about underground rivers within the context of speeches attacking dowsers, and comments repeated on several occasions, which eliminates any sensible doubt as to what he was talking about.

Princhester, by contrast takes one sentence, or a few words out of context, and tries to attach a meaning to ythose words that simply isn't there. He insists his interpretation of those particular words is right, ignoring the rest of what Randi said in that article, ignoring what Randui said on other occasions, ignoring everyone else's interpretation of the words.

So if all this is true, why is it that in the "dry spots" thread on the SDMB when I was trying to argue that what Randi said should be interpreted in context you refused to do so, and when I asked you for a straight answer on whether what people said should or should not be interpreted in context, you didn't reply, and still haven't replied despite me asking you again on these boards?

Fact is, you don't want to reply because you know that to argue that what people say should not be interpreted in context would be ridiculous, but if you admit this then I'm going to have you backed into a corner. So you just refuse to reply.

[Darat]

Originally posted by princhester
This business of demanding Peter's little piece of software is driving me off my rocker.

Can we puh-lease review the facts? He says he wrote a little piece of code to arrive at a probability figure. He gave the figure: it was a bit over 1 in 100.

...snip...

Some of you skeptics are skepticism's worst enemy.

I have no interest in his program one way or the other or the results of it.

It was just that Peter seemed to be saying one of his reasons for not making it available was that he didn't trust someone to make an honest evaluation. I tried to provide him with an opportunity that solved his issue. Peter seems to have taken that to mean I am "demanding" he provide the software.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What a pathetic trick!
Whether you called yourself a dowser or not is beside the point. What you claimed to be able to do was to dowse.

Ergo, you lied. You are a liar, Peter.


Larsen, stop listening to what the voices in your head tell you, listen to me instead.


I never claimed the ability to dowse. I was disputing Randi's geology.


So, yet again your voices make a liar of you.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
So if all this is true, why is it that in the "dry spots" thread on the SDMB when I was trying to argue that what Randi said should be interpreted in context you refused to do so, and when I asked you for a straight answer on whether what people said should or should not be interpreted in context, you didn't reply, and still haven't replied despite me asking you again on these boards?

Fact is, you don't want to reply because you know that to argue that what people say should not be interpreted in context would be ridiculous, but if you admit this then I'm going to have you backed into a corner. So you just refuse to reply.

You know. I've seen this argument before, and it's always pathetic.

"Ooooh, there were twenty of us morons firing off abuse and questions at you. You answered many of them but you missed out on an answer to this particular point. I will assume that you have infinite time and patiene to answer every dumb question fired at you. So missing this particular one proves conclusively that you can't answer. It can't possibly be that you missed in in the stream of hatred and invective. It can't possibly be that the question was so trivial that it didn't merit an answer. You didn'y t answer my point so I'm going to claim victory."

But to answer your question, Princhester - which I've already answered in another thread - of course Randi's comments should be interpreted in the context of the whole. THAT'S WHY I DO IT.

You, Princhester, are in the habit of taking one word or half a sentence out of contrext, and arguing the toss about the meaning of that word. You ignore the meaning of the whole.

That's twice I've answered your question.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by rppa
No, he didn't. Every single word I posted was taken from your post. That makes the statement above a lie. Here again are the words I quoted.

No, because you quote me asking a question of Larsen. The question you asked me was the exact same one that I was asking Larsen. He was the originator of the dumb lies. I questioned him on them. The thoughts you attribute to me were actually Larsen's, and I was disagreeing with them.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Darat
I have no interest in his program one way or the other or the results of it.

It was just that Peter seemed to be saying one of his reasons for not making it available was that he didn't trust someone to make an honest evaluation. I tried to provide him with an opportunity that solved his issue. Peter seems to have taken that to mean I am "demanding" he provide the software.

But that is exactly what you are doing.

You demand that I send you a copy of the program.

And you don't have any clear idea of why you want it.


You just keep shrieking that not giving you the program somehow discredits me, and you don't know why, but it's all you've got.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Prolix
Thank you for this wonderful insight. It gives me "the everlasting peace" of cognitive closure. And lets me accept my human brother Peter Morris, soilage and all. ( But I will keep my distance from him, thank you.)

As for soilage, take a look at which one of us posted a disgusting message about people soiling themselves. As he admits, doing something utterly disgusting is the last resort of the terminally desperate. He uses fouls stuff like this, because that's all he has.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But that is exactly what you are doing.

You demand that I send you a copy of the program.



Please show where I demand this? To make it easier for you here are my posts on the matter - please tell me which of the following posts is a demand.

By Darat


Then why not post it here or make it availble to everyone? I have webspace I can upload it to if you'd like.



By Darat

Well since you had just said "…Why would I trust him to assess my code honestly? If I sent him my code, the lying little fanatic will simply pretend there is a flaw in it, one that exists only in his own fantasy…." I was giving you an opportunity that meant you wouldn’t have to rely on one poster's honesty.

All we are left with is your word, and I'll use the evidence of your posts here and elsewhere to assign the appropriate value to that.



By Darat

Originally posted by Peter Morris
"my word?"


What are you challenging, exactly?

Are you refusing to believe that I wrote a program?



I am saying all we have is your word you did.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Are you challenging the results generated by the program?



I am saying all we have is your word the results were as you say they were.

Originally posted by Peter Morris

You don't seem to have a clear idea what you want. You just demand that I re-write my program and send it to the liar, but you don't know why.


You are confused, I haven't demanded anything from you.

I haven’t even asked you to do anything and I certainly haven’t demanded you send anything to anyone. (Don’t know who you mean by "the liar" since you have called quite a few people "liar" in your recent posts.)

I offered a solution to a problem you put forward i.e. you not being able to trust one person's evaluation of your program.



By Darat
I have no interest in his program one way or the other or the results of it.

It was just that Peter seemed to be saying one of his reasons for not making it available was that he didn't trust someone to make an honest evaluation. I tried to provide him with an opportunity that solved his issue. Peter seems to have taken that to mean I am "demanding" he provide the software.



Originally posted by Peter Morris

And you don't have any clear idea of why you want it.


As I have said I don't want it, I was just trying to provide you with a solution to one of the problems you said you had with making it available to one person.

Originally posted by Peter Morris


You just keep shrieking that not giving you the program somehow discredits me, and you don't know why, but it's all you've got.

As can be seen in my quotes above I have not asked for it. I have offered to place it online for you to solve a problem you put forward.

Can you please show where I have:

1) demanded you provide the software
2) asked you for the software
3) shrieked
4) said that not providing the software discredits you

Those four questions arise from what you state I have done. I am assuming that you can provide evidence for your statements otherwise like any honest debater I am sure you will admit you were mistaken and withdraw them.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
As for soilage, take a look at which one of us posted a disgusting message about people soiling themselves. As he admits, doing something utterly disgusting is the last resort of the terminally desperate. He uses fouls stuff like this, because that's all he has.
I am giving you a gift few people have --- insight into how others see you.

"That's all he has". Yes indeed. That is the best explanation I, or anyone else, has come up with for your behaviour. If you can explain better why you repeatedly seek out humilation, disgust, contempt, and ridicule, please let us know.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
This business of demanding Peter's little piece of software is driving me off my rocker.

Can we puh-lease review the facts? He says he wrote a little piece of code to arrive at a probability figure. He gave the figure: it was a bit over 1 in 100.

Then a couple of skeptic/statisticians chime in and say that they arrive at about the same *****' figure by calculation.

And then a number of people that I would have thought had enough brains to know better (and also Larsen) demand for page after page that Peter produce something he says he's thrown away. What are we being skeptical of here? That the result that Peter reported which has been independantly confirmed to be correct isn't correct? That Peter is incapable of calculating something that he manifestly calculated?

Some of you skeptics are skepticism's worst enemy.

We check. We ask the claimant for evidence. Every step of the way. It's that simple.

If we don't check each and every link in the chain, then we run the very real risk of accepting the validity of the weak link. And in this field, we cannot afford to let even one simple aspect slide. We know that false claims are more common than fleas on a mutt. We know that some of the woos will knowingly deceive us.

Peter Morris is a known liar. He has an agenda of discrediting skepticism. That emphasizes the need to check everything he says.

If you can tell me a method by which we can determine the validity of a claim without checking, I would be most interested to hear it.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by rppa

So you said Larsen needed evidence before putting an excuse on his list of excuses used. Now address the question. What constitutes sufficient evidence to put an excuse on a list of excuses used? Would it be finding that somebody used the excuse?

Larsen claimed that he had "evidence" of the curse.

Nobody believes that. Probably not even you. Once again, look at the context in which you demanded evidence. They are your words. What evidence were you asking for?

I advise YOU to look at the context.

1) Larsen made a list of alleged "excuses" that he claims people offered. This included the excuse that the money is cursed.

2) I cited a dowser who had tried to negotiate a protocol with Randi, but had been unable to agree on an acceptable test. I suggested that Larsen include that on his list.

3) Larsen demanded "where's the evidence?" Larsen said he needed "evidence" before he put it on his list.

4) I asked him what "evidence" he wanted, and why hadn't he asked for "evidence" for the curse.

5) Larsen said that he already has evidence for the curse.

6) I asked him again what evidence he wanted for dowsing, was it:
a) evidence that someone had actually said this
b) evidence that dowsing works
c) evidence that the dowser's excuse is true

7) Larsen said that he wanted evidence that the dowser's excuse is true, meanwhile he continued to claim he had evidence of the curse.

Note this: I offered Larsen a way out. I gave him the chance to say he wanted a cite for the excuse, that he only wanted evidence that someone had actually said this. Larsen refused the opportunity. He demanded proof the excuse is true, while repeatedly claiming that he has evidence for the curse.

It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.

If you look, you'll see that the demand for evidence came from Larsen, and I asked him what evidence he wanted.

So,your question " What evidence were you asking for?" doesn't make sense. Larsen demanded evidence. I asked him what evidence he wanted.

You should ask the question of Larsen, since he was the one demanding evidence.

Your question "What constitutes sufficient evidence to put an excuse on a list of excuses used? Would it be finding that somebody used the excuse? " is the same question that I asked Larsen.

I'm still waiting for an answer from him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen, stop listening to what the voices in your head tell you, listen to me instead.


I never claimed the ability to dowse. I was disputing Randi's geology.


So, yet again your voices make a liar of you.

No voices in my head, Peter.

It isn't a "dispute". Did you not seek the million dollars? Yes, you did.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I advise YOU to look at the context.

I advise YOU to read the article.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
1) Larsen made a list of alleged "excuses" that he claims people offered. This included the excuse that the money is cursed.

No.

Read the article again:

"The money is tainted. It will only bring misery and pain."
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

And I have given you an example of that kind of excuse, from Randi's newsletter.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We check. We ask the claimant for evidence. Every step of the way. It's that simple.

No, Larsen, you do not. If someone is attacking the paranormal, you will put it in your article. Any lie that attacks the paranormal is acceptable to you. This whole argument stems from your refusal to check your facts and provide cites for the claims in your fawning sing-the-praises-of-Randi article.



Peter Morris is a known liar.

That's rich comiong from you, Larsen.

You have produced a constant stream of fictional quotes that you attribute to me. You make all kinds of stuff up. You claim - totally fictionally - that I claimed to be a dowser. That is your lie, Larsen. I never made any such claim.

You have to do this because it's your only excuse. You make up words I never said - then claim those as evidence that I'm as dishonest as you are.

He has an agenda of discrediting skepticism. That emphasizes the need to check everything he says.

Not, skepticism, Larsen, just the pathetic skeptical element who are so insecure that they have to lie to support their ideas.

If you can tell me a method by which we can determine the validity of a claim without checking, I would be most interested to hear it. [/B]

Larsen, your articles are full of unchecked claims. Any claim goes in if it discredits the paranormal. You just don't care about truth. You attack anyone who disagrees with you, and don't mind how many lies you tell in the process.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No voices in my head, Peter.



It isn't a "dispute". Did you not seek the million dollars? Yes, you did. [/B]

No, Larsen, I did not seek the million dollars. I sought to expose Randi as a liar. Job done.

He repeatedly made his challenge in total bad faith. It was always clear that he had no intention of honouring it. I told him I would accept just to see his reaction. It was kinda predictable that he would weasel out. And weasel he did.

I never had any real expectation of getting the million.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I sought to expose Randi as a liar.


And you failed in the process, because there was no lie to expose. All you did was demonstrate the lengths of dishonesty you will sink to in order to try and 'expose' things that are not there.


You know he is,


On the contrary, we 'know' nothing of the sort. You've tried this lame 'and you know it' tactic before. I'm sure it gives you a warm fuzzy since you use it so much. It sems to be the only arguement you have once you break it down.


but you make excuses for him. As long as he keeps attacking the paranormal you don't care hoew many lies he tells. That's pathetic.

What's pathetic is a man who lies to try to 'expose' an invented dispute over a geology matter.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, Larsen, I did not seek the million dollars.

...

I never had any real expectation of getting the million.

That is the problem with lying, Peter. It becomes increasingly difficult to keep your story straight.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, Larsen, you do not. If someone is attacking the paranormal, you will put it in your article. Any lie that attacks the paranormal is acceptable to you. This whole argument stems from your refusal to check your facts and provide cites for the claims in your fawning sing-the-praises-of-Randi article.

Show me one lie on SkepticReport. Just one.

And you really ought to let go of this charade that you don't hate Randi. Every chance you get, you throw in a disparaging diatribe against the man.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
That's rich comiong from you, Larsen.

You have produced a constant stream of fictional quotes that you attribute to me. You make all kinds of stuff up. You claim - totally fictionally - that I claimed to be a dowser. That is your lie, Larsen. I never made any such claim.

You have to do this because it's your only excuse. You make up words I never said - then claim those as evidence that I'm as dishonest as you are.

Fictional quotes??? I dare you to produce just one example where I attribute a quote to you that you haven't made.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Not, skepticism, Larsen, just the pathetic skeptical element who are so insecure that they have to lie to support their ideas.

And you still have to prove that anyone (other than yourself) has lied.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen, your articles are full of unchecked claims. Any claim goes in if it discredits the paranormal. You just don't care about truth. You attack anyone who disagrees with you, and don't mind how many lies you tell in the process.

Just one, Peter. Just one.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Show me one lie on SkepticReport. Just one.

Your entire list of phoney quotes, which you have admitted you are unable to provide cites for. You can't provide cites because they don't exist. You and your cronies have made most of them up.

And the fact that you have refused to include important ones, where people describe their attempts to discuss mattetrs with Randi, but find it impossible to get him to talk sensibly. You have refused to include that one, even though it is frequently offered as an excuse.

Deliberately ommitting information to give a false impression is the same as lying, Larsen.

And you really ought to let go of this charade that you don't hate Randi. Every chance you get, you throw in a disparaging diatribe against the man.

You mistake contempt for hatred. I despise Randi. I've never denied that he disgusts me. I certainly hate his methods, but not the man himself. No, I leave hatred to vile people such as you, Kook, and Inadequate.




Fictional quotes??? I dare you to produce just one example where I attribute a quote to you that you haven't made.

Right, you fawning little crawler. Here's a few of the direct lies you have told in an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit me.

"t's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself."

"So, nobody forced you. And you lied when you claimed to have paranormal abilities. Way to go."


"But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie."

"It still doesn't change the fact that you lied: You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have. You are still a liar. "

"What, exactly, did you claim you could do, when you applied for the challenge? Dowse. You applied for the challenge, claiming that you had paranormal powers. Which you admit that you don't. It makes no difference what you claimed to be able to dowse for."

"Did you not seek the million dollars? Yes, you did."

"Whether you called yourself a dowser or not is beside the point. What you claimed to be able to do was to dowse."

Over and over again comes the lie from Larsen. You accuse me of saying that I have paranormal abilities. I never made such a claim. You accuse me of admitting that I lied. I did not lie, or say that I lied. You accuse me of claiming tio be a dowser. I never made such a claim. You accuse me of seeking the million dollars. I was just getting information from Randi.

Are you man enough to apologise to me? Somehow I doubt it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Your entire list of phoney quotes, which you have admitted you are unable to provide cites for. You can't provide cites because they don't exist. You and your cronies have made most of them up.

Already explained to you: They are distilled examples of the various excuses skeptics have heard.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And the fact that you have refused to include important ones, where people describe their attempts to discuss mattetrs with Randi, but find it impossible to get him to talk sensibly. You have refused to include that one, even though it is frequently offered as an excuse.

Deliberately ommitting information to give a false impression is the same as lying, Larsen.

It is already covered in the article, you dimwit:

"Randi sets the bar too high. The test is impossible."
We cannot relax the conditions to an extent where it is possible for you to cheat.
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm)

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You mistake contempt for hatred. I despise Randi. I've never denied that he disgusts me. I certainly hate his methods, but not the man himself. No, I leave hatred to vile people such as you, Kook, and Inadequate.

OK, fine, you "despise" Randi. He "disgusts" you. So, you find it OK to lie to him.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Right, you fawning little crawler. Here's a few of the direct lies you have told in an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit me.

....

Over and over again comes the lie from Larsen. You accuse me of saying that I have paranormal abilities. I never made such a claim. You accuse me of admitting that I lied. I did not lie, or say that I lied. You accuse me of claiming tio be a dowser. I never made such a claim. You accuse me of seeking the million dollars. I was just getting information from Randi.

Are you man enough to apologise to me? Somehow I doubt it.

Peter? Those are not quotes. Show me a quote that I have falsely attributed to you.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Are you man enough to apologise to me? Somehow I doubt it.

Being a man means that you apolgize for your mistakes. OK, that's a good thing.

But what does it mean about you when you refuse to apologise for your accusations against Darat for the crime of offering you webspace?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You mistake contempt for hatred. I despise Randi. I've never denied that he disgusts me. I certainly hate his methods, but not the man himself.

If its not hatred you have for Randi then its that perverted emotion that leads to stalking.

I find it hard to believe that mere contempt would lead you to try so hard to find issues to attack Randi on... issues that have nothing to do with the paranormal. Such as his legal defenses and phoney allegations of plagarism.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So,your question " What evidence were you asking for?" doesn't make sense. Larsen demanded evidence. I asked him what evidence he wanted.

I provided a quote where you mentioned that there should be evidence before putting someone on the list. It makes perfect sense to ask you what you meant by the word "evidence" when you used it in a sentence, asserting that Larson needed to provide it.

You should ask the question of Larsen, since he was the one demanding evidence.

As were you in connection with the list. So what did you mean by the question of yours that I have repeatedly quoted? Why are you unable to explain just one little sentence which was yours? Don't you know what you meant?

Your question "What constitutes sufficient evidence to put an excuse on a list of excuses used? Would it be finding that somebody used the excuse? " is the same question that I asked Larsen.

No it's not. But provide me a quote where you asked that of Larsen and I'll apologize for doubting you on this score.

Meanwhile, what do *you* think constitutes sufficient evidence to put an excuse on a list of excuses used? Would it be finding that somebody actually used that excuse? Please just answer the question from your own opinion. I'd like to know what you think, if you have thoughts.

I'm still waiting for an answer from him.

I haven't seen you ask him that question. However, I've asked it of you, three times now, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Surely you have an opinion.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by rppa
I provided a quote where you mentioned that there should be evidence before putting someone on the list.

No. Larsen demanded "evidence," I asked him what evidence was required.

Now you also ask what evidence is required. Address your question to Larsen.

[CFLarsen]

Peter? Can you show me a quote that I have falsely attributed to you?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by rppa

No it's not. But provide me a quote where you asked that of Larsen and I'll apologize for doubting you on this score.


Righto. Here's how Larsen's nonsense started.

(Sorry, I don't know how to link to the specific posts. you'' have to look for them yourself.)



Peter : [cites an excuse made by non-applicants] Put that one in your list, Larsen. You've even got a specific reference that you can cite.

Larsen : I'm most willing to. All I need is evidence.

Peter : Evidence of what, Larsen?

Larsen : If you can't keep up in the threads you participate in, don't participate, then. .... Let's see some evidence of your claims. E.g., dowsing: Where is the evidence that it works?

Peter : Now your demand for "evidence" confuses me. See, here's the scenario: .... You consider evidence missing when someone complains that Randi's design for a protocol is unfair, yet evidence present when someone says the money is cursed. So I ask again. What evidence would that be? Evidence of what?



There you are, Larsen demanded evidence, I asked him what evidence he wanted.

You accuse me of demanding evidence, and ask me what evidence I want. You ought to address your question to Larsen.


Meanwhile, what do *you* think constitutes sufficient evidence to put an excuse on a list of excuses used? Would it be finding that somebody actually used that excuse? Please just answer the question from your own opinion. I'd like to know what you think, if you have thoughts. [/B]

Yes, I think that an excuse should go on the list if and only if there is proof that somebody said it. For each item on the list there should be:

1) A specific named individual who has refused the test.
2) The exact words they have used to justify not taking it.
3) A checkable reference showing the source of the quote.

Larsen has refused to provide these for most of the items on his list. He has also refused to include items where these have been provided.

[CFLarsen]

Peter? HELLO?

Can you show me a quote that I have falsely attributed to you?

Show them, or kindly retract the claim.

Put up or shut up.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, I think that an excuse should go on the list if and only if there is proof that somebody

Snipped.

You are always free to write your own article, Peter, to your own standards.

[kookbreaker]

Allow me to summarize a bit:

Claus decides to write an article giving answers to excuses for not taking the challenge. The purpose of the article is mostly to give answers to existing and potential comments. The important part of the article is the answers, not the questions themselves. This article is not a quotation documentation, it is not a historical accounting of excuses used, it does not use exact wording of every variation on an excuse. Claus makes this clear early on when he points out that several excuses are covered by other ones.

Peter, in his second post in the thread (the first being a typical Peter cheap-shot insult), declares that the excuses are straw men, and demands evidence for each one, despite the nature of the article.

Evidence is provided for some of them, Peter ignores most of it. One person gives a personal account of an excuse being used and Peter rejects it. This becomes important soon.

Peter soon insists that his own excuse be put on the list. By this point, what Peter says is really not to be taken on faith for obvious reasons. This is made clear by Claus, saying he;d like more evidence. Is it an unfair standard for Peter? Maybe, but Peter is the one responsible for his own reputation. Nobody made Peter write all those hysterics and rantings.

Peter claims to provide evidence for his 'excuse', but when examined it turns out to a person who withdrew during negotiations, a person who applied on bad faith and Peter Morris's own experience. Peter seems to now expect people to accept the standards he himself rejected. This 'excuse' is effectively rejected since it really has nothing behind it besides Peter's prejudice against Randi.

It gets more ugly from there. The original purpose of the article is somehow twisted to Peter's standards, a feeling only Peter subscribes to.

So Peter calls everyone liars.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Peter? HELLO?

Can you show me a quote that I have falsely attributed to you?

Show them, or kindly retract the claim.

Put up or shut up.



"t's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself."

"So, nobody forced you. And you lied when you claimed to have paranormal abilities. Way to go."


"But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie."

"It still doesn't change the fact that you lied: You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have. You are still a liar. "

"What, exactly, did you claim you could do, when you applied for the challenge? Dowse. You applied for the challenge, claiming that you had paranormal powers. Which you admit that you don't. It makes no difference what you claimed to be able to dowse for."

"Did you not seek the million dollars? Yes, you did."

"Whether you called yourself a dowser or not is beside the point. What you claimed to be able to do was to dowse."




Now, can you prove ANY of the above, you liar?


Put up or shut up.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Allow me to summarize a bit:

Claus decides to write an article giving answers to excuses for not taking the challenge. The purpose of the article is mostly to give answers to existing and potential comments.

The purpose of the article is to suck up to Randi, and to make his opponents look foolish.

The important part of the article is the answers, not the questions themselves. This article is not a quotation documentation, it is not a historical accounting of excuses used, it does not use exact wording of every variation on an excuse. Claus makes this clear early on when he points out that several excuses are covered by other ones.

It is a work of fiction. Moast of the items are invented by Randi fans.

Peter, in his second post in the thread (the first being a typical Peter cheap-shot insult), declares that the excuses are straw men, and demands evidence for each one, despite the nature of the article.

No, it was because of the nature of the article. The nature of the article is a pack of lies that tries to make Randi look good.

Evidence is provided for some of them, Peter ignores most of it. [/ quote]

Evidence is pr4ovided for ONE item on the list, which shows that even item has been distorted by Larsen. Larsen is challenged to amend it, and refuses.

One person gives a personal account of an excuse being used and Peter rejects it. This becomes important soon.

Peter soon insists that his own excuse be put on the list. By this point,

Simply not true. I have never asked that "my" excuse be put on Larsen's list.

what Peter says is really not to be taken on faith for obvious reasons.

I provided cites for all that I said. I never asked anything to be takemn on faith. Unlike Larsen.

This is made clear by Claus, saying he;d like more evidence.

Strange that he didn't ask foer it in any other case.

Is it an unfair standard for Peter? Maybe, but Peter is the one responsible for his own reputation. Nobody made Peter write all those hysterics and rantings.

Poor Kook. His own posts are full of hate, he is incapable of understanding that I don't share his pathos.

Peter claims to provide evidence for his 'excuse', but when examined it turns out to a person who withdrew during negotiations, a person who applied on bad faith and Peter Morris's own experience.

A lie. I didn't cite my own experience. It was some hate-filled Randi fanatic that chose to attack me over them. I have never asked Larsen to include it on hism liost

The proof I supplied came from The Kook's own links.

Peter seems to now expect people to accept the standards he himself rejected. This 'excuse' is effectively rejected since it really has nothing behind it besides Peter's prejudice against Randi.

The standards I've rejected being hateful abuse and wild invention. I certainly do expect Randi fans to follow the standards I've rejected.;

It gets more ugly from there. The original purpose of the article is somehow twisted to Peter's standards, a feeling only Peter subscribes to.

So Peter calls everyone liars. [/B]

No, I PROVE that you are liars.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

"t's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself."

"So, nobody forced you. And you lied when you claimed to have paranormal abilities. Way to go."


"But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie."

"It still doesn't change the fact that you lied: You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have. You are still a liar. "

"What, exactly, did you claim you could do, when you applied for the challenge? Dowse. You applied for the challenge, claiming that you had paranormal powers. Which you admit that you don't. It makes no difference what you claimed to be able to dowse for."

"Did you not seek the million dollars? Yes, you did."

"Whether you called yourself a dowser or not is beside the point. What you claimed to be able to do was to dowse."




Now, can you prove ANY of the above, you liar?


Put up or shut up.

Peter, these are not quotes!

This is a quote:
Originally posted by Peter Morris
Now, can you prove ANY of the above, you liar?

There, I just quoted you. But if I say: "Peter said that I did not tell the truth", then I am not quoting you.

Do you understand now? Or do you want to make a continuous fool of yourself?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The purpose of the article is to suck up to Randi

Given that Randi extremely rarely reads this forum, don't you think we have chosen a rather futile strategy? Why should we spend so much energy sucking up to someone, if he probably will never read it?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
and to make his opponents look foolish.

You do a wonderful job yourself.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, I PROVE that you are liars.

In your own mind, sure. So, your job here is done. Right?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The purpose of the article is to suck up to Randi, and to make his opponents look foolish.

It is a work of fiction. Moast of the items are invented by Randi fans.


This is unproven by you. And there is evidence provided for many. Your rejection of them shows that you were not asking for evidence with any purpose other than attack.


No, it was because of the nature of the article. The nature of the article is a pack of lies that tries to make Randi look good.


Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo.

In other words, you, personally did not like it!



Simply not true. I have never asked that "my" excuse be put on Larsen's list.



I provided cites for all that I said. I never asked anything to be takemn on faith. Unlike Larsen.


And as I pointed out, your cites were worthless.


Strange that he didn't ask foer it in any other case.


Because most of us have the experience of encoutnering these excuses. That we don't document every incident of it does not remove the existance of our experiences. By comparison, yours was a reason without validity that we had not heard, and the elements that were true were covered by other excuse answers. Furthermore, the example first given was a twisted verison of one dowser who withdrew his claim. Later examples were even worse.


Poor Kook. His own posts are full of hate, he is incapable of understanding that I don't share his pathos.


I'm not the one stalking Randi. I sure as heck am not stalking you, nor am I insulting you in random threads you do not participate in, unlike you.


A lie. I didn't cite my own experience. It was some hate-filled Randi fanatic that chose to attack me over them. I have never asked Larsen to include it on hism liost


Oh, os when you said "There, that's a common reason. Put that on your list.", you meant something completely different.


The proof I supplied came from The Kook's own links.


Which as I pointed out, came from John Benneth, who's account is complete unreliable and unreasonable. Simple research would have shown this, as would my pointing out that the links were to the really wacky excuses (as in: divorced from reality).


The standards I've rejected being hateful abuse and wild invention. I certainly do expect Randi fans to follow the standards I've rejected.;


Hateful abuse? Like your first post in this thread being an empty cheap-shot insult at Claus? Wild invention? Like saying that a person who withdrew while Kramer searched for someone to run a test was an example, or that Benneth's excuses were legitimate?

Gee, hypocrite much?


No, I PROVE that you are liars. [/B]

You have low standards of proof where your claims are concerned.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
3) Larsen demanded "where's the evidence?" Larsen said he needed "evidence" before he put it on his list.

4) I asked him what "evidence" he wanted, and why hadn't he asked for "evidence" for the curse.

5) Larsen said that he already has evidence for the curse.

6) I asked him again what evidence he wanted for dowsing, was it:
a) evidence that someone had actually said this
b) evidence that dowsing works
c) evidence that the dowser's excuse is true

7) Larsen said that he wanted evidence that the dowser's excuse is true, meanwhile he continued to claim he had evidence of the curse.

Note this: I offered Larsen a way out. I gave him the chance to say he wanted a cite for the excuse, that he only wanted evidence that someone had actually said this. Larsen refused the opportunity. He demanded proof the excuse is true, while repeatedly claiming that he has evidence for the curse.

It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.


It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.

It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.

It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.

It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.

It was the most stupid lie I've ever seen in my life, but that is what he said.

:dl:

[Dr Adequate]

Well, baby wants attention again, and needs his nappy changing. Fortunately, he keeps on telling the same halfwit lies, so we can debunk him using old posts.
Originally posted by rppa
It took a little digging because this thread is so monstrous, but eventually I found where Morris' discussion of "you claim you have evidence of a curse" may have started. For the benefit of those like me who haven't been reading this thread from the start:

[i]Originally posted by the Peter Morris/i]
However, and this is the point that confuses me, your list already contains the claim that some people refuse the test because the money is cursed.

So, I presume that you already have evidence of that? Since you need evidence before you include an item on your list.

Now a sane person, knowing the list in question was a list of excuses people have given, would think Morris is saying "before you list a curse as an excuse, you need evidence that somebody has used a curse as an excuse".

I can't think of a sane person or Morris saying that you can't put "curse" on a list of excuses unless you have evidence there really is a curse.

So how about it, Peter? When you said the claim is that some people refused on the basis of the curse, and asked for that claim to be backed up, what evidence were you talking about? What "evidence" is needed before putting something down on a list of excuses that were used?
(a) the excuse was used, or
(b) the excuse was grounded in fact

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Now, here's my answer. You say that Larsen claims to have proved that the JREF money is cursed. He does not. This is another of your halfwited lies. What made me laugh so much, of course, was YOU talking about people saying dumb things and shooting themselves in the foot, having just done so so spectacularly yourself.

[Dr Adequate]

I'll even repost some more of his halfwitted gibble, just to be fair.
Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, you liar. He said that the curse was true.

It was a stupid thing to say. But that is what he said. Over and over.

Deny his words if you want. It makes you a liar, but doesn't change what the fool said.

You are desperately trying to attach a different meaning to his words. But he stated that he has evidence of the curse.
:dl:
Larsen has "said that the curse was true... over and over."

What a pathetic liar Morris is.

Just one quotation, Morris, you filthy liar, just one. And not one which you've made up. One quotation in which Larsen says there's a curse on the JREF money. One.

You halfwitted drivelling liar.

[Ashles]

I just don't get this at all.

Peter Morris is claiming over and over that Larsen has said there is a curse on the money.

Larsen has never done this.

Knowing Larsen and his posting history it would be idiotic to even claim such a thing.
You'd have to be an utter moron and someone who has a desperate need to try and twist any phrase to try and back up their own untenable arguments.
You'd have to be a half-wit to lie so blatantly and to continue to lie even in the face of unanimous mockery of your bare faced lie.

Oh, now maybe I get it...

[CFLarsen]

The word "curse" doesn't even appear in the article....

[Darat]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...snip...

No, I PROVE that you are liars.

Do I take it then (using your standards) that you agree that I have now proven you to be a liar?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Ashles
I just don't get this at all.

Peter Morris is claiming over and over that Larsen has said there is a curse on the money.

Larsen has never done this.

Knowing Larsen and his posting history it would be idiotic to even claim such a thing.


Agreed, which is why I keep saying it was a stupid lie.

You'd have to be an utter moron and someone who has a desperate need to try and twist any phrase to try and back up their own untenable arguments.

That's Larsen all right.

You'd have to be a half-wit to lie so blatantly and to continue to lie even in the face of unanimous mockery of your bare faced lie.

Oh, now maybe I get it...

Hello, this is Larsen we're talking about. Nobody ever said he was particularly smart.


Just to remind you :



Peter : What is the "evidence" that you want. Some evidence that
- is missing from the dowsers statement
- yet present in the claim that the money is cursed.

You refuse to include the dowsers statement because you say there is no evidence.

You include the cursed money because there IS evidence.

Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?


Larsen : It's in my post. "Annet Kofoed".

Peter : Now, tell me what evidence you have to support the excuse that the money is cursed.

Larsen : Have you seen the Kofoed quote?




Larsen and his dimwitted supporters can spew abuse and hate all they want. They will never erase what Larsen said. He said directly that the money is cursed. He's never been very smart, but the day he wrote that he was a total Kookbreaker.

Folks, Larsen saying that he has evidence of the curse is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is what he said.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The word "curse" doesn't even appear in the article....

Says Larsen, having hurredly changed his article. And having earlier refused to do so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Says Larsen, having hurredly changed his article. And having earlier refused to do so.

And yet, on 09-19-2004, at 12:32 PM, before the article was published, I posted this:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"The money is tainted. It will only bring misery and pain."

That is ludicrous: You don't get a million dollars in cash, the sum is transferred electronically from one account to another, precisely as is being done millions of times each day all over the world.

How do you know that the money you get for your services hasn't been in touch with a skeptic? (If the answer is: "I can feel it", then we have a testable claim! :))
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45617&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

Go and check, you poor fool.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
They will never erase what Larsen said. He said directly that the money is cursed. He's never been very smart, but the day he wrote that he was a total Kookbreaker.

Folks, Larsen saying that he has evidence of the curse is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is what he said.

Look, all people here are asking for is a direct quote. Where did I "directly" say that the money is cursed?

What, is it "gone"? Did someone "hurredly change" it? Gee, what a huge conspiracy!!

You poor sod.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen and his dimwitted supporters can spew abuse and hate all they want. They will never erase what Larsen said. He said directly that the money is cursed. He's never been very smart, but the day he wrote that he was a total Kookbreaker.


You're not very good at this, are you?


Folks, Larsen saying that he has evidence of the curse is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is what he said.

OK, you suck at this.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Says Larsen, having hurredly changed his article. And having earlier refused to do so.

Wow, covering a lie with another lie. And you try to paint me as dumb.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But to answer your question, Princhester - which I've already answered in another thread - of course Randi's comments should be interpreted in the context of the whole. THAT'S WHY I DO IT.


Chill, Peter. No need to call people morons. Anyone might think all you have is abuse and not arguments. I'm sure if I called you a moron that's what you'd say about me.

Now you've answered my question come back over to this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5396573#post5396573).

[rppa]

Open letter to Peter Morris:

One of your recent "recaps" motivated me to go back and read the whole thread. Now I'd like to know if you are still sticking to the other distortions and deliberate misinterpretations you injected. It's really hard to keep track of what you claim to believe.

Do you still claim Larsen started this out with a list of "top excuses", "most common excuses", "top ten excuses" or anything like an indication of how popular these excuses were?

Do you still claim that, though the first sentence in the thread clearly said these were paraphrases, that these are purported to be exact quotes?

Oh, and by the way, your "recap" bore no resemblance to the actual. As anybody with a browser can easily verify.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rppa
Do you still claim that, though the first sentence in the thread clearly said these were paraphrases, that these are purported to be exact quotes?

For the record, opening post:
Originally posted by CFLarsen
I've paraphrased the excuses that I've seen people use.

So, Peter...do you also think I went back and changed that, too? I can't, you see - the forum software forbids it.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
It is a work of fiction. Moast of the items are invented by Randi fans.


This post is to document the quotes from Larsen’s article mentioned at the beginning of this thread. This is to counter to hysterical claims from Peter that few or none of these excuses have been used. As can be seen, almost all of these can be found, and some are so common that to claim otherwise required deliberate ignorance.

Some may ask, why didn’t we do this sooner. Well, again I would say that this is because these excuses are common enough that we really have no need to document them. It is like saying there is a traffic light down the road from you. If you say this on the newsgroup and some looney says that you are full of it and there is no traffic light, how much effort are you willing to spend countering such attacks on a very mundane thing? You could take a picture, but that might easily be rejected. You could get documents, but they might be considered faked. I have already expended far too much effort trying to prove that there are traffic lights.

A note before we start: Claus’ list is hardly new. Several lists of excuses can be found on USENET and the web. For example this one from a parapsychology site lists several:

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0197/randi.htm

But now on with the excuses:

James Randi makes money from this:

“randi has not made a legal challenge. randi has posted
loud and long that he has made a one million dollar challenge to any
one who can prove the existence of the paranormal. Legally what randi
is doing is committing a fraud upon the public for personal gain.� –Pete Stapleton

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3775ec48.12879728%40news.earthlink.net&output=gplain

James Randi doesn’t have the money

This one is so common I am amazed that I have to prove it is used, but hey:

“Afterall, Sollog hasn't even said he wants Randi's million (which is
b*******, Randi doesn't have a million to give away, it's a lousy
promissory note)� –SollogRules

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8s1t1d%248v0%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain

“Neither you or Randi have a pot to pee in..� Earl Curly

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4c4nh2%24qu7%40forged.passport.ca&output=gplain

Randi will never pay…

“What ever happened to Benneth? Maybe he became convinced (like me) that
Randi would never pay.� - Kim Birney

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3ADCC80D.9AA41D29%40home.com&output=gplain


Randi is just a magician, what does he know?

This one is tad tricky, because the sentiment is usually dismissive of Randi, and not the challenge. But:

“Randi isn't a scientist and has no credible competence in the scientific community to analyze or make recommendations or inferences on experimental design and statistical inference.� - Brian Zeiler

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4il1m6%24p1a%40news.doit.wisc.edu&output=gplain

“I've said it before, and I'll continue screaming it at the top of my lungs until the mainstream news media in this country takes notice: JAMES RANDI IS NOT A SCIENTIST. He has ZERO academic or scientific credentials. He is nothing but a former stage performer who, by today's standards, is a subpar magician…� Micheal GoodSpeed

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20000908223128.09101.00000294%40ng-fq1.aol.com&output=gplain

I was tested by X and that proves it!

This one is often used by Geller regarding his ‘test’ at SRI. A close version comes from Benneth (via Kettler):

“...I'm claiming can be done HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE by others before me.�

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=37ffb36b.1863166%40news.compuserve.com&output=gplain

James Randi won’t let me take the challenge

Oh, please! Just look at latinrijil’s post on this forum where he tried to enter someone else’s video tape.

The variation on this is to bluster about the challenge and claim Randi is running away. There are too many examples to list. Ed Dames, Benneth are immediate examples. (see the link under “I was tested by X…� above).

Some things can’t be quantified by your limited scientific methods.

“People with these kinds of abilities don't need "scientific" approval or validation, because the reality is that modern science is extremely biased to begin with. It isn't about truth and hasn't been for a long time.� –M1thr0s

http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=8898&page=4&pp=20


Spiritual Powers and money don’t mix

“I wonder if Randi has considered that offering money in exchange for
demonstration of "psychic powers" is actually corrupting the process?
As a believer in the paranormal, I think the #1 problem is the profit
motivation of "psychics." -Wilma Schpamme

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35b0d011.147028736%40news.pacbell.net&output=gplain

The money is tainted. It will only bring misery and pain

Claus already documented this one.

I don’t do this for personal gain

“Unfortunately the kabalists in Israel have not displayed the slightest
interest in earning some extra money, perhaps Mr. Randi could think up
of something to tempt them.�

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8nc8et%24imq%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain


I can only perform if no sceptic is in any way involved in the testing

While not directly to the challenge, Uri Geller blamed Johnny Carson’s skepticism for his failure on the tonight show when he returned to Leno’s Tonight Show.

The entire “psi-missing�, a long staple in Parapsychology, also covers this.

I can only perform if a skeptic offers me large sums of money

I can only perform if no skeptic offers me large sums of money

I really don’t feel the need to repeat what is essentially covered by “not in this for personal gain� routine. Truth is, these are redundant.

I can only perform when no skeptic is present because their evil vibrations negate my powers

Pretty much the same as “I can only perform…� listed above. Psi-missing once again.

The Challenge is not worth taking

I need only point to Sylvia Brown’s excuses that she’s “too busy� to win a million dollars for this one.

I am not out to convince anyone

Peter had access to this one from the first. He would later claim that only one excuse was documented (not this one) . Gee, dishonest much Peter?

“Without sounding too skeptical of the skeptics, I'd be willing to bet that their "proper observing conditions" are rather limiting. Besides, I don;t have to prove myself to anyone.� Quidgyboo

http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=8898


I only heal/ do mediumship for those who really need it

“I think the problem with a challenge of this type is that it is not motivated by a desire to see a miracle…If we can perform miracles at all,it is only by the Spirit of God, who decides when and where He will give a miracle. It isn't up to any of us.� –John Seeks

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=35D1195B.EA0B9679%40hotmail.com&output=gplain

If I do this in public, they will lock me up in the Pentagon or in a nuthouse

This was the hardest to find. There are variations on it, and the parascope article makes mention of it.


Randi won’t pay me the money even after I win

This one is fairly easy.

“I predict that no time within James Randi's lifetime will anyone win
the $10,000 prize. Do you really believe there is _anything_ that would cause him to state that one of the fundamental tenets of his and CSICOP's worldview is in error? He can always ask for better demonstrations, claim fraud, duplicate the demonstration using prestidigitation and dismiss it, claim hallucinogens in the air conditioning, etc.� Tim Scott

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1990Dec21.234502.11052%40spectra.com&output=gplain

Randi sets the tests too high. The test is impossible

“With the information that I have acquired, I feel that the
odds are highly in James Randi's favor. In fact I believe
that they are a little TOO HIGH.� -Flagship of the Paranormal

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38B087FF.3B661254%40earthlink.net&output=gplain

The terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable.

Really, this is the same as above.

The challenge is just a meaningless PR stunt.

There are TONS of examples of this one.

“This is just a big publicity stunt, and he is in complete control.� Newbie

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=oSsV7.401%24OG4.101676%40news.uswest.n et&output=gplain

Randi will just say that the effect can produced by trickery, then the effect must trickery

“I told you that Randi would arrange things in such a way that Kam will not be
able to preform,or if he succeeds that Randi will try to find an alternative
method of why he succeeded and if he finds one he will insist that this was how
it was done. He has no real interest in finding the truth. But to prove how
clever he is.� PQ Rada
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=19981126195204.10193.00001066%40ng121. aol.com&output=gplain

Randi will just refuse to accept what I do as paranormal

Pretty much the same as above.

I will lose my power if I charge money for using my gift

Can’t say I’ve heard this one used. So I didn’t bother looking for it. It looks like a variation of an earlier excuse, however.

The JREF doesn’t release any readily available results from previous applicants, so I don’t know what to expect.

“4. Why won't JREF reveal records of previous applications?
We've asked, but indications are that they either don't exist or are
being withheld. Why aren't they kept for review by those who ask?� John Benneth, via Kettler

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=929892467.791.66%40news.remarQ.com&output=gplain

So there you have it. I have wasted my time demonstrating stuff that was already encountered and expected. I will not waste more time chasing geese for a whiner.

Edited for coding mistakes

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
He said directly that the money is cursed.
This lie is so adequately debunked by your own post that there's nothing more to say. Well done. You have proved yourself a liar.

As if we didn't know.
Folks, Larsen saying that he has evidence of the curse is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is what he said.
Folks, Peter Morris saying that Larsen said that the money is cursed is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is not what Larsen said.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Peter : What is the "evidence" that you want. Some evidence that
- is missing from the dowsers statement
- yet present in the claim that the money is cursed.

You refuse to include the dowsers statement because you say there is no evidence.

You include the cursed money because there IS evidence.

Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?


Larsen : It's in my post. "Annet Kofoed".

Peter : Now, tell me what evidence you have to support the excuse that the money is cursed.

Larsen : Have you seen the Kofoed quote?


Look, halfwit, when I said I wanted a quotation to back up your stupid lies, I meant a quotation from CFLarsen, not a quotation of the dreary filthy lies you've spewed out previously. Quoting your own desperate lies is not evidence of anything except your pitiful mental condition.

[rppa]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
This lie is so adequately debunked by your own post that there's nothing more to say. Well done. You have proved yourself a liar.

As if we didn't know.

Folks, Peter Morris saying that Larsen said that the money is cursed is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is not what Larsen said.

Perhaps readers will find this quote relevant:

I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
-said by Tucker Carlson of GW Bush advisor Karen Hughes

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Ashles
I just don't get this at all.

Peter Morris is claiming over and over that Larsen has said there is a curse on the money.

Larsen has never done this.

Knowing Larsen and his posting history it would be idiotic to even claim such a thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter's reply: Agreed, which is why I keep saying it was a stupid lie.

I haven't bothered pasting the rest of Peter's answer because:
Peter's answer sums it all up.

Peter's lie IS indeed stupid.

Still it appears kookbreaker's lengthy resonse has finally shut him up (thanks kookbreaker).

[CFLarsen]

I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
-said by Tucker Carlson of GW Bush advisor Karen Hughes

New thread: Why lie, when people know you are lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48654)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Ashles
Still it appears kookbreaker's lengthy resonse has finally shut him up (thanks kookbreaker).

My most effecitive total waste of time, ever, it would seem.

[Operaider]

man, I always catch the fun threads at the end

I have some responses that might help, I just need to find the book that contains them first. It'll be a long list, so I might have to start a new thread

[KRAMER]

Courtesy of applicant PAUL CAREY, I've just been treated to a totally unique "escape portal" (an excuse used when an applicant backs out of testing)...and I quote;

The weekend is a No Go.

[Ashles]

The weekend is a No Go.
I know how he fels, after a long week at work I certainly consider weekends as precious.

Precious enough to to turn down a million dollars and a chance to further the boundaries of science?
Hmm.. that's a tough one...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Courtesy of applicant PAUL CAREY, I've just been treated to a totally unique "escape portal" (an excuse used when an applicant backs out of testing)...and I quote;

The weekend is a No Go.

He's washing his hair that weekend.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
He's washing his hair that weekend.
I've already torn all mine out at Randi's refusal to award me the $1 million. Life is sooo much easier now I don't even have to wash and go...
:p :D

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
New thread: Why lie, when people know you are lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48654)

Well, in your case, it's because you know that the Kook & Inadequate will keep spewing out their filth in supoport of you.

[Ashles]

Well Peter it's good to see that you have maintained your bizarre anger and venom.

Two posters who agree with another poster are obviously worthy of having their posts described as "spewing out their filth in supoport" and having their user names mocked (rather poorly).

Can you respond to kookbreaker's post at all? Or is the abuse all you are now capable of?

You asked for references and now you have them.

Maybe it might be best if you ended your lost battle and started up a brand new thread of your own about, ooh I don't know, something. Anything.

You could try having an opinion on paranormal claims for example, after all that's what we discuss here quite frequently.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
This post is to document the quotes from Larsen’s article mentioned at the beginning of this thread. This is to counter to hysterical claims from Peter that few or none of these excuses have been used.


So there you have it. I have wasted my time demonstrating stuff that was already encountered and expected. I will not waste more time chasing geese for a whiner.

Edited for coding mistakes

Well, for some of them you have produced cites that are similar to Larsen's quotes, but even with these it is plain that Larsen's article takes liberties. If Larsen uses the actual quotes, I will have no complaint about that.

Of course, there are quite a few that you were unable to find, save for your claim that they are the same as others.

And the fact that Larsen has refused to include certain excuses offered, because they make Randi look bad, and because he can't answer them.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well Peter it's good to see that you have maintained your bizarre anger and venom.

That's annoyance and disgust. I leave venom and hate to people like the Kook.

Two posters who agree with another poster are obviously worthy of having their posts described as "spewing out their filth in supoport" and having their user names mocked (rather poorly).

Two filthy and abusive liars who twist truth in support of another liar. They hate the paranormal, and think that any attack on the paranormal is a good thing. They are perfectly happy to let Larsen lie, as long as his lies support Randi and attack the paranormal. They justify Larsen's lies, and attack me with utter hate because I don't support him.

Can you respond to kookbreaker's post at all? Or is the abuse all you are now capable of?

If you think that's abuse, just take a look at some of the filth they produce.

You asked for references and now you have them.

Even Kook's quotes - such as he was able to find - show that Larsen has distorted the excuses somewhat. And there were many for which Kook couldn't find a cite.

Maybe it might be best if you ended your lost battle

Arguing with fundamentalists is always a losing battle.

and started up a brand new thread of your own about, ooh I don't know, something. Anything.

You could try having an opinion on paranormal claims for example, after all that's what we discuss here quite frequently. [/B]

If you would stop letting blind devotion to Randi get in the way of sensible discussion....

[Kimpatsu]

Peter, the onus is on YOU to supply direct quotations of Larson lying. You have failed to do so, and all your venom in the world will not change the fact that until you do, you have no leg to stand on.

[Peter Morris]

I've listed Larsen's lies several times already.

Here are some lies he told, when he was cornered on another lie he told, and desperate to attack me personally rather than answer the point.

"t's very clear: Peter Morris lied to Randi. Peter said so himself."

"So, nobody forced you. And you lied when you claimed to have paranormal abilities. Way to go."


"But you told Randi that you had paranormal abilities. Which is, by your own admission, a lie."

"It still doesn't change the fact that you lied: You claimed to have abilities, be they paranormal or not, that you didn't have. You are still a liar. "

"What, exactly, did you claim you could do, when you applied for the challenge? Dowse. You applied for the challenge, claiming that you had paranormal powers. Which you admit that you don't. It makes no difference what you claimed to be able to dowse for."

"Did you not seek the million dollars? Yes, you did."

"Whether you called yourself a dowser or not is beside the point. What you claimed to be able to do was to dowse."

All of these are his own invention. I did not claim paranormal powers, I did not claim the ability to dowse. I did not even "seek the million dollars," I merely asked Randi for details of the challenge that he had issued.

The fact that Larsen is unwilling to back up his claims, speaks volumes. He is a proven liar, and has nothing but hatred and dishonesty to back him up.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Well, for some of them you have produced cites that are similar to Larsen's quotes, but even with these it is plain that Larsen's article takes liberties. If Larsen uses the actual quotes, I will have no complaint about that.


Larsen made it quite clear that they were not exact quotes.


Of course, there are quite a few that you were unable to find, save for your claim that they are the same as others.


And very often they were, this would be my primary complaint about Larsen's article. But at least such a complaint is a legitimate criticism


And the fact that Larsen has refused to include certain excuses offered, because they make Randi look bad, and because he can't answer them.

There's only one such alleged excuse, and it has no support. Its sole proponent is you. This complaint is empty now as it was when you first demanded that Larsen put it in.

[CFLarsen]

Still no evidence from Peter Morris.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Still no evidence from Peter Morris.
Are you surprised?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Are you surprised?

Nope.

[Ashles]

Two filthy and abusive liars who twist truth in support of another liar. They hate the paranormal, and think that any attack on the paranormal is a good thing. They are perfectly happy to let Larsen lie, as long as his lies support Randi and attack the paranormal. They justify Larsen's lies, and attack me with utter hate because I don't support him.
Oh, so now Kookbreaker and Dr Adequate are liars too? Is anyone who disagrees with Peter Morris instantly branded a liar? Am I a liar Peter?

If you think that's abuse, just take a look at some of the filth they produce.
I have read many posts by Kookbreaker and Dr Adequate. Not one would be described as 'filth'.
I am actually slightly worried about your mental health - you seem to have a severe persecution complex and seem paranoid that everyone is ganging up to get you.
Logic should tell you that maybe it is not everyone else's behaviour that is at fault here. But you do not seem to be reasoning in an intelligent and logical way.
Your repeated inability to admit mistakes is also strange.

If you would stop letting blind devotion to Randi get in the way of sensible discussion....
Where did I even mention Randi? You're the one obsesseed by him.
'A sensible discussion'? I am rather in shock that you would have the gall to use those words. Your debates with Larsen stopped being a 'sensible discussion' a very, very long time ago.

That's annoyance and disgust. I leave venom and hate to people like the Kook.
Your posts are far more filled with anger and venom than anyone else's here. Again I am slightly concerned you cannot see this.
And they seem to be getting worse - if you continue in this vein you might run the risk of being banned, so I'd suggest you tone it down a little.

[Dr Adequate]

They are perfectly happy to let Larsen lie, as long as his lies support Randi and attack the paranormal.
Of course, the lie the halfwit Morris claims Larsen told was that the JREF money had a curse on it, and this would be a claim of the paranormal and an attack on Randi. But hey, who says Morris's lunatic ravings have to make sense? So long as he's drivelling out some lie, he doesn't care how stupid it is.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nope.
I am not surprised. I predicted this response.
Where's my $1 million?
:p

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, in your case, it's because you know that the Kook & Inadequate will keep spewing out their filth in supoport of you.
Baby's learning some brand new words!

[KRAMER]

If I pray to god that PM goes away and stays away, and then he does, do I get the Million Dollars?

Hmmm....what a grand idea!

Kramer's Claim Letter: I can make a slimey growth masquerading as a rational, inquisitive human being disappear via prayer.

Hey, PM! Can you suggest a test protocol that would conclusively verify this claim?

We know it just wouldn't be fair to the applicant unless you yourself personally approved it in advance, since you are the self-proclaimed arbiter of all that is fair and right as regards JREF's testing of Paranormal Challenge applicants.

Take your time. In fact, please feel free to take all the time in the world. We can wait. Personally, I can wait forever.

Oh and by the way...

If you do decide to design a protocol for this claim, we'd love it if you could do so without being an obnoxious, pig-headed, rude, nasty, deliberately discourteous, spitefully hostile, unrefined, culture-less, intensely bitter, malicious, primitive, virulent, hateful, noxious, unrelentingly poisonous, mashed-potatoes-for-brains caveman.

Did I say "caveman"? Sorry. I wanted to say Neanderthal, but I just wasn't sure how to spell it. So I looked it up, which is more than you would do.

You are a malignancy in the forum, PM.

Cut it out.

[Dr Adequate]

How the world sees the world's stupidest liar:
Originally posted by princhester
By the way, over on the SDMB I have got thoroughly pissed off with Peter and I can now confirm a change in my opinion. He is a flat out deliberate liar. Originally posted by Nex
Holy crizzap, Peter Morris. Do you not know how stupid you look? Originally posted by kookbreaker
Beating up strawmen and putting words in people's mouths is not 'sarcasm'. Given your pedantry, this level of deliberate deception is quite telling about your own honestly.

And for the record, "deliberate dishonesty: and "severe incompetence" are very bad things, however you have failed to prove your accusations. You have had to act in a deliberately dishonest manner to make it seem as if there was a smidgeon of evidence. Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are one seriously disturbed person, Peter. Originally posted by BillHoyt
So, Morris shouldn't be held accountable for his dishonesty? Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You set me off again! Normally I'd feel guilty about laughing at people who are nuts in the head, but you also have such a singularly hideous personality, and are such a revolting liar and charlatan, that I can do so without shame.Originally posted by Nex
Oh, stop it Peter. You're being ludicrous and you know it. No one claimed there actually was cursed money jokingly or otherwise, and for you to say that is a lie.

Peter, stop lying. Repetition does not make it true.

I would find this funny if it weren't so sad... Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Just find it funny. You are not required to sympathise with loathsome people.

Why is he doing this? Well, if a vicious, violent, half-witted lunatic is strait-jacketed and strapped down so that he can't physically assault his keepers, there is still one thing he can do to get at them, if his hatred and lunacy are sufficiently intense.

He can deliberately soil himself.

By doing so, of course, he degrades and debases himself and makes of himself an vile, sickening object of contempt and disgust. But one of his hated keepers will have the loathsome job of coming into contact with the dirty animal and cleaning up its stinking mess. This is the lunatic's one revenge.

In the same way, we have to keep on cleaning up after Peter Morris and his filthy lies. If you let it sadden or sicken you, then he's won, but, as I said, you don't have to feel sorry for him. If on the other hand you find it amusing, as I do, to watch a hideously unpleasant man smear himself with his own filth, then stick around and... enjoy. Originally posted by Prolix
Thank you for this wonderful insight. It gives me "the everlasting peace" of cognitive closure. And lets me accept my human brother Peter Morris, soilage and all. ( But I will keep my distance from him, thank you.) Originally posted by kookbreaker
Right now, you are just a pathetic worm digging deeper. You invite this abuse, if I weren't so certain that your hatred is real, I'd call you a troll. Originally posted by Nex
Peter, you're not only wrong, you're a LIAR. Why are you wasting bandwidth here?

No, don't answer that. Just stop. Originally posted by KRAMER
Peter Morris couldn't recognize a FACT if it was tied to his own butt, with cowbells on it.

This is like trying to play baseball with a parapalegic.

I mean, really; what's the point?

OK, it's entertaining (laughable, in fact), but just how many times can you watch the same old reruns? Originally posted by princhester
The problem with you Peter is and always has been one of having no sense of proportion, and no self awareness when it comes to your own hypocrisy. Originally posted by Darat
All we are left with is your word, and I'll use the evidence of your posts here and elsewhere to assign the appropriate value to that. Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Look, guys (and elegant ladies), Peter Morris is clearly off his goddamn rocker. No matter what we say will never make a blind bit of difference. I have read every singl;e post to this thread, and can objectively state the following: Mr. Larsen never lied at any point.
I also believe, but cannot state objectively, that Peter Morris is off his rocker.
Why don't we all just put this troll on ignore, and get on with the serious business of this forum.
Oh, wait, debunking woo-woos is the serious business of this forum, and Peter certainly qualifies.... :p Originally posted by kookbreaker
In an above post, Dr. Adequate quotes both Peter and Larsen. The post is simple: Peter tantrums for evidence, and Larsen provides it.

Yet, down the page a bit Peter claims that Dr. Adequate has print a Larsen lie and thanks him? This is beyond chutzpah, this is some kind of insanity. Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You are a compulsive liar, Peter. In a whole lifetime, you are the most hideous halfwitted pathetic incompetent implausible obsessive insane liar I have ever encountered. I find it alternately funny and disgusting to watch you drivelling out this filth. Originally posted by rppa
You keep having to add new lies to try to keep your story self-consistent, and eventually it all breaks down in contradiction anyway. Originally posted by Ashles
I just don't get this at all.

Peter Morris is claiming over and over that Larsen has said there is a curse on the money.

Larsen has never done this.

Knowing Larsen and his posting history it would be idiotic to even claim such a thing.
You'd have to be an utter moron and someone who has a desperate need to try and twist any phrase to try and back up their own untenable arguments.
You'd have to be a half-wit to lie so blatantly and to continue to lie even in the face of unanimous mockery of your bare faced lie.

Oh, now maybe I get it... Originally posted by CFLarsen
You poor sod. Originally posted by rppa
One of your recent "recaps" motivated me to go back and read the whole thread. Now I'd like to know if you are still sticking to the other distortions and deliberate misinterpretations you injected. It's really hard to keep track of what you claim to believe...

Oh, and by the way, your "recap" bore no resemblance to the actual. As anybody with a browser can easily verify. Originally posted by rppa
Perhaps readers will find this quote relevant:
've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
-said by Tucker Carlson of GW Bush advisor Karen Hughes
Originally posted by KRAMER
If you do decide to design a protocol for this claim, we'd love it if you could do so without being an obnoxious, pig-headed, rude, nasty, deliberately discourteous, spitefully hostile, unrefined, culture-less, intensely bitter, malicious, primitive, virulent, hateful, noxious, unrelentingly poisonous, mashed-potatoes-for-brains caveman...

You are a malignancy in the forum, PM.

Cut it out.

How the world's stupidest liar would like to be seen:
Originally posted by Peter Morris
As for me, I post because I can't abide dishonesty. I endeavour to expose lies when I see them.
Seek help for your mental condition, Peter. There is something terribly, and I mean terribly wrong with you. You are a ridiculous, pathetic, nauseating excuse for a human being. Do you want to spend the rest of your life this way?

[CptColumbo]

PM are you sure your definition of Lie, Liar, and Lying is the same as ours. Note: Ignore the one that involves beds, I don't think it applies.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
You are a malignancy in the forum, PM.

I see him as a great help to skepticism. He exemplifies what a belief in the paranormal can lead to. Perhaps that will make some believers stop and think.

[Carn]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I see him as a great help to skepticism. He exemplifies what a belief in the paranormal can lead to. Perhaps that will make some believers stop and think.

You certain, that PM believes in paranormal things, it might be that he just believes, Randi, everybody ever working directly or indirectly for JREF and everybody on this forum, who claims to be sceptic, but does not agree fully with PM, are a bunch of wicked evil lying sceptic believers, who would not believe in paranormal, if combusted to ashes and revived a few years later.

Such a conspiracy of hard core sceptics of course could as most conspiracy theories, be somewhat unrealistic and therefore paranormal, but not in the sense of JREF challenge.

Carn

[princhester]

I have never known PM to say anything to suggest that he believes in the paranormal as such. He participates regularly in SDMB threads on logic puzzles etc in a way that shows he is logical, clever and has a clear ability to comprehend English.

This of course makes it all the more stark that his vendetta against Randi is just that: he is not stupid.

[Dr Adequate]

He's not trolled on here since the twenty-fifth.

I wonder if it was something I said?

Sometimes silence is the most beautiful sound.

[T'ai Chi]

Here are some more. Debunking is quite welcome. :)

1) It is often brought up that no applicant has even passed the preliminary test. Once the number of applicants gets over 1000, and keep in mind that alpha is typically set at .001, and if no one has passed the prelim at that point, will skeptics get skeptical, since a person passing is expected just by chance alone? And that point will alpha for the prelim be decreased even further?

2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine.

3) If a paranormal or supernatural thing were to be demonstrated, it would no longer be paranormal or supernatural, but natural, hence the paranormal challenge would no longer apply, regardless of Randi’s claimed intentions of saying he’ll pay for the demonstration.

4) Science is not getting someone to agree on a long list of conditions and then coming back saying 'this is what you signed, the challenge goes to us!' (to paraphrase Josephson) And if it is not science, why should anyone pay any attention to the results as anything but entertainment?

5) If someone won the JREF Challenge, wouldn’t it be more probable (ie invoking Ockam’s razor) to say the JREF, or their chosen panel of experts, was fooled? Would someone winning the prize convince everyone that paranormal stuff really exists? One demonstration means nothing, as replication is needed in science.

6) In all the ‘experiments’ JREF has conducted, what is the largest sample size out of all of them? Are the tests even large enough to detect a small effect?

[Zep]

Originally posted by jzs
Here are some more. Debunking is quite welcome. :)

1) It is often brought up that no applicant has even passed the preliminary test. Once the number of applicants gets over 1000, and keep in mind that alpha is typically set at .001, and if no one has passed the prelim at that point, will skeptics get skeptical, since a person passing is expected just by chance alone? And that point will alpha for the prelim be decreased even further?

As I understand it, the 1:1000 chance of passing only applies if each and every applicant does exactly the same test only once. This is equivalent of one applicant doing the same test 1000 times. It also presupposes every preliminary test conducted is a "chance" test. If it is a do-it-or-fail test, chance has nothing to do with it.

2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine.

Will you please put that remark in accurate context?

3) If a paranormal or supernatural thing were to be demonstrated, it would no longer be paranormal or supernatural, but natural, hence the paranormal challenge would no longer apply, regardless of Randi’s claimed intentions of saying he’ll pay for the demonstration.

So? It needs to be demonstrated properly in order to make that transition. That's the Challenge.

4) Science is not getting someone to agree on a long list of conditions and then coming back saying 'this is what you signed, the challenge goes to us!' (to paraphrase Josephson) And if it is not science, why should anyone pay any attention to the results as anything but entertainment?

Get your thoughts in order... What particularly are you saying here?

5) If someone won the JREF Challenge, wouldn’t it be more probable (ie invoking Ockam’s razor) to say the JREF, or their chosen panel of experts, was fooled? Would someone winning the prize convince everyone that paranormal stuff really exists? One demonstration means nothing, as replication is needed in science.

True. But think of the kudos of pulling a fast one on Randi and running off with his $1M! Thing is, you need to get up VERY early in the morning to fool the examiners, Randi included. And if it IS demonstrated, wouldn't you think scientists would beat a path to your door to get ahold of the latest "gee-wizz technology"? And if they find it is a fake, guess who's going to look mighty foolish real quick...

6) In all the ‘experiments’ JREF has conducted, what is the largest sample size out of all of them? Are the tests even large enough to detect a small effect?

How small an effect? If you pick up rocks about the place and hold them over your head, getting bigger and bigger rocks each time, is the last giant rock you lift a paranormal phenomenon because it stands out statistically, or just the result of all that previous weightlifting practice?

[T'ai Chi]

If it is a do-it-or-fail test, chance has nothing to do with it.


Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?


Will you please put that remark in accurate context?


From http://cura.free.fr/xv/14starbb.html:

"During this period Randi would occasionally phone up for a friendly "just-happened-to-be-thinking-of-you" chat. l suspected he was trying to draw out of me statements of anger or of dissatisfaction. Despite his private rages Randi wished to make no public waves. When I asked him why, he repeated the tired old alibi that the occultist kooks would whoop it up if Kurtz fell. But he claimed that he had dressed down Kurtz (privately) in Washington in December. He stated without qualification that Gardner Hyman and he all supported my scientific position on the sTARBABY mess. (I knew, however, that he was telling all inquiring Fellows that a little old nonstatistician like himself just couldn't understand the problem.)
Next Randi (and soon afterwards Bob Sheaffer) tried to get me involved in new projects, i.e., diversions. As part of this effort Randi asked my advice on the Helmut Schmidt parapsychology experiment which some CSICOPs had been investigating. I simply urged that it be approached with all the caution KZA had thrown to the winds in 1975 and 1976. He assured me how cautious he was in the testing for his well-publicized $ 10,000 prize for proof of psychic abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I always have an out," he said."


So? It needs to be demonstrated properly in order to make that transition. That's the Challenge.


So then it is not a paranormal or supernatural thing anymore, so why would ANY rules of a paranoramal challenge even apply anymore?


Get your thoughts in order... What particularly are you saying here?


Ad hom.

If the challenge is not science, why should anyone pay attention to it? As opposed to reading articles in scientific journals where strange things are scientifically studied, for example.


True.


Ok, so you admitted that winning the JREF challenge would convince no one of the reality of any claimed paranormal or supernatural thing. People could always say most likely the JREF or there chosen panel of experts were really fooled, and again, no paranormal thing was really demonstrated.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�.
Isn't it wonderful how quoting only half the sentence changes the meaning? What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
1) It is often brought up that no applicant has even passed the preliminary test. Once the number of applicants gets over 1000, and keep in mind that alpha is typically set at .001, and if no one has passed the prelim at that point, will skeptics get skeptical, since a person passing is expected just by chance alone? And that point will alpha for the prelim be decreased even further?

You can't say that the alpha value is "typically" set at 0.001. You have no real basis for this.

Since claims vary greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each applicant.
Rules (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)

Either people can do it, or they can't. End of story.

Originally posted by jzs
2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine.

Same old, same old. The quote is incomplete. The challenge is genuine and nobody is stopping anyone from applying.

Originally posted by jzs
3) If a paranormal or supernatural thing were to be demonstrated, it would no longer be paranormal or supernatural, but natural, hence the paranormal challenge would no longer apply, regardless of Randi’s claimed intentions of saying he’ll pay for the demonstration.

Randi has made it blatantly clear several times (e.g. on Australian TV and at TAM3) that the money will be paid in such a case, simply because it would be such a fantastic new discovery.

Originally posted by jzs
4) Science is not getting someone to agree on a long list of conditions and then coming back saying 'this is what you signed, the challenge goes to us!' (to paraphrase Josephson) And if it is not science, why should anyone pay any attention to the results as anything but entertainment?

Then go elsewhere and have someone else test it for you. However, the JREF challenge is far less rigorous than a real scientific test would be.

Originally posted by jzs
5) If someone won the JREF Challenge, wouldn’t it be more probable (ie invoking Ockam’s razor) to say the JREF, or their chosen panel of experts, was fooled? Would someone winning the prize convince everyone that paranormal stuff really exists? One demonstration means nothing, as replication is needed in science.

It doesn't matter whether JREF was fooled or not.

Originally posted by jzs
6) In all the ‘experiments’ JREF has conducted, what is the largest sample size out of all of them? Are the tests even large enough to detect a small effect?

The JREF files are open to anyone who wants to inspect them.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right."

Source?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You can't say that the alpha value is "typically" set at 0.001. You have no real basis for this.


http://www.randi.org/jr/08-24-01.html,

"As always, as described in the rules, a preliminary test for the JREF prize would be performed. That test would have odds of only 1 in 1,000 against the results being positive by chance alone."

is that "no real basis" to you?

Now please address the points.



Either people can do it, or they can't. End of story.


Answer the question. Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?


The quote is incomplete.


Then complete it, with a source, please.


The challenge is genuine and nobody is stopping anyone from applying.


Strawman.

The issue is that if Randi really did say he always has an out, then he may indeed always have an out, so you do not know if the challenge is genuine as you claim. That is the problem.


Randi has made it blatantly clear several times (e.g. on Australian TV and at TAM3) that the money will be paid in such a case, simply because it would be such a fantastic new discovery.


It would be assimilated into a the natural world. It would cease to be paranormal, and hence awarding a paranormal prize would make no sense for a natural event.


Then go elsewhere and have someone else test it for you.


Ah, the 'you don't like it, so go!!!' dodge.


It doesn't matter whether JREF was fooled or not.


If you think about it, it would, because a paranormal event may not have occured, but rather the JREF and claim testers could have merely been fooled. In other words, passing the JREF challenge would convince no one, beacuse a more probable hypothesis than a paranormal event happening is that people are simply being fooled.


The JREF files are open to anyone who wants to inspect them.

So you cannot answer the question with an actual number. Noted.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Source?
The JREF Internet Show archive, somewhere around July 2003.

[Carn]

Originally posted by jzs



It would be assimilated into a the natural world. It would cease to be paranormal, and hence awarding a paranormal prize would make no sense for a natural event.



Irrelevant, since Randi in behalf of JREF and the applicant sign a treaty, where it is defined what the applicant has to do to get the million. If he does it, JREF has to pay or will be sued.

Carn

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
http://www.randi.org/jr/08-24-01.html,

"As always, as described in the rules, a preliminary test for the JREF prize would be performed. That test would have odds of only 1 in 1,000 against the results being positive by chance alone."

is that "no real basis" to you?

Now please address the points.

Randi is talking about one specific experiment! You cannot simply take that as a general example.

Originally posted by jzs
Answer the question. Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?

Does he claim to be able to? It all depends on what the claimant says he can do.

Originally posted by jzs
Then complete it, with a source, please.

Kimpatsu beat me to it, I see.

Originally posted by jzs
Strawman.

"Strawman"?? Justin, you need to learn a bit about logical fallacies and how to use them. You can't just throw out terms you don't know the meaning of, and think you sound educated.

Originally posted by jzs
The issue is that if Randi really did say he always has an out, then he may indeed always have an out, so you do not know if the challenge is genuine as you claim. That is the problem.

There is no "problem", Justin. All you got to do is prove that you have a paranormal ability.

Originally posted by jzs
It would be assimilated into a the natural world. It would cease to be paranormal, and hence awarding a paranormal prize would make no sense for a natural event.

You obviously don't listen to other people. Oh, well.

Originally posted by jzs
Ah, the 'you don't like it, so go!!!' dodge.

It's not a "dodge", Justin. If you don't like the Randi Challenge, go elsewhere.

Originally posted by jzs
If you think about it, it would, because a paranormal event may not have occured, but rather the JREF and claim testers could have merely been fooled. In other words, passing the JREF challenge would convince no one, beacuse a more probable hypothesis than a paranormal event happening is that people are simply being fooled.

Pass the test, collect a million bucks. That's all there is to it.

Originally posted by jzs
So you cannot answer the question with an actual number. Noted.

I gave you the answer to how you can find out. You take that and turn it into an attack on me.

[Kimpatsu]

Claus is right; Justin's attacks are ludicrous. They amount to sticking his fingers in his ears and humming loudly, as opposed to possesing the desire to actually understand what the JREF challenge is, and how it is met. As there is no medicine for willful ignorance, I don't know what else we can do... :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Claus is right; Justin's attacks are ludicrous. They amount to sticking his fingers in his ears and humming loudly, as opposed to possesing the desire to actually understand what the JREF challenge is, and how it is met. As there is no medicine for willful ignorance, I don't know what else we can do... :rolleyes:

Nothing.

[kookbreaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jzs
He assured me how cautious he was in the testing for his well-publicized $ 10,000 prize for proof of psychic abilities (for which he acts as policeman, judge and jury -- and thus never has supported my idea of neutral judgment of CSICOP tests. "I always have an out," he said."[/i]

Notice the number of errors the always arrogant Dennis Rawlins makes in this little paragraph? There is no judging (never was) so randi cannot be judge and jury. Policeman? Rather doubtful since no cop ever walked up to a mugger and challenged him at his own option to prove he was innocent in a court of law.

I had not noticed before that Rawlins' quote of Randi ends in a comma. Typical of Rawlins' behavior, leaving out a quote like that. Ranks up there with him considering a black man 'unreliable' as a witness to a major geographic event as far as scummy Rawlins antics go.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
I had not noticed before that Rawlins' quote of Randi ends in a comma. Typical of Rawlins' behavior, leaving out a quote like that.

Radin also does that, when he quotes Sagan, solely to make it look as if Sagan supports Radin:

In a 1995 book saturated with piercing skepticism, the late Carl Sagan of Cornell University maintained his life-long mission of educating the public about science, in this case by debunking popular hysteria over alien abductions, channelers, faith-healers, the "face" on Mars, and practically everything else found in the New Age section of most bookstores. Then, in one paragraph amongst 450 pages, we find an astonishing admission:

At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.
The Conscious Universe (http://www.psiresearch.org/Chapter1.html)

What Radin "forgets" is that the quote is lacking the explanation why:

"I pick these claims not because I think they're likely to be valid (I don't), but as examples of contentions that might be true." They "have at least some, although still dubious, experimental support. Of course, I could be wrong."
Bob Carroll, comments on Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted-World (http://www.skepdic.com/news/newsletter19.html)

Radin does it here as well:

In 1995, for example, no less an arch-skeptic than the late astronomer Carl Sagan rendered his lifelong opinion that all psi effects were impossible. But in one of his last books, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, he wrote, "At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: (1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images "projected" at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking mm out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation."
Source (http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20000701-000034.html)

Selective quoting to alter the meaning of a text is incredibly dishonest.

ETA: Book Review: Dean Radin, "The Conscious Universe" (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radinbook.htm) also explains why Radin is faking it.

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Ranks up there with him considering a black man 'unreliable' as a witness to a major geographic event as far as scummy Rawlins antics go.

Come again??

[kookbreaker]

Come again?? [/B]

http://www.matthewhenson.com/editorials.htm


Rawlins sat shoulder to shoulder with junior college librarian Bryce, each vying for camera attention. And of course, they got in the key racist line; "Peary didn't take any credible witnesses with him." OH! A Negro is not a credible witness? Oh, really?

This editorial doesn't even cover how arrogant Rawlins was in his dealings with the NGS. (Although it does show his arrogance in calims with the media.

[Placebo]

I apologise if I repeat a few excuses, this thread has become incredibly lengthy. I have only read the first couple of pages :)

Not long ago, I had a few retorts about randi myself :redface: :o
Of course, now that I have sought more direct information regarding randi, I have found the majority of them to be both unfair and baseless.

So without further ado, here is a list of genuine posts I took the time to collect - largely from believers. One or two of them were originally from myself (a former life :P :o):
(I apologise for the length, and possible uselessness of some of them)

because scientific settings want 100% accuracy even if a person had acheived 90/80 or even 70% of the time science still wouldn't recognise it, even those averages are well above guess work
Easy answer here..

However they are as close minded as it gets and attack rather than objectively look at the situation
ie. the ad hominem attacks disturb my 'chi' ? :P

He's been quoted saying 'I always have a way out'. Eg. the data recorded is OWNED by them, and can be manipulated any way they want. They tend to accuse the candidates of leaving information out, and when offered the data they refuse to view it.
Fairly easy answer here too..

is only intrested in testing those bonkers individuals and not intrested in the more difficult task of proving psi in a correct scientific way [...AND...] The contest is bullsh*t. advanced [psychic?] people like **** have said that he tried to take the test and they never respond. [... AND... ] I'm going to start a contest to prove that James Randi doesn't exist. I will give anyone $500 million to prove to me that James Randi exists, and as long as I ignore all of you who present birth certificates and US census records, I will never have to worry about coming up with the money
ie. he ignores the genuine, sane guys?

Randi has no intrest in investigating psi phemonenon, he does have an intrest in exposing psi frauds. This is fine but its no where near saying that psi is untrue. Randi is a showman like many of the fakes he tests
Is that a possible excuse? Maybe not...

Even if someone levitated this Randi dude and he begun seeing a field of light around him in the mirror. He'd probably just start taking a nice powerful anti-psychotic pill every night and swear it was all a dream.
Very easy answer...

My problem with James Randi isn't his skepticism, it's the idea of the Million Dollar Challenge. Let's play pretend again... say I'm a multi-billionaire athiest. I take several billion dollars and send out press releases and notifications to all religious organizations, saying that if they can prove conclusively that there is some sort of deity or deities they will recieve all that money. When no one is able to do it, I safely conclude there is no God(dess)(e(s)) and laugh maniacally as I roll around in a pile of gold coins. This isn't sound scientific method, or a sound philosophical method. Some may be saying, "Well psi abilities are different than God, they can be measured with fancy instruments and junk." Can they? How do you know? When did you measure one? Science isn't a bunch of big words in books that are written in stone, its a way of thinking. A search for answers, not waiting for answers to come to you
Perhaps this isn't useable as an excuse, but I thought it was a 'revealing' quote regarding their thinking

Randi is unfortunately only lying when he says "of course I'd like to see paranormal powers proved," he comes from a point of skeptism where he is "actively" looking to debunk psi, when he does (or even if he doesn't) he uses ridecule to expose and embarass the idividual? Would a real scientist poke fun at someone involved in an objective scientific test? No thats cause he's a magician, not a scientist, not even close to one. This man is muddying the waters, he's gunning for fakers, let him test all the dolphin huggers, levitaters and psychic's he wants but he's actually making the majority of right thinking people believe psi phemonenon is false. If psi can be iron clad proved to be something observable in the universe it must be proved in the lab and there they are measuring deviations from chance produced by its effect [..goes on about princeton..]
ie. Randi doesn't test for psi correctly and scientifically?

If the Randi organisation allowed (funded) the testing of 10,000 people at once (non of whom need to claim psi skills) under the directorship of the psi skeptic Richard Wiseman in say a test to see if a person knew they were being watched in a closed room by remote camera, by monitoring physical subliminal cues like skin conductivity then I would be happy to take part. If you want me or others to levitate dolphins then I'm afraid I can't Randi only wants to see the aspects of psi demonstrated that he and everyone knows are not true, its the safest bet in history
Nice - we need to organise 10,000 (exactly) to prove it :P Do they split the million?

While searching for failed claimants, all I found was negative towards Mr Randi. [...exerpt of Randi's response to breatharian claim...] James Randi doesn't sound so fair after all
ie. using examples of Randi's beligerent and insulting attitude as an example of how 'unfair' he is

Randi has been asked but will not agree to use proper scientific methods. [... quotes Randi/Schwartz incident...]
I don't honestly know about this incident, perhaps someone else does.

My point is that Randi's challenge is a test to uncover fakers and in itself this seems a good thing. The problem is that he has seriously prejudiced real research into psi, any scientist with any thought to their career with avoid psi research like the plague or be branded a nut. [...] Don't forget that lucid dreaming was here before Le Berge got his funding to do proper research If the net was as popular 20years ago you might be on a forum argueing with skeptics till your blue in the face that you wake in your dreams to a mind created reality. They would have laughed in your face. Infact to see how agressive skepics can be and how long they can hang onto their beleifs long after the facts have left them behind check this page out at the skeptics dictionary. http://skepdic.com/lucdream.html
ie. Randi is too prejudiced?

He picks on people who are obviously too new age for their own good, because it's easy to make them seem flakey and unreasonable. These are the people who blame failures on negative energy caused by the disbelief of the audience. So he challenges them, and then if they don't respond within a couple of weeks he starts strutting around on his website talking about how they're just scared because they know they are fake.

(Regarding the rule about data - #3:) So basically, the applicant will be selling themselves and their gifts to Randi. For one million dollars. And that's only if they succeed. [... AND...] emphasis on "freely by the JREF." Not any other independent body, but just JREF. They can do what they want the data.
Not too hard

He probably is with the Government or Area 51 or something and is trying to get everyone to beleive that TK isn't real so that people don't try to learn it and don't become a threat
Added more for it's humour, than its usefulness :D

Yah but I mean deep down I think James Randi knows tk is real,the idea of it probably just scares him,so while he may act tough inside he's just a scared little man
Also for it's humour :D

In addition, here are 2 anti-Randi links that I found on that search: http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/keen/randi.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Carn
Irrelevant, since Randi in behalf of JREF and the applicant sign a treaty, where it is defined what the applicant has to do to get the million. If he does it, JREF has to pay or will be sued.

Carn

Highly relevant! And yes, things are defined, as you said.

From the JREF challenge page:

"I, James Randi, through the JREF, will pay US$1,000,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability under satisfactory observing conditions."

Now if the event was not actually psychic, supernatural, or paranormal, then a psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability was not actually demonstrated. With me so far? So why should the prize be paid?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
The JREF Internet Show archive, somewhere around July 2003.

An exact source, please, not this 'it is over there somewhere' stuff.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Does he claim to be able to? It all depends on what the claimant says he can do.


Claus,

BS. Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?

What the player claims has nothing to do with performance.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Claus is right; Justin's attacks are ludicrous.


I am confused why you believe legitimate concerns to be "attacks".


They amount to sticking his fingers in his ears and humming loudly, as opposed to possesing the desire to actually understand what the JREF challenge is, and how it is met. As there is no medicine for willful ignorance, I don't know what else we can do... :rolleyes:

Got that exact source yet?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
An exact source, please, not this 'it is over there somewhere' stuff.
I'm not going to bloody well wade through them all again. Listen to them yourself; you might learn something.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I'm not going to bloody well wade through them all again. Listen to them yourself; you might learn something.

:rolleyes:

So you don't have a source, then?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs

So you don't have a source, then?
Yes, I do: The internet radio shows, circa July 2003. That is a source.
:rolleyes:

[TheBoyPaj]

Well, what's the source for the original "I have an out" quote which Randi-bashers use in an attempt to suggest fraud?

Edit: Just read the quote given by jzs above. It appears to be a second hand report of a single sentence. And this is better than a reference to a radio show in what way?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Yes, I do: The internet radio shows, circa July 2003. That is a source.
:rolleyes:

Specifically...where is it? A pointer to the specific source. Is that too difficult for you?

TheBoyPaj wrote


Edit: Just read the quote given by jzs above. It appears to be a second hand report of a single sentence. And this is better than a reference to a radio show in what way?


This isn't about comparing the 'goodness' of sources. I freely admit that the source of the 'I always have an out,' is from a paper I read that Rawlings wrote. Kimpatsu cited a source, but has yet to show it. And for the record, I am neither a "Randi-basher" nor am I suggesting fraud.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Edit: Just read the quote given by jzs above. It appears to be a second hand report of a single sentence.

From an extremely bitter and angry person lashing out at a bunch of folks he convinced himself betrayed him. Oh, and said person is prone to giving all sorts of quotes out of context.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs
Specifically...where is it? A pointer to the specific source. Is that too difficult for you?


Certainly it seems to hard for you. Are you always this Luci-esque in your intellectual laziness?


TheBoyPaj wrote



This isn't about comparing the 'goodness' of sources. I freely admit that the source of the 'I always have an out,' is from a paper I read that Rawlings wrote. Kimpatsu cited a source, but has yet to show it. And for the record, I am neither a "Randi-basher" nor am I suggesting fraud. [/B]

Yet, you are going well out of your way to avoid seeing anything that might counter your precious quote.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Certainly it seems to hard for you. Are you always this Luci-esque in your intellectual laziness?


Do you always defend people who say there is a source, but then are too lazy to be bothered to provide it?


Yet, you are going well out of your way to avoid seeing anything that might counter your precious quote.

I am not aware of any specific source. Whomever mentioned the source has all the burden of showing it to others.

[TheBoyPaj]

The thing is, your source is just Rawlings' anecdote, in which he says "I heard Randi say this".
Then we have Kimpatsu saying "I heard Randi say this".

Rawlings' claim is unverifiable, since it was a personal meeting and unrecorded.
Kimpatsu's claim can be verified, though it will take some hours to do so. So why aren't you badgering Rawlings for more evidence?

Anyway, I plan to listen to those radio archives soon. If I come across the phrase, I'll help you narrow your search.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The thing is, your source is just Rawlings' anecdote, in which he says "I heard Randi say this".
Then we have Kimpatsu saying "I heard Randi say this".

Rawlings' claim is unverifiable, since it was a personal meeting and unrecorded.
Kimpatsu's claim can be verified, though it will take some hours to do so. So why aren't you badgering Rawlings for more evidence?

1) Because Rawlings is critical of skeptics. Justin can use any such criticism, regardless of it is true or not.

2) Justin doesn't do his own homework. He insists that others do it for him.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
The thing is, your source is just Rawlings' anecdote, in which he says "I heard Randi say this".
Then we have Kimpatsu saying "I heard Randi say this".


Look, you're getting off topic again. This isn't about comparing the 'goodness' of sources. I made my source directly identifiable. Kimpatsu has not. That is the issue here.


Kimpatsu's claim can be verified, though it will take some hours to do so.


So how is a radio show of Randi saying what occured any different than Rawlings writing what occured?


So why aren't you badgering Rawlings for more evidence?


Pardon me, but you have no idea of my attempts. I've searched for some contact information, but cannot find any. I'd love to get more info.


Anyway, I plan to listen to those radio archives soon. If I come across the phrase, I'll help you narrow your search.

The burden is on Kimpatsu. He mentioned the reference, but when asked for it specifically, he, as of the current time and date I am writing this, couldn't produce it. Again, even if he does, how is a radio show of Randi saying what occured any different than Rawlings writing what occured?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

2) Justin doesn't do his own homework. He insists that others do it for him.

Did my own homework for all of my years in school.

Kimpatsu cited some source, but couldn't provide a direct path to it when asked. The work here is Kimpatsu's I'm sorry to say.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Did my own homework for all of my years in school.

So, you feel you've done enough for the rest of your life. Gotcha.

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu cited some source, but couldn't provide a direct path to it when asked. The work here is Kimpatsu's I'm sorry to say.

Is the Rawlings quote a complete one? Is it correct, with no selective quoting?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you feel you've done enough for the rest of your life. Gotcha.


Well that is a pretty silly belief of yours. I do your homework for example..catching things like obvious typos that an "editor" should catch, and that your "thousands" of "peer reviewers" apparently overlook. Gotcha.

If you know how I feel, you should apply for the challenge!


Is the Rawlings quote a complete one? Is it correct, with no selective quoting?

Who knows. I've certainly never said it is or isn't, just that it is out there. I'm still waiting for Kimpatsu's source, and for an explanation of how Randi verbally saying a quote is a different level of 'evidence' than Rawlings writing about it. I'll note that Randi's audio source, if it exists, would be about 28 years after the event, while Rawlings written source, which does exist, is written only 5 or so years after.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Who knows.

*DING!* Thank you for calling.

Originally posted by jzs
I've certainly never said it is or isn't, just that it is out there. I'm still waiting for Kimpatsu's source, and for an explanation of how Randi verbally saying a quote is a different level of 'evidence' than Rawlings writing about it. I'll note that Randi's audio source, if it exists, would be about 28 years after the event, while Rawlings written source, which does exist, is written only 5 or so years after.

It doesn't matter, Justin. You are pointing to an unverifiable source.

[T'ai Chi]

Claus,

BS. Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?

What the player claims has nothing to do with performance.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It doesn't matter, Justin. You are pointing to an unverifiable source.

So is Kimpatsu though, right? You don't care about him though. Could have something to do with pointing out your errors..

Kimpatsu claimed that "What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right."", and everyone is still waiting for his amazing verification of this, and an explanation how that would be a higher level of evidence than Rawling's paper. I'd like to see Randi's evidence of him "always" being right, or even what that means!

Claus. I originally said

"2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine."

so I am not saying Randi did or did not say that. I am bringing up the topic for discussion, showing that the hinting at always having an out would discourage many people from wanting to participate in the Challenge. Do you finally understand?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs

Do you always defend people who say there is a source, but then are too lazy to be bothered to provide it?


Are you always this dense? It was stated that it was on the webcast.

http://www.randi.org/shopping/index.html#


I am not aware of any specific source. Whomever mentioned the source has all the burden of showing it to others. [/B]

This was done. You chose to ignore it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
So is Kimpatsu though, right? You don't care about him though. Could have something to do with pointing out your errors..

Kimpatsu claimed that "What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right."", and everyone is still waiting for his amazing verification of this, and an explanation how that would be a higher level of evidence than Rawling's paper. I'd like to see Randi's evidence of him "always" being right, or even what that means!

Claus. I originally said

"2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine."

so I am not saying Randi did or did not say that. I am bringing up the topic for discussion, showing that the hinting at always having an out would discourage many people from wanting to participate in the Challenge. Do you finally understand?

So, once again, you start off with a claim, but later claim that it isn't (really) a claim, but still want other people to back up their claims?

Can you tell us when you are making a claim, and when you are not making a claim? It would be most helpful, Justin.

[TheBoyPaj]

Kimpatsu, the only CD of the webcasts I can see for sale are the 2002 ones. You said it was in July (ish) 2003.

Still, even if it could have been in the range June-August, that's still only 9 shows to listen through. That's about 10 hours of educational and entertaining radio!

And if you compare that to how long it would take to verify a reference to an academic publication, I imagine it would take longer than 10 hours for me to go to the library, order the book, wait for it to arrive and read it. :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Are you always this dense? It was stated that it was on the webcast.

http://www.randi.org/shopping/index.html#


If you were following the conversation, you'd find that I am not looking for vague references. Please get me exactly to it. That is what to provide a reference means. The page you linked to does not do that.

Once you or anyone find the claimed source, then explain to everyone that a 28 years after the fact verbal recollection somehow means something more than a 6 year after the fact written recollection. Randi and Rawlings were both there, that much is agreed upon at least. :)


This was done. You chose to ignore it.

It certainly has not been done yet.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, once again, you start off with a claim,


Which was what exactly? What was my claim, Claus?


, but still want other people to back up their claims?


Well Kimpatsu did indeed make a claim. He said that "What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right."". I didn't make any claim of what Randi said, but only said "2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine". If you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen the difference.

Claus,

Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?

What the player claims has nothing to do with performance. Will you provide a direct Yes or No answer to this?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Kimpatsu, the only CD of the webcasts I can see for sale are the 2002 ones. You said it was in July (ish) 2003.

Still, even if it could have been in the range June-August, that's still only 9 shows to listen through. That's about 10 hours of educational and entertaining radio!

And if you compare that to how long it would take to verify a reference to an academic publication, I imagine it would take longer than 10 hours for me to go to the library, order the book, wait for it to arrive and read it. :D

What, like saying 'i remember it being out there, somewhere, I think' is not providing a good reference?! You're just being lazy and wanting people to do your homework! ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Which was what exactly? What was my claim, Claus?

Recently, that Rawlings said what he said. You can, of course, now claim that it wasn't a claim after all. Which makes it hard to tell when you make claims. I am sure you are keen on clarifying that to us.

Originally posted by jzs
Well Kimpatsu did indeed make a claim. He said that "What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right."". I didn't make any claim of what Randi said, but only said "2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�. This discourages people from thinking the challenge is genuine". If you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen the difference.

You have been given a source. Check it out.

Originally posted by jzs
Does a baseball player hit every time at bat? Yes or no?

I have no idea. That would depend on the baseball player.

Originally posted by jzs
What the player claims has nothing to do with performance. Will you provide a direct Yes or No answer to this?

Again, it would depend on the baseball player.

Now, I have answered your questions. Please answer mine. You can start with this one:

Can you tell us when you are making a claim, and when you are not making a claim?

Answer that, or hang you head in shame.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Recently, that Rawlings said what he said. You can, of course, now claim that it wasn't a claim after all.


You need to read a dictionary and see what "claim" means. Me reporting what someone else said is not me making a claim.


You have been given a source. Check it out.


No, I have not. Saying something like 'archives, somewhere, I think it may be this year' is not providing a source, that is providing a recollection of perhaps where the source may be. Kimpatsu did make a claim of what Randi supposedly said, and we're all waiting for the actual source. And once we get that source, if it exists, we're waiting for the explanation of why a 28 year after the fact verbal recollections means something more than a 6 year after the fact written recollection.


I have no idea. That would depend on the baseball player.


Now you have no idea, but before you said it depends on what the player claims he/she can hit, which is absurd. The performance of a player has nothing to do with their claim of performance. The facts are, Claus, that no known baseball players have hit everytime at bat in their career. Actual data (try looking at it sometime) from the MLB association in USA, for example, support this.


Can you tell us when you are making a claim, and when you are not making a claim?


It is obvious. If I make the claim, I have made the claim. Me reporting what someone else said is not me making a claim. Do you finally understand?


Answer that, or hang you head in shame.

Don't you have some typo correcting to do? Like about 250 or more?