Snappy Retorts To Lame Excuses For Not Taking The Challenge

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
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.

So, you are saying that, since no baseball player has ever hit a perfect score, we cannot expect anyone to do something unexpectedly?

Originally posted by jzs
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?

No, I don't understand. Because if this is so, then you cannot possibly claim (yes, claim) that Kimpatsu also made a claim. He - like you did - referred to someone else making a claim: Randi, on an Internet radio show. Only, his claim is verifiable. Yours is not.

You can't have both. So, which is it? Did you make a claim, or are you a hypocrite?

Originally posted by jzs
Don't you have some typo correcting to do? Like about 250 or more?

You are not the boss of me. Or anyone else.

Tell me something, Justin: Do you, in real life, like to order people around? Or do you merely think you can get away with it on the Internet, because here, nobody can slap you, if you try it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you are saying that, since no baseball player has ever hit a perfect score, we cannot expect anyone to do something unexpectedly?


No, unexpected things can and do occur. I am saying that your claim of 'it depends on what they claim they can do' is completely bogus. What someone says they can do in no way affects their actual performance. I'm also saying that no one is perfect all the time, and the actual baseball data verifies this. Even the 'best' players had nowhere near hits/(at bats) = 1. So when you say something like "Either people can do it, or they can't. End of story." that is, again, irrelevant, as the issue is more a statistical one than a deterministic one.


No, I don't understand. Because if this is so, then you cannot possibly claim (yes, claim) that Kimpatsu also made a claim. He - like you did - referred to someone else making a claim:


Kimpatsu said "What Randi actually said was"... That is a claim from Kimpatsu. I just said something like 'This is what Rawlings wrote about what Randi allegedly said'. I didn't make any claim to what Randi said like Kimpatsu did. I referenced Rawlings, who did make a claim do what Randi said. Moreover, I provided an actual direct link to the source. Kimpatsu did nothing as specific. Additionally, since Rawlings and Randi were both there, I'm interested in leanring how a 28 year after the fact verbal recollection compares to a 6 year after the fact written recollection. Do you understand yet?


Tell me something, Justin: Do you, in real life, like to order people around? Or do you merely think you can get away with it on the Internet, because here, nobody can slap you, if you try it?

Claus, please try to refrain from the personal attacks and mentionings of physical violence. It doesn't do you any favors. Thaiboxerken and I agreed to meet a while back. He didn't show. I guess I'm not afraid of getting 'slapped' in real life after all.

Now, speaking of real life stuff, seems like you didn't care to be as pseudo-imposing to shanek in real life when he reportedly attempted to approach you at the recent TAM to discuss things. One can only speculate why. Maybe you were too busy with the cash register. That's it..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
No, unexpected things can and do occur. I am saying that your claim of 'it depends on what they claim they can do' is completely bogus. What someone says they can do in no way affects their actual performance. I'm also saying that no one is perfect all the time, and the actual baseball data verifies this. Even the 'best' players had nowhere near hits/(at bats) = 1.

Bogus?? Justin, we have to go with what people claim they can do. We can't enforce some statistics on e.g. Sylvia Browne - we have to go with what she really claims to be able to do. Not how cold readers statistically do.

Check out the JREF Challenge: That's as fair as it gets. How can we demand a 100% score from a dowser that only claims 80%?

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu said "What Randi actually said was"... That is a claim from Kimpatsu. I just said something like 'This is what Rawlings wrote about what Randi allegedly said'. I didn't make any claim to what Randi said like Kimpatsu did. I referenced Rawlings, who did make a claim do what Randi said. Moreover, I provided an actual direct link to the source. Kimpatsu did nothing as specific. Additionally, since Rawlings and Randi were both there, I'm interested in leanring how a 28 year after the fact verbal recollection compares to a 6 year after the fact written recollection. Do you understand yet?

I don't give a sh*t about what Kimpatsu said. I point to your own claim, even though you afterwards put your tail behind your legs and claim(!) that you never made any claim at all. Geesh, Justin, for once in your life, stand up for yourself!

Originally posted by jzs
Claus, please try to refrain from the personal attacks and mentionings of physical violence. It doesn't do you any favors. Thaiboxerken and I agreed to meet a while back. He didn't show. I guess I'm not afraid of getting 'slapped' in real life after all.

No, really, Justin. Address this. If nothing else, then for your own sake.

Because it seems to me that you really enjoy telling people what they should do - and not do. You simply love telling people to find evidence, yet you never provide any yourself. No, you don't make "claims", you merely parrot the claims of others. No, you never find facts, you merely want others to find facts for you. And no, you cannot be bothered to do any real work, despite your proclamations of Great Websites Designed To Tell The Truth. You want to order people around, so they can do your work for you.

Only, I cannot see this happening in real life, without people telling you off in so many words, some of which would be four-letter ones. Nobody would stand for that kind of snooty behavior in real life, without kicking your arse. Literally.

If you tried this at work, you would find yourself out on the street in no time. No boss would accept that kind of behavior, regardless of how indispensable you may think you are.

If you tried this at your mom's, I'm certain she would tan your hide. Unless, of course, she is the kind of mom that thinks her little Justin can do no wrong.

So, tell me, Justin: Why do you think you would succeed here?

Originally posted by jzs
Now, speaking of real life stuff, seems like you didn't care to be as pseudo-imposing to shanek in real life when he attempted to approach you at the recent TAM to discuss things. One can only speculate why. Maybe you were too busy with the cash register.

What on Earth are you talking about???

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs


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. [/B]

If you are to lazy to examine the material, then you must go to the source.

I believe the email randi@randi.org works. I suggest a polite inquiry noting what you have heard from both sides.

Oh! I'm sorry? Would that mean you wouldn't be able to whine if you got an answer?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
, we have to go with what people claim they can do.


So if someone is enthusiastic, deluded, brags, or is simply mistaken, and claims they can get 20 out of 20 everytime, they don't, but get 18 out of 20 or something still statistically significant, you are saying we just throw it out? Forget that it was significant? Seems like you are wanting to throw standard scientific method out the window.


I don't give a sh*t about what Kimpatsu said.


Well that is already known to me, since you don't ask him for actual evidence, but you do ask me (even though I already provided a direct link to the article where Rawlings makes his claim).


I point to your own claim, even though you afterwards put your tail behind your legs and claim(!) that you never made any claim


Incredible. I didn't make any claim. I reported what Rawlings claimed. You still fail to admit the difference.


Because it seems to me that you really enjoy telling people what they should do - and not do. You simply love telling people


Please answer me this: am I still "nothing but a piece of fly excrement", Claus?


No, you don't make "claims", you merely parrot the claims of others.


Me saying what Rawlings claimed is not me making a claim. That is a fact, one which you fail to agree with.


Nobody would stand for that kind of snooty behavior in real life, without kicking your arse. Literally.


Do you have a point with all of this? Again, mentioning physical violence. Please, get in control of yourself.


If you tried this at work, you would find yourself out on the street in no time. No boss would accept that kind of behavior, regardless of how indispensable you may think you are.


Please, explain how your behavior is any different. You could call your boss or mom a piece of fly excrement, a fool, and ask her 20 questions in a row, folliwng her from job to job or around the neighborhood, demanding her to answer Yes or No? Really?


What on Earth are you talking about???

Please, try to remember what you wrote just a little while ago. From http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52584&perpage=40 here,

"I made several attempts to approach him at TAM3 just to talk with him and he always walked the other way. Wouldn't even look me in the eye. I have no idea what his malfunction is."

You even respond to that, in that very thread.

"There is only one reason why I kept away from shanek at TAM3: I did not trust him to keep his calm. If his real-life behavior is anywhere similar to his online ditto, then I thought it best to avoid him altogether. I could not be sure that he would not blow up in my face, especially not after his previously stated intentions."

You basically avoided a real life discussion with an intelligent person whose ideas differ from yours, then made up some excuse. The other people at TAM didn't seem worried about shanek..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
If you are to lazy to examine the material, then you must go to the source.


Again, you don't care a lick about what Kimpatsu claimed and what his supposed source is, and holding him accountable. I can't say I'm surprised.

kookbreaker, since Rawlings and Randi were both there, I'm interested in learning how a 28 year after the fact verbal or written recollection compares to a 6 year after the fact written recollection.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs

Again, you don't care a lick about what Kimpatsu claimed and what his supposed source is, and holding him accountable. I can't say I'm surprised.


Kimpatsu only confirms what I have effectively heard from other, personal sources. Ergo I have not need to track down what I already am aware of. Kimpatuse said where it is, its just not convenient for your laziness.


kookbreaker, since Rawlings and Randi were both there, I'm interested in learning how a 28 year after the fact verbal or written recollection compares to a 6 year after the fact written recollection. [/B]

Look at the quote. Even in Rawlins' account it is a sentence fraction. Rawlins' uses partial quotes and comments out of context all the time to suit his viscous agenda. I have little doubt he heard that comment from Randi, it is merely how he purposely chose to use (part of) it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Kimpatsu only confirms what I have effectively heard from other, personal sources. Ergo I have not need to track down what I already am aware of. Kimpatuse said where it is, its just not convenient for your laziness.


I see, because it fits your beliefs already, no need to inquire about Kimpatsu's source. Kimpatsu did not say where it specifically was located. He said

"The JREF Internet Show archive, somewhere around July 2003"

and

"The internet radio shows, circa July 2003"

"somewhere around" and "circa". That is very specific!

On the other hand I provided a direct link. See the difference?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs

On the other hand I provided a direct link. See the difference? [/B]

How was Kimpatsu supposed to provide a direct link to a section of a video that is 1 hour long?

You're still whining becuase the world wasn't delivered to you on a silver plate.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
How was Kimpatsu supposed to provide a direct link to a section of a video that is 1 hour long?


Link to the file. Give the exact month the radio show was. Just some suggestions. This is something Kimpatsu should think of. It is not my duty to show him how to reference the source he claimed existed.


You're still whining becuase the world wasn't delivered to you on a silver plate.

No, but I still am asking for Kimpatsu to provide a direct pointer to the source he claims exists.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs


Link to the file.


Its not online anymore. JREF sells the show on DVD. Not everything is on the net.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Look at the quote. Even in Rawlins' account it is a sentence fraction.[/B]

What's your evidence for this, exactly? What precisely indicates in Rawlin's account that it is a sentence fraction? You made the claim, you back it up.

I also find it strange that Randi has changed his story on this.

Story #1 "the quote "refers to the fact that my tests are designed in such a way that no one can cheat. "

Story #2 : What I really said was "I always have an out: I'm always right"

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What's your evidence for this, exactly? What precisely indicates in Rawlin's account that it is a sentence fraction? You made the claim, you back it up.


Look at the quote:

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."


Note how Randi's comment ends with a comma, not a period. Last I checked, the use of a comma in the English language denotes that there will be another part of the sentence. Rawlins' did not inlcude that part.

Given Rawlins' nature, I do not trust him to have properly edited the comment.

Your link goes nowhere, but I know what your are talking about.

The two stories are not mutually exclusive. You might think so, but you are a hateful idiot.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Its not online anymore. JREF sells the show on DVD. Not everything is on the net.

Presumably the audio from it is one of the files on here.

http://clear-light.msspro.com/radio-randi.html

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Note how Randi's comment ends with a comma, not a period. Last I checked, the use of a comma in the English language denotes that there will be another part of the sentence. Rawlins' did not inlcude that part.

You checked wrongly. Let's refer to people who know better than you.

Arthur Conan Doyle (http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext99/advsh10.txt)
"There are three hundred pounds in gold and seven hundred in notes," he said.

Victor Hugo (http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext94/lesms10.txt)
"I am paying my tithes," he said.

Robert Louis Stevenson (http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext94/treas10.txt)
"Bill," said the stranger in a voice that I thought he had tried to make bold and big.

"Come, Bill, you know me; you know an old shipmate, Bill, surely," said the stranger.

Jack London (http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext95/callw10.txt)
"Twist it, an' you'll choke 'm plentee," said Manuel, and the
stranger grunted a ready affirmative.

Thomas Hardy (http://www.knowledgerush.com/pg/etext94/tess10.txt)
"Good night t'ee," said the man with the basket.
"Good night, Sir John," said the parson.

etc, etc, etc (http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/directory.jsp?categoryId=213&categoryName=%2Ftop%2FReading+Lists%2F100+Great+Bo oks+in+the+Public+Domain)

Your quote goes nowhere.

Sorry. here (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c83795b47dac6137?q=g:thl1798659314d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8)

The two stories are not mutually exclusive. You might think so, but you are a hateful idiot.

Excuse me? Which one of us just resorted to insults?

And don't you find it sloghly suspicious that Randi never claimed he was misquoted before? Why explain what he actuually meant by a sentence, if he was wrongly quoted?

No, he certainly changed his story.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Its not online anymore. JREF sells the show on DVD. Not everything is on the net.

You left out the other suggestion I made. I also said

"Give the exact month the radio show was."

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You checked wrongly. Let's refer to people who know better than you.


Fair enough. But this does not preclude another part of the quote.

Especially in light of the fact that it is Rawlins quoting.


Sorry. here (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c83795b47dac6137?q=g:thl1798659314d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8)


Yes, and as is pointed out by Mr. Hutchinson:


am perfectly willing to accept that Dennis had recalled it as meaning
the challenge. I have no idea why he didn't either clarify it at the
time Randi said it, or write a little more on the quote in 'Fate'.
Whatever. It is something that believers have jumped on over the years
as meaning something which it doesn't. But there's nothing new there.

>Rawlins did this a *lot* in sTARBABY. He would give direct quotes from
>other people to put them in the worst light, then would only give the
>vaugest outline of what he himself was saying in the same conversations.
>These were emotional issues that I ended up avoiding outright when writing
>the sTARBABY FAQ.

Knowing many of the people involved I can agree with you. [I was going
to write that I know many of the 'players' but I know how that will be
spun by the pro-paranormal spin doctors. ;-) ]


Doesn't speak well of Rawlins.


Excuse me? Which one of us just resorted to insults?


Shall we go back a few pages in the very thread? The one you abandoned after your humilation?



Simply because you've never heard him explain it before is not reason that he has not.

In Mr. Hutchinson's post we are seeing part of his correspondance with Randi, with whom he is very familiar.

Now, of interest is that the post preceeding (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c1e88067b489be96) Mr. Hutchinson the allegation made is not that Randi was only partially quoted, but that the quote had nothing to do with the Randi challenge at all but was in reference to his stage act.

This is not a hard mistake to make, in fact the first issue of Jr. Skeptic (in the pages of SKEPTIC magazine) had a little comic of Randi discussing his "out" with regards to his stage act.

Most of Randi's comments were in answer to that erronious assumption, and that is the relevant part quoted by Mr. Hutchinson.

[QUOTE]
No, he certainly changed his story. [/B]

Not proven. You have a part of one story answering a different question.

Also, more importantly, this just does not matter. There is no 'out' for Randi. This is another tempest in a teapot. Get over it.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs
You left out the other suggestion I made. I also said

"Give the exact month the radio show was."

Ah, so you expect him to have every show memorized.

Gotcha.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Ah, so you expect him to have every show memorized.

Gotcha.

That's absurd kookbreaker. Nowhere did I say he had to have "every show" or any show memorized; that is your invention.

My suggestion was for him to provide the exact source, especially if he mentions that such a source exists, not to give a vague description of it. The idea is that the source can be quickly found by those interested.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Specifically...where is it? A pointer to the specific source. Is that too difficult for you?
I have already told you; July 2003. Randi says it on-air in response to the charge that you are making. How is that not specific?
Originally posted by jzs
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.
How am I not showing it? Here:
http://clear-light.msspro.com/radio-randi.html
Go listen yourself.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I have already told you; July 2003.

Kimpatsu... you previously said
(bold mine)

"The JREF Internet Show archive, somewhere around July 2003"

and

"The internet radio shows, circa July 2003"

not that it was specifically July 2003.

Moreover, there are four July 2003 files. It would be helpful if you knew which one specifically it was.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu... you previously said
(bold mine)

"The JREF Internet Show archive, somewhere around July 2003"

and

"The internet radio shows, circa July 2003"

not that it was specifically July 2003.

Moreover, there are four July 2003 files. It would be helpful if you knew which one specifically it was.
Well, it can't be the one where Randi is absent, so try the others.
You should listen to them all, anyway.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Fair enough. But this does not preclude another part of the quote.

The burden of proof is yours. I don't have to proove it wasn't said, it's up to you to prove it was. You make the claim, you prove it.


Yes, and as is pointed out by Mr. Hutchinson:
Doesn't speak well of Rawlins.

Randi & co hate Rawlins because Rawlins chose to tell an embarrasing truth rather than a comfortable lie. The CSICOP people tried to fake the falsify the results of their botched test. Rawlins exposed their dishonesty. So the vilify him. It doesn't alter the fact that he is the only one that acted with honour.

Shall we go back a few pages in the very thread? The one you abandoned after your humilation?

The one I abandoned after proving my case beyond any doubt, and receiving tons of hate in response. I abandonded it when it became plain that you, and Dr Adequate and Larsen had no interest in logical debate, and had nothing to offer but filthy abuse and outright lies.

Simply because you've never heard him explain it before is not reason that he has not.

The first excuse is widely published, yet nobody ever heard of the second one. If Randi had made it before, it would have been given the same publicity.

Now, of interest is that the post preceeding (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c1e88067b489be96) Mr. Hutchinson the allegation made is not that Randi was only partially quoted, but that the quote had nothing to do with the Randi challenge at all but was in reference to his stage act.

So, according to Randi, the quote:

1) Means that he doesn't allow people to cheat on the $10,000 challenge.

2) Doesn't refer to the challenge, but actually means his stage act.

3) Isn't an accurate quote anyway.


And you believe ALL of these? :confused:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Well, it can't be the one where Randi is absent, so try the others.


The page you linked to shows Randi being at all of the July ones.

Jul 31, 2003
James Randi, Andrew Harter, Jack Latona

Jul 24, 2003
James Randi, Andrew Harter, Jack Latona

Jul 10, 2003
James Randi, Andrew Harter, Jack Latona

Jul 3, 2003
James Randi, Andrew Harter, Jack Latona


You should listen to them all, anyway.

I guess one has to since you don't know which one it is.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I guess one has to since you don't know which one it is.
You're right; I don't. There are no transcripts of these audio transmissions. So what?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You're right; I don't. There are no transcripts of these audio transmissions. So what?

Your reference isn't directly to the specific source you are claiming exists. One has to spend ~5hrs just to see if it even exists.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Your reference isn't directly to the specific source you are claiming exists. One has to spend ~5hrs just to see if it even exists.
You bloody well know it exists; you're just being bolshey. If there were a transcript of the broadcasts available I'd direct you to them, but as there isn't, you'll have to make do with listening, like the rest of us.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi & co hate Rawlins because Rawlins chose to tell an embarrasing truth rather than a comfortable lie. The CSICOP people tried to fake the falsify the results of their botched test. Rawlins exposed their dishonesty. So the vilify him. It doesn't alter the fact that he is the only one that acted with honour.


Since you know so much:

Which test was falsified? What was Randi doing with the test that was dishonest? How did CSICOP 'fake' results? How do you feel about Abell's work in this matter post-1980. Why exaclty was Rawlins honourable. The answers are not what you think they are.

The answers are not your simplistic tales. Quite frankly you show that you know nothing about the entire affair.


The one I abandoned after proving my case beyond any doubt, and receiving tons of hate in response. I abandonded it when it became plain that you, and Dr Adequate and Larsen had no interest in logical debate, and had nothing to offer but filthy abuse and outright lies.


Pwah! Oh that is rich. This is why you get no respect, Peter. None. This is fantasy beyond all telling. You were taken to task for this fable before, it still won't work. The only lies were told by you, and they were very, very incompetent lies.


The first excuse is widely published, yet nobody ever heard of the second one. If Randi had made it before, it would have been given the same publicity.


First excuse is widely published? Where is you evidence of that, please? Mr. Hutchinson relating words from Randi's email hardly qualifies as 'widely published.


So, according to Randi, the quote:

1) Means that he doesn't allow people to cheat on the $10,000 challenge.


Yes. But that does not preclude that the quote was only partial.


2) Doesn't refer to the challenge, but actually means his stage act.


No, that was an error in assumption by the person Mr. Hutcinson was replying to. Can't you pay attention?

Randi has said comments similar to 'out' with regards to his magic act. He makes it clear to Mr. Hutchinson that in this case he most certainly was not.

"The skeptic, no matter how well-meaning, is confusing this with the fact -- which I've often stated -- that we magicians always have an "out" from not saying in advance what we're going to do in the act, thus not having to do something which may turn out to be impossible because of unexpected events or conditions."


3) Isn't an accurate quote anyway.


He states that it is a partial quote. There is a difference.


And you believe ALL of these? :confused: [/B]

False dichotomy. Your presentation is inept.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You bloody well know it exists;


How do I know that, you haven't provided an exact reference. Just because you say so?

You cannot point out specifically which one it is in July. Why do you keep going on and on?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


How do I know that, you haven't provided an exact reference. Just because you say so?

You cannot point out specifically which one it is in July. Why do you keep going on and on? [/B]
Because you keep bloody well insisting here, rather than listening to the broadcasts for yourself! What do you want? For me to transcribe all the broadcasts for you until the quote is found? I heard it during the b/cast in question. Now you go and listen to them yourself. I can't provide an exact reference as there is no transcript of the show, which you know, and are merely using as an excuse to avoid listening to the broadcast yourself, which would disprove your contention that Randi never said the full quote.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

I heard it during the b/cast in question.


Which one, Kimpatsu? There are many. Even in July 2003 there are 4 of them. You don't know, I know that.


, which would disprove your contention that Randi never said the full quote.

That's absurd, Kimpatsu. I never claimed Randi didn't say that. Quit inventing things, please.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


Which one, Kimpatsu? There are many. Even in July 2003 there are 4 of them. You don't know, I know that.[/B]
I don't knwo which one, which is why you'll have to listen to them all!
Originally posted by jzs
That's absurd, Kimpatsu. I never claimed Randi didn't say that. Quit inventing things, please.
Then what exactly is your problem? Why won't you bite the bullet and listen tot he b/casts? You are very determinedly avoiding listening to them, and you claimed earlier that you doubted the source existed. Look at all the time you've wasted dancing around here rather than actually listening to the b/casts. This speaks of a hidden agenda; most probably, having made the claim that the source is spurious, you are now pointedly avoiding listening to the b/casts as a way of saving your monstrous ego, for once heard, you will no longer be able to deny to yourself that the source exists.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I don't knwo which one, which is why you'll have to listen to them all!
[quote]

Please, don't recommend a source unless you know, for certain, the specific source. "circa July 2003", and "I don't know" is not knowing the specific source. That's all.

[quote][b]
You are very determinedly avoiding listening to them, and you claimed earlier that you doubted the source existed.


Please, show me my exact quote.


Look at all the time you've wasted dancing around here rather than actually listening to the b/casts. This speaks of a hidden agenda;
[/quopte]

Opportunity cost is irrelevant, Kimpatsu. You have not provided the specific source as requested, to back up your claim, as I've been saying. Actually, it wouldn't even back up your claim. It would just show Randi's 28 years after the fact recollection of the event, right?

[quote]
as a way of saving your monstrous ego,


Personal attack.

Please, you also have no idea if I am, or am not, listening to these broadcasts. If you do, you should apply for the challenge.

[b[
for once heard, you will no longer be able to deny to yourself that the source exists.

As mentioned, Kimpatsu, I have never, ever, denied that such a thing exists. I've just pointed out that you have not provided a direct link to the broadcast in question. Please, don't invent a position for me. Thanks.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Please, show me my exact quote.
Your reference isn't directly to the specific source you are claiming exists. One has to spend ~5hrs just to see if it even exists.
There, you see? You started this nonsense over five hours ago. You would have found the quote by now if you weren't fatarsing around.
Originally posted by jzs
Please, you also have no idea if I am, or am not, listening to these broadcasts. If you do, you should apply for the challenge.
It doesn't take any psychic powers to see through you.
Originally posted by jzs
As mentioned, Kimpatsu, I have never, ever, denied that such a thing exists.
Liar. Look at your own quote above: "...Just to see if it even exists". That's denail, pure and simple.
Originally posted by jzs
I've just pointed out that you have not provided a direct link to the broadcast in question. Please, don't invent a position for me. Thanks.
Because i don't have a direct link! (Which you have known since you started this.) You're just fatarsing around to avoid having to actually listen to the b/casts, and the only possible reason for that is to avoid being forced to admit that the quote does indeed exist, which position is an ego one, and nothing to do with the search for truth.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
There, you see? You started this nonsense over five hours ago. You would have found the quote by now if you weren't fatarsing around.


You could have had the direct link to it before talking about it, Kimpatsu.


Liar. Look at your own quote above: "...Just to see if it even exists". That's denail, pure and simple.


You are incorrect, Kimpatsu. I doubt, I don't deny. I doubt it exists because you have not provided a direct link to the evidence, nor are you able to specify exactly where it is (ie. "circa", one of the four files, and so on). I am not denying such a quote can exist. Do you understand?

As I've mentioned numerous times, if the verbal recollection exists, how is Randi's 28 year after the fact verbal recollection different than Rawling's 6 year after the fact written recollection? Care to address this?


that is to avoid being forced to admit that the quote does indeed exist, which position is an ego one, and nothing to do with the search for truth.

I freely admit the audio may exist. I never claimed otherwise, despite your claims. I have mentioned, however, that you have not provided a specific link to it, despite being so vocal about the source. Moreover, the audio file wouldn't be evidence for your actual claim, which was not the audio existing, but being so certain that Randi said what said.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Since you know so much:

Which test was falsified? [/qu8ote]

The results were falsified, because they only published the control group, and hid the rest.


[quote] What was Randi doing with the test that was dishonest?

attempting to persude Rawlins into silence.

How did CSICOP 'fake' results?

By concealing part of the results that didn't match their expectations.

How do you feel about Abell's work in this matter post-1980. Why exaclty was Rawlins honourable. The answers are not what you think they are.



Pwah! Oh that is rich. This is why you get no respect, Peter. None. This is fantasy beyond all telling. You were taken to task for this fable before, it still won't work. The only lies were told by you, and they were very, very incompetent lies.

Quite literally, I do not think you even understand the difference between truth and lies. You appear to define "lies" as being anything that tends to discredit Randi and his supoporters. The fact remains, I cited exact quotes from Larsen to show his deliberate misrepresentations. All I got in response was foul abuse from trolls. You have not shown one single thing I have said that is untrue.


First excuse is widely published? Where is you evidence of that, please? Mr. Hutchinson relating words from Randi's email hardly qualifies as 'widely published.

It's been all over. Its often quoted by Randi fans.



Yes. But that does not preclude that the quote was only partial.

You make the claim, you prove it.



No, that was an error in assumption by the person Mr. Hutcinson was replying to. Can't you pay attention?

You were the one claiming it's true.

Your words : " Now, of interest is that the post preceeding Mr. Hutchinson the allegation made is not that Randi was only partially quoted, but that the quote had nothing to do with the Randi challenge at all but was in reference to his stage act.

This is not a hard mistake to make, in fact the first issue of Jr. Skeptic (in the pages of SKEPTIC magazine) had a little comic of Randi discussing his "out" with regards to his stage act."


Randi has said comments similar to 'out' with regards to his magic act. He makes it clear to Mr. Hutchinson that in this case he most certainly was not.

But you claimed he was.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
You could have had the direct link to it before talking about it, Kimpatsu.
For the Nth time: I can't supply a direct link, as I don't know which b/cast it was. You seem to want me to do the work for you.
Originally posted by jzs
You are incorrect, Kimpatsu. I doubt, I don't deny. I doubt it exists because you have not provided a direct link to the evidence, nor are you able to specify exactly where it is (ie. "circa", one of the four files, and so on). I am not denying such a quote can exist. Do you understand?
If you doubt it exists, then you are denying that our claims that it exists are true. I can't specify the exact file, because I don't know on which file the quote is located. If you'd actually bothered to listen to them rather than fatarsing about here, you would have found it by now. Your continued avoidance of the audio tapes implies that you are avoiding facing the truth.
Originally posted by jzs
As I've mentioned numerous times, if the verbal recollection exists, how is Randi's 28 year after the fact verbal recollection different than Rawling's 6 year after the fact written recollection? Care to address this?
I don't know what you're talking about. You asked where Randi had made the statement, implying that you didn't believe he had ever said such a think. I gave you the ballpark where I know the quote to be located, but you keep avoiding it, which behaviour is an indictment of your snottiness, not of our (Claus's and my) veracity in stating that Randi did indeed make the statement.
Originally posted by jzs
I freely admit the audio may exist. I never claimed otherwise, despite your claims.
Liar. Yo usaid specifically: "IF it exists", which is very much an admission of doubt.
Or maybe you don't understand the conditional?
Originally posted by jzs
I have mentioned, however, that you have not provided a specific link to it, despite being so vocal about the source. Moreover, the audio file wouldn't be evidence for your actual claim, which was not the audio existing, but being so certain that Randi said what said.
If you actually bother to play the recordings, you will hear Randi make the statement yourself. Instead, you are expending vast amounts of energy in not listening to them. I wonder why...?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
as I don't know which b/cast it was. You seem to want me to do the work for you.


I know you don't know which broadcast it was, that is my point. You should know before making such a claim. If you claim it exists, it is your work to find the source for others. The direct source (that is, if you actually want others to find it), not a "circa", etc. It is not up to me to search to verify the claim that you made.


If you doubt it exists, then you are denying that our claims that it exists are true.


That is absurd. I doubt it exists, I am skeptical of it existing, I am not denying that such a thing exists. Do you understand?


If you'd actually bothered to listen to them rather than fatarsing about here, you would have found it by now.


The same goes for you. Moreover, when you mention a source, you should know the exact, specific source. You, apparently, desire people to wade through over 5 hours of audio to find a snippet. That is not providing a direct, specific source.


You asked where Randi had made the statement, implying that you didn't believe he had ever said such a think.


Inquiring where he made a statement is saying I don't believe he made it? Are you serious?!


Liar. Yo usaid specifically: "IF it exists", which is very much an admission of doubt.


Doubt, skepticism, not denial, as you previously claimed.


If you actually bother to play the recordings, you will hear Randi make the statement yourself.


If you actually knew where it was, that would be helpful. I'll give you a reference where you can learn about how to provide references correctly. It is one page 23-something of some book that was written sometime in 2003, I think.


Instead, you are expending vast amounts of energy in not listening to them. I wonder why...?

Because you have not provided a direct reference to the exact source you claimed existed. "Vast amounts", oh, typing expends so much energy!

Again, you avoided addressing this: if the audio exists, it won't even be evidence for your orginal claim of Randi saying something. It would only be evidence of the audio existing of Randi's 28 years after the fact recollection of what he said. Agree?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I know you don't know which broadcast it was, that is my point. You should know before making such a claim. If you claim it exists, it is your work to find the source for others. The direct source (that is, if you actually want others to find it), not a "circa", etc. It is not up to me to search to verify the claim that you made.
I have found it for you; you are simply refusing to listen to the b/casts.
Originally posted by jzs
That is absurd. I doubt it exists, I am skeptical of it existing, I am not denying that such a thing exists. Do you understand?
Either you doubt that it exists (which means you think it probably doesn't), or you have NO doubt that it exists. Yo ucannot have it both ways.
Originally posted by jzs
The same goes for you. Moreover, when you mention a source, you should know the exact, specific source. You, apparently, desire people to wade through over 5 hours of audio to find a snippet. That is not providing a direct, specific source.
So, in other words, you just want an excuse to avoid listening to the b/casts. :rolleyes:
I can't be more precise, because I don't have a transcript of the b/casts!
Originally posted by jzs
Inquiring where he made a statement is saying I don't believe he made it? Are you serious?!
Your attempts at sustained innuendo are obnoxious. You weren't inquiring as to where Randi made the statement; you were claiming that he never made it. If you were seriously interested in finding the source, you would have listened to the tapes by now, instead of going out of your way to avoid doing so. You have wasted more time typing here than you have spent listening to the recordings. Why?
Originally posted by jzs
Doubt, skepticism, not denial, as you previously claimed.
More false innuendo.
Originally posted by jzs
If you actually knew where it was, that would be helpful. I'll give you a reference where you can learn about how to provide references correctly. It is one page 23-something of some book that was written sometime in 2003, I think.
First, what am I supposed to be looking for?
Besides, I wasn't that general. Your example should be, "it's on or around p. 23 of (name of book), version, which came out in July 2003", thereby reducing my search to pp. 20 to 40 of four volumes.
Originally posted by jzs
Because you have not provided a direct reference to the exact source you claimed existed. "Vast amounts", oh, typing expends so much energy!
Less energy than it takes to listen? As I keep saying, I can't provide a direct reference to which b/cast, because I don't know. I only know the approximate area. Why is this so hard to grasp?!
Originally posted by jzs
Again, you avoided addressing this: if the audio exists, it won't even be evidence for your orginal claim of Randi saying something. It would only be evidence of the audio existing of Randi's 28 years after the fact recollection of what he said. Agree?
WTF are you talking about? You wanted to know where Randi said, "I always have an out--I'm always right", implying that you doubt he ever said such a thing. I'm pointing you to the internet broadcasts, where he did indeed say such a thing. What's that got to do with 28 years ago?!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I have found it for you; you are simply refusing to listen to the b/casts.


Kimpatsu, specifically, which audio file is it? You do not know this. Therefore, you have not "found it" for me. You just pointed out the general area where you believe it might be located. Do you believe this is providing an actual reference? You'd get marked down if you put that in any paper in the 'References' section.


Either you doubt that it exists (which means you think it probably doesn't), or you have NO doubt that it exists. Yo ucannot have it both ways.


I cannot have some doubt? I have to have all or none? That is a false dichotomy, Kimpatsu. I have some doubts, based on your lack of evidence and avoidal to provide a specific reference. I don't deny it exists, which is what you incorrectly claimed.


I can't be more precise, because I don't have a transcript of the b/casts!


That is a strawman. Why would you need a transcript to know which one it was in? You mean you don't remember which one it was in? So all this time you've just been guessing where it is?


You weren't inquiring as to where Randi made the statement; you were claiming that he never made it.


Kimpatsu, you are still mistaken. I never claimed Randi didn't make that statement. You claimed he did, however. If I claimed that Randi didn't make the statement, please, show me my exact quote (not what you believe I supposedly implied, etc).


You have wasted more time typing here than you have spent listening to the recordings. Why?


Please, show me these quantities

a) time I've spent typing here

and

b) time I've spent listening to the recordings

You'd have to know both of those, somehow, to make the (another!) claim you did. Unless.... you were making another claim without actual evidence.

Regardless of my opportunity cost, that doesn't have anything to do with you providing evidence for your claim.


I can't provide a direct reference to which b/cast, because I don't know. I only know the approximate area.


Exactly, which is why you have not provided a direct reference, just a vague area where you believe it might be located.


WTF are you talking about? You wanted to know where Randi said, "I always have an out--I'm always right", implying that you doubt he ever said such a thing.


All that implies is that I wanted to hear him say that. YOU made the claim he said that. I want to see the evidence (which you can't seem to actually specifically find).


I'm pointing you to the internet broadcasts

You don't know which one specifically, so you aren't really pointing anywhere (or rather you are pointing everywhere, like to all books in a library).

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu, specifically, which audio file is it? You do not know this. Therefore, you have not "found it" for me. You just pointed out the general area where you believe it might be located. Do you believe this is providing an actual reference? You'd get marked down if you put that in any paper in the 'References' section.
But this isn't a bloody essay! You're not even prepared to try to find the file; you just claim that because I can't give you chapter and verse, it doesn't exist!
Originally posted by jzs
I cannot have some doubt? I have to have all or none? That is a false dichotomy, Kimpatsu. I have some doubts, based on your lack of evidence and avoidal to provide a specific reference. I don't deny it exists, which is what you incorrectly claimed.
No, it is not a false dichotomy. Either you have some doubts that the quote exists, or you have NO doubt. Which is it?
Originally posted by jzs
That is a strawman. Why would you need a transcript to know which one it was in? You mean you don't remember which one it was in? So all this time you've just been guessing where it is?
Yes; an educated guess. I KNOW the general area; I don't know the specirfic file or time because I listened to them all one after the other, many moons ago. You haven't even listened to them once. If I had a transcript, however, say in PDF format, I'd search and find the exact quote immediately. So, how is that a strawman?
Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu, you are still mistaken. I never claimed Randi didn't make that statement. You claimed he did, however. If I claimed that Randi didn't make the statement, please, show me my exact quote (not what you believe I supposedly implied, etc).
For the last time: "...I doubt that it exists" is sayign that you believe that it doesn't exist. It means that you entertain virtually no doubnt of the subject.
Originally posted by jzs
Please, show me these quantities
a) time I've spent typing here
and
b) time I've spent listening to the recordings
You'd have to know both of those, somehow, to make the (another!) claim you did. Unless.... you were making another claim without actual evidence.
I can figure it out. If you'd been listening since you started your tirade, you would have found the source by now. Ergo, you haven't been listening. Your first post, however, was made this morning (my time), which is at least six hours ago! And you keep coming back every 10 minutes with a reply. Consequently, you have clearly expended more time reading my posts and replying to them than you have listening to the recordings. QED.
Originally posted by jzs
Regardless of my opportunity cost, that doesn't have anything to do with you providing evidence for your claim.
So you DO think the claim is flase; i.e., that Randi never made the statement?
Originally posted by jzs
Exactly, which is why you have not provided a direct reference, just a vague area where you believe it might be located.
Yes; so go listen. You might even learn something! You would certainly find the quote.
Originally posted by jzs
All that implies is that I wanted to hear him say that. YOU made the claim he said that. I want to see the evidence (which you can't seem to actually specifically find).
Not CAN'T find; I would have to listen to the recordings over again. Why don't you try listening to them for the first time?! Your refusal to listen is tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly, in an effort to avoid actually finding the source. It's bloody childish.
Originally posted by jzs
You don't know which one specifically, so you aren't really pointing anywhere (or rather you are pointing everywhere, like to all books in a library).
And that's a wild exaggeration. I'm pointing to one of four books on the shelves; now it's up to you to do the rest, and actually listen!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
you just claim that because I can't give you chapter and verse, it doesn't exist!


That is not correct, Kimpatsu. I have NOT claimed that it doesn't exist. Please, cease repeating this embarassing falsehood of yours.


No, it is not a false dichotomy. Either you have some doubts that the quote exists, or you have NO doubt. Which is it?


You changed what you previously said. Now you included "some". Before, you just typed that either I doubt it exists or I don't, which was indeed a false dichotomy. In any case, doubt is not the same as denial, as I have already pointed out to you.


I don't know the specirfic file or time because I listened to them all one after the other, many moons ago.


So you are going based on your recollection here, right? It could be flawed, right?


You haven't even listened to them once.


By what basis do you make that outlandish claim, Kimpatsu? In fact, I've listened to all of the July 2003 ones. Nope, no such quote there. Oh maybe it was elsewhere... :rolleyes: So what is your story now?


For the last time: "...I doubt that it exists" is sayign that you believe that it doesn't exist.


I am skeptical of it. Now, I know it doesn't exist in the July audio, despite you claiming so vocally otherwise. Again, I doubt, not deny. Evidence is always, and still, welcome, Kimpatsu. If you are able to find where it actually is, not send us on a wild goose chase of where you believe it could be, let us know.


I can figure it out. If you'd been listening since you started your tirade, you would have found the source by now.


I listened to all of the July 2003 ones, and nope, not there. Again, you had no basis to say that I wasn't listening to the audios, but don't let that stop your personal agenda.


Ergo, you haven't been listening.


See above.


Your first post, however, was made this morning (my time), which is at least six hours ago! And you keep coming back every 10 minutes with a reply. Consequently, you have clearly expended more time reading my posts and replying to them than you have listening to the recordings. QED.


And you keep coming back too. What is your point? Your mistake is that you assumed that I hadn't been listening to the audios, Kimpatsu. You assumed, and you were wrong. You were also wrong in thinking that the July audios contained the quote which you were so sure existed there.


So you DO think the claim is flase; i.e., that Randi never made the statement?


I am skeptical of it. I am open to seeing the actual evidence... still.


And that's a wild exaggeration. I'm pointing to one of four books on the shelves; now it's up to you to do the rest, and actually listen!

Newsflash, it was always up to you to find it, because you made the claim. However, I listened to all the July ones. Nope, it wasn't there.

Now what, Kimpatsu?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
So if someone is enthusiastic, deluded, brags, or is simply mistaken, and claims they can get 20 out of 20 everytime, they don't, but get 18 out of 20 or something still statistically significant, you are saying we just throw it out? Forget that it was significant? Seems like you are wanting to throw standard scientific method out the window.

You seem intent on misunderstanding people. I did not say anything like that. Read what I say.

Originally posted by jzs
Incredible. I didn't make any claim. I reported what Rawlings claimed. You still fail to admit the difference.

Oh, I understand the difference perfectly: Whenever you have to back something up, it's not a claim anymore.

Originally posted by jzs
Please, try to remember what you wrote just a little while ago.

...

You basically avoided a real life discussion with an intelligent person whose ideas differ from yours, then made up some excuse. The other people at TAM didn't seem worried about shanek..

That's not why I didn't want to engage with shanek at TAM3. You know the reason, but you prefer to ignore it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You seem intent on misunderstanding people. I did not say anything like that. Read what I say.


I did read what you wrote. In reponse to me writing

"I am saying that your claim of 'it depends on what they claim they can do' is completely bogus. What someone says they can do in no way affects their actual performance. I'm also saying that no one is perfect all the time, and the actual baseball data verifies this. Even the 'best' players had nowhere near hits/(at bats) = 1."

you wrote

"Bogus?? Justin, we have to go with what people claim they can do. We can't enforce some statistics on e.g. Sylvia Browne - we have to go with what she really claims to be able to do."

Claus, she could claim 100%, 80%, whatever %. Her performance and if it is significantly beyond chance expectation in a decent experiment(s), not her anitcipated % she believes she will get, is the real issue here.


Oh, I understand the difference perfectly: Whenever you have to back something up, it's not a claim anymore.


You are incorrect. Rawlings made the claim. I posted a link to what Rawlings wrote. I didn't make the claim. Do you understand?


That's not why I didn't want to engage with shanek at TAM3. You know the reason, but you prefer to ignore it.

You were afraid of some rage he would supposedly get in (because he posts all caps on here for emphasis). Yes, we all know the reason, Claus..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You have been given a source. Check it out.


I did. Oops, nothing there.

Care to comment?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs

That is not correct, Kimpatsu. I have NOT claimed that it doesn't exist. Please, cease repeating this embarassing falsehood of yours.
Let's make this really simple for you: Do you believe Randi said it on the b/cast, or don't you?
Originally posted by jzs
You changed what you previously said. Now you included "some". Before, you just typed that either I doubt it exists or I don't, which was indeed a false dichotomy. In any case, doubt is not the same as denial, as I have already pointed out to you.
No, it was always there. Do you doubt Randi said it, or do you beleive that he did? Yes or no?
Originally posted by jzs
So you are going based on your recollection here, right? It could be flawed, right?
That Randi actually said it? No.
Originally posted by jzs
By what basis do you make that outlandish claim, Kimpatsu? In fact, I've listened to all of the July 2003 ones. Nope, no such quote there. Oh maybe it was elsewhere... :rolleyes: So what is your story now?
Then it must be in August. It's there somewhere; keep looking.
Originally posted by jzs
I am skeptical of it. Now, I know it doesn't exist in the July audio, despite you claiming so vocally otherwise. Again, I doubt, not deny. Evidence is always, and still, welcome, Kimpatsu. If you are able to find where it actually is, not send us on a wild goose chase of where you believe it could be, let us know.
Remember, I said "circa".
Originally posted by jzs
I listened to all of the July 2003 ones, and nope, not there. Again, you had no basis to say that I wasn't listening to the audios, but don't let that stop your personal agenda.
I don't have a "personal agenda". Why didn't you admit to listening to them? Seems like you're trying to play a petty game of oneupmanship rather than locating the actual quote.
Originally posted by jzs
See above.
Ditto.
Originally posted by jzs
And you keep coming back too. What is your point? Your mistake is that you assumed that I hadn't been listening to the audios, Kimpatsu. You assumed, and you were wrong. You were also wrong in thinking that the July audios contained the quote which you were so sure existed there.
I'm sure it exists somewhere around the July mark. I'll find it, then, and shut you up permanently.
Originally posted by jzs
I am skeptical of it. I am open to seeing the actual evidence... still.
Then go listen to all the August b/casts.
Originally posted by jzs
Newsflash, it was always up to you to find it, because you made the claim. However, I listened to all the July ones. Nope, it wasn't there.
Then listen to the August b/casts.
You're claiming you don't believe the quote is there I.e., Randi never said it); I'll find it, but I bet you won't recant.
[/B][/QUOTE] Now what, Kimpatsu? [/B][/QUOTE]
Are you listening to the August b/casts yet?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


I did. Oops, nothing there.

Care to comment? [/B]
Have you listened to all of them, yet?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Claus, she could claim 100%, 80%, whatever %. Her performance and if it is significantly beyond chance expectation in a decent experiment(s), not her anitcipated % she believes she will get, is the real issue here.

You don't get it, do you? You can't decide in advance what an applicant can do or can't do. I suspect it has something to do with this desire of yours to dictate how the world around you should be.

Originally posted by jzs
You are incorrect. Rawlings made the claim. I posted a link to what Rawlings wrote. I didn't make the claim. Do you understand?

No, someone claimed that Rawlings made the claim. You did.

Originally posted by jzs
You were afraid of some rage he would supposedly get in (because he posts all caps on here for emphasis). Yes, we all know the reason, Claus..

Not just "rage", Justin. Not just "all caps". Go back and check. Yes, that means: YOU do the work.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Let's make this really simple for you: Do you believe Randi said it on the b/cast, or don't you?


I have some doubts. Don't try to make this a false dichotomy, Kimpatsu.


then it must be in August. It's there somewhere; keep looking.


Moving the posts I see. First, you were so sure it was in July, now it is in August, etc. This is the reason you must provide an exact source for your claim.


Remember, I said "circa".


Yes, originally. Then you clarified what you wrote, and said

"I have already told you; July 2003"

No "circa" in that clarification, Kimpatsu. Oops again!

Now Kimpatsu, care to explain your embarassing blunder, of how you were so sure I wasn't listening to the July 2003 audios? I didn't think so. It does, however, demonstrate uncontrollable preconceived notions on your part.


I'll find it, then,


Good for you! That is what I've been asking you to do from the start; to provide the required evidence for your claim!


and shut you up permanently.
/b]

I am for inquiry, you are, judging from your emotional attack above, for stopping inquiry.

[b]
Then go listen to all the August b/casts.

Then listen to the August b/casts.


Before you said ""I have already told you; July 2003"", but now it is August? What will it be after that? Seems like you don't really know for certain.


I'll find it, but I bet you won't recant.


I'm glad you are certain you will find it. That is what I've been asking you to do all along, since you made the claim. As far as recanting, I've never denied it existing, just skeptical of it, based on lack of an exact reference, so there won't be anything to recant. It really is that simple, Kimpatsu.


Are you listening to the August b/casts yet?

At the rate your goalpsots are moving, maybe I should start at the first year and month the broadcasts started?

Please let me know when you actually find it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I don't have a "personal agenda". Why didn't you admit to listening to them? Seems like you're trying to play a petty game of oneupmanship rather than locating the actual quote.

Justin is petty. He has admitted this.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Have you listened to all of them, yet?

Ask him about the content, and he will disappear...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Justin is petty. He has admitted this.

Claus, you sure seem to be obsessed with this 'piece of fly excrement'. Why do you suppose that is?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ask him about the content, and he will disappear...

Irrelevant. All that is needed is that the July 2003 audios did not contain what Kimpatsu believed they did.

Or do you seriosuly expect me to recall the details of over 5 hours of audio, Claus?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Irrelevant. All that is needed is that the July 2003 audios did not contain what Kimpatsu believed they did.

It is highly relevant: It will prove whether you actually listened to it or not.

Originally posted by jzs
Or do you seriosuly expect me to recall the details of over 5 hours of audio, Claus?

Interesting how you always seem to go to extremes: Nobody said anything about details. Only content. Of which you remember nothing of.

Go figure.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I have some doubts. Don't try to make this a false dichotomy, Kimpatsu.
No, it isn't. Either you believe it, or you don't. Which is it?
Originally posted by jzs
the posts I see. First, you were so sure it was in July, now it is in August, etc. This is the reason you must provide an exact source for your claim.
I told you "circa July". In case you don't know, that means "around July".
Originally posted by jzs
Yes, originally. Then you clarified what you wrote, and said

"I have already told you; July 2003"

No "circa" in that clarification, Kimpatsu. Oops again!
Hardly; that was my best guess. I'm now checking the August b/casts.
Originally posted by jzs
Now Kimpatsu, care to explain your embarassing blunder, of how you were so sure I wasn't listening to the July 2003 audios? I didn't think so. It does, however, demonstrate uncontrollable preconceived notions on your part.
What's embarrassing about it? Being wrong on this is only embarrassing to petty egomaniacs like you. I'll tell you what's really embarrassing, though: misspelling "embarrassment".
Originally posted by jzs
Good for you! That is what I've been asking you to do from the start; to provide the required evidence for your claim!
So you DON'T believe Randi said it?
Besides, I'm only doing this because you're too pigging lazy to do any legwork yourself.
Originally posted by jzs
I am for inquiry, you are, judging from your emotional attack above, for stopping inquiry.
That's yet another error on your part.
Originally posted by jzs
Before you said ""I have already told you; July 2003"", but now it is August? What will it be after that? Seems like you don't really know for certain.
I don't know for certain when Randi said it; I only know ballpark. I do know for certain, however, that he said it.
Originally posted by jzs
I'm glad you are certain you will find it. That is what I've been asking you to do all along, since you made the claim. As far as recanting, I've never denied it existing, just skeptical of it, based on lack of an exact reference, so there won't be anything to recant. It really is that simple, Kimpatsu.
Bollocks. Now you're backpeddling from your original position. Do you beleive Randi said it? Yes or No?
Originally posted by jzs
At the rate your goalpsots are moving, maybe I should start at the first year and month the broadcasts started?
I haven't moved any goalposts. And it's definitely closer to the end than the beginning. If you bother to do some legwork, you'll find it.
Originally posted by jzs
Please let me know when you actually find it.
So you're going to give up searching are you? Why am I not surprised that you're a quitter?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is highly relevant: It will prove whether you actually listened to it or not.


The July 2003 didn't contain the audio Kimpatsu claimed. That is all that is relevant, Claus.

Keep denying..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs


The July 2003 didn't contain the audio Kimpatsu claimed. That is all that is relevant, Claus.

Keep denying.. [/B]

What am I "denying"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What am I "denying"?

Reality. My recollection of 5+ hours of audio is irrelevant to the fact that any impartial skeptic can verify that the 2003 July audios did not contain Kimpatsu's quote as claimed.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No, it isn't. Either you believe it, or you don't. Which is it?


Yes it is. You attempt it again, and again, I point it out and reject the attempt. I have some doubts.


I told you "circa July". In case you don't know, that means "around July".


Later, you clarified and said "July 2003". There was no circa there, Kimpatsu.


I'll tell you what's really embarrassing, though: misspelling "embarrassment".


Can't be embarassing as over 250 errors after calling yourself an editor, though.


So you DON'T believe Randi said it?


I am skeptical, but I am not denying he said it.


Besides, I'm only doing this because you're too pigging lazy to do any legwork yourself.


I listened to 5+ hours, Kimpatsu. This is for YOUR claim, something which you should have worked to find the evidence to support.


Do you beleive Randi said it? Yes or No?


I am skeptical, but I am not denying he said it. In fact, I am asking you for evidence.


If you bother to do some legwork, you'll find it.


It is your claim, you find the evidence, Kimpatsu. It is not up to me to find evidence to support your claim, Kimpatsu.


Why am I not surprised that you're a quitter?

It is your claim, you find the evidence. I've already searched 5+ hours of audio, for something you were sure was there, but it wasn't. Please, find the specific audio to support your claim, then just post it. It is quite simple.

[Kimpatsu]

Justin, you clearly have no interest in pursuing the truth or determining whereabouts in the audio record the quote exists. You keep changing your mind over whether Randi actually said the quote in question or not. If you'd actually say something sensible on which we could pin you down, I would call you on it. As things stand, I'm going to find the source of the quote for my own purposes, and you can go shove it up the same orifice from which your statements emanate.

[princhester]

For freak's sake Kimpatsu, find the quote or give it up. I'm on your side buddy, but don't make a dick of yourself.

Originally posted by jzs
So if someone is enthusiastic, deluded, brags, or is simply mistaken, and claims they can get 20 out of 20 everytime, they don't, but get 18 out of 20 or something still statistically significant, you are saying we just throw it out? Forget that it was significant? Seems like you are wanting to throw standard scientific method out the window.

It's a challenge. If the challenger can't do what they say they can do, then they lose. It's that simple.

If they find out after the challenge that they can do something remarkable (if slightly less remarkable than they thought) they should just challenge again in 12 months and win. There is nothing unscientific about delaying a test for a year.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
attempting to persude Rawlins into silence.


Try again. Depsite Rawlins' balwing the fact is that Randi was trying to preven the loose cannon nature from flying off the ship. Rawlins already got CSICOP in trouble by making very nasty insults about Gauquelin (you do know who that is, right?) and was overall acting like a jerk. He did have some good points, and in the long run they were addressed (See Abel's work from 1983 esp), but his manner of dealing with people and his "I'm right, surrender on all fronts" attitude was grating. Try reading cRYBABY somtime.


By concealing part of the results that didn't match their expectations.


And those results were testing what exactly? C'mon Peter, what were they testing? Make sure you get it right.


Quite literally, I do not think you even understand the difference between truth and lies.


QUite literally, I think you are a kook. I seem to have better support for my arguement around here.


You appear to define "lies" as being anything that tends to discredit Randi and his supoporters. The fact remains, I cited exact quotes from Larsen to show his deliberate misrepresentations.


Oh, yeah, right, like "Larsen said the money was cursed". That was a knee-slapper alright.


All I got in response was foul abuse from trolls. You have not shown one single thing I have said that is untrue.


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dream faster! You were shown to be laughable with the Larsen comment, your claims about the quotes being total fabrications by my post. All uyou could do is froth and rant, and that'a ll you are doing now.


It's been all over. Its often quoted by Randi fans.


Evidence please. I think you'll find that I was probably the only one. Give us three sources where it is quoted.


You make the claim, you prove it.

You were the one claiming it's true.

Your words : [b]" Now, of interest is that the post preceeding Mr. Hutchinson the allegation made is not that Randi was only partially quoted, but that the quote had nothing to do with the Randi challenge at all but was in reference to his stage act.

This is not a hard mistake to make, in fact the first issue of Jr. Skeptic (in the pages of SKEPTIC magazine) had a little comic of Randi discussing his "out" with regards to his stage act."


Don't confuse issues, Peter. I was quite clear that I was making a point about some people mistaking comments from Randi with others. This is you being deliberately obtuse. The fact that you can't seperate the issues even when Randi points out the difference is your ineptness, not a problem with Randi.

But again, even if your cry about the quote was 100% true (and it isn't), it doesn't mean diddly squat. The whole 'out' is nonsense.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by princhester
For freak's sake Kimpatsu, find the quote or give it up. I'm on your side buddy, but don't make a dick of yourself.
Do you know how much material that requires wading through? Or are you claiming that Randi never said it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

As things stand, I'm going to find the source of the quote


Which is what I've requested all along, for you to find the evidence that supports your claim.


you can go shove it up the same orifice from which your statements emanate.

More personal attacks.

Please, find the evidence that you claimed existed. Until then,

*PLONK!*

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Please, find the evidence that you claimed existed. Until then,

*PLONK!*

...meaning?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...meaning?

What part of 'find the evidence that you claimed existed' are you having trouble with?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
What part of 'find the evidence that you claimed existed' are you having trouble with?

"Plonk"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Plonk"?

Kimpatsu's personal attacks will be ignored, as I'm only interested in him finding the evidence that supports his claim.

[brianeyci]

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.

Let's see. You said this Peter Morris.

Now, tell me what evidence you have to support the excuse that the money is cursed.

Larsen says this.

Have you seen the Kofoed quote?

You choose to intepret this as Larsen believing that the money is cursed when you damn well know that in context, Larsen thought that you wanted evidence that his quote was representative of what a real claimant said. So you pick one word, "support", isolate it out of context from the point of the discussion, and believe Larsen said the money was cursed.

See this (http://datanation.com/fallacies/amphib.htm). There are obviously two ways to interpret your own words. There is one way as in asking for "support" that the excuse that the money is cursed exists. There is another way, which is you asking Larsen to provide evidence or "support" that the money is cursed out of context with the discussion. In other words you are the one playing word games. You are saying "If A then B" or since Larsen provides "support the excuse that the money is cursed exists" then "Larsen is a liar" when A is strictly ambigious. To resolve this ambiguity, you could have just used your eyes and read what Larsen posted in the past, or asked Larsen himself.

In other words,

Let A be your question, true representing you asking for evidence that the money is cursed, false representing you asking for evidence that evidence exists that the money is cursed.
Let B be whether or not Larsen believes the money is cursed.

A B
T T
T F
F T
F F

You pick only one of the possible outcomes of Larsen's reply, the first outcome, when you damn well know that Larsen thought you meant you wanted evidence that the excuse existed. In fact, you said this,

Actually, if you cannot find even one single instance of a person saying this, then including it on the list of "common" arguments would be a lie.

Therefore indicating earlier in the thread that you wanted evidence that Larsen's comments were based on actual claims..

In other words you decided to trap Larsen by saying you wanted evidence of the comments being based on real claims, and by using an ambigiously worded question later you would force Larsen to say he believed the money was cursed. Ridiculous, because in this case A does not imply B because there are many meanings of "support". However taken in context "support" must mean that you are asking Larsen for support that there is an "instance of a person saying this" in your own words because you asked him specifically for this evidence earlier.

Brian

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu's personal attacks will be ignored, as I'm only interested in him finding the evidence that supports his claim.

How will you see his evidence, if you have him on ignore?

[CFLarsen]

I can't believe Peter Morris is still going on about the cursed money. He is truly deluded, if he thinks he will convince anyone that he is right.

Well, he's deluded anyway, but...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How will you see his evidence, if you have him on ignore?

I said I will be ignoring his personal attacks, Claus.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Do you know how much material that requires wading through? Or are you claiming that Randi never said it?

I mean that giving a quote, then not giving a useable cite, then giving a vague reference, then giving a more concise reference that turns out to be wrong, makes you look pissweak. Find the quote or give it up. I don't say this as any sort of statement about the substance of the debate. I say it simply as a comment on the debate process.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


Which is what I've requested all along, for you to find the evidence that supports your claim.
[/B]
So you do doubt that Randi ever said it? You think everyone on this board is a liar?!

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by princhester
I mean that giving a quote, then not giving a useable cite, then giving a vague reference, then giving a more concise reference that turns out to be wrong, makes you look pissweak. Find the quote or give it up. I don't say this as any sort of statement about the substance of the debate. I say it simply as a comment on the debate process.
Why don't you bloody well look for it too, instead of sitting on your high horse? You know it's there somewhere; do smething constructive for once.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
So you do doubt that Randi ever said it? You think everyone on this board is a liar?!

Where do you come up with this stuff? Really.

As I've said, I'm skeptical.

Just provide the evidence you claimed existed. Or don't.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, someone claimed that Rawlings made the claim. You did. And he provided a source which backed up his claim that '2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�.'

I don't understand why jzs either doesn't believe that it is an incomplete quote, or that someone is going to put in the time to find it.

But, somehow you insist that he hasn't meant the standard of evidence on his claim. He has. You even seem to believe that Rawlins made the quote. Why can't you see this?

Given the title of the thread and that jzs provided the excuse and a reference, you have nothing to complain about on point 2) of his post.

Walt

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I said I will be ignoring his personal attacks, Claus.

......how? You have to read something in order to decide whether it is a personal attack or not.

Oh, well.... :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Walt,

No, no. You misunderstand. I am not saying that Justin hasn't showed a source for his claim. It's a source, however less verifiable than Kimpatsu's.

I am saying that Justin made a claim that Rawlings said this. Justin doesn't want to admit that he made this claim.

Somehow, Justin never makes "claims". He just uses the claims of others to argue his point. That way, he never has to back up anything he says himself, while he insists that others back up their claims.

Justin thinks that "debating" is continuously lopping the ball back, without ever having to argue anything himself.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Walt,

No, no. You misunderstand. I am not saying that Justin hasn't showed a source for his claim. It's a source, however less verifiable than Kimpatsu's.

I am saying that Justin made a claim that Rawlings said this. Justin doesn't want to admit that he made this claim.

Somehow, Justin never makes "claims". He just uses the claims of others to argue his point. That way, he never has to back up anything he says himself, while he insists that others back up their claims.

Justin thinks that "debating" is continuously lopping the ball back, without ever having to argue anything himself. Do understand correctly that you don't think the FATE magazine article is entirely genuine, and that FATE put worlds into Rawlins mouth?

Walt

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Do understand correctly that you don't think the FATE magazine article is entirely genuine, and that FATE put worlds into Rawlins mouth?

Well, the article is there, and I haven't seen anything from Rawlins where he complains about being misquoted.

I do know, however, that Rawlins misquotes Randi.

[T'ai Chi]

"I do know, however, that Rawlins misquotes Randi."

That pretty much sums up Claus's "approach" to skepticism...

Claus disregards my source flat out, and doesn't even care that Kimpatsu can't find his evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
"I do know, however, that Rawlins misquotes Randi."

That pretty much sums up Claus's "approach" to skepticism...

Claus disregards my source flat out, and doesn't even care that Kimpatsu can't find his evidence.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I don't discard it, I say that Rawlins is wrong.

You see, it's not just the radio shows which you refuse to listen to. This also came up at TAM3, when we were setting up the conference. Randi explained to me how it went - Rawlins is misquoting Randi, pure and simple.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Where do you come up with this stuff? Really.

As I've said, I'm skeptical.

Just provide the evidence you claimed existed. Or don't.
Either you believe Randi said it, or you think he didn't and are being bolshey. Either way, if you really believed Randi said it and wanted the evidence for some higher purpose, such as woo-woo rebuttal, you'd have bothered to search for it yourself by now. As things stand, I'm the only one going back through all the 2003 b/casts to find it. That says more about my commitment to truth than yours.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, the article is there, and I haven't seen anything from Rawlins where he complains about being misquoted.

I do know, however, that Rawlins misquotes Randi. Which is a valid. But saying that jzs didn't backup that it had been alleged that Randi said that isn't.

When you said "No, someone claimed that Rawlings made the claim. [jzs] did." you seem to fail to note that jzs backed his claim theat Rawlins made the claim up. When you say jzs didn't back his claim you are wrong.

jzs has made the case for his statement, and the point left is the accuracy and importance of Rawlins claim.

Walt

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You see, it's not just the radio shows which you refuse to listen to.


I listened to ~5hrs. Kimpatsu should cite his source specifically ie. the exact audio file. He made the claim it existed, Claus. The burden is on him, not on me to search for hours for something I didn't even claim existed.


This also came up at TAM3, when we were setting up the conference. Randi explained to me how it went - Rawlins is misquoting Randi, pure and simple.

Can you look anyone in the face and say, in all seriousness and honesty, that the verbal recollection 28 years after an event is more accurate than a written recollection 6 years after the same event?

But for what it is worth, I'm not saying Randi did or did not. I just provided the Rawlings article, and am asking Kimpatsu to back up his claim.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Either you believe Randi said it, or
(snip bs)


Just provide the evidence you claimed existed. Or don't.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Just provide the evidence you claimed existed. Or don't.
I will find it, but there's a lot of material to wade through. Then you'll have to eat humble pie and admit Randi did say it, after all.

[CFLarsen]

Walt,

Has Justin admitted that he has made a claim?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I listened to ~5hrs. Kimpatsu should cite his source specifically ie. the exact audio file. He made the claim it existed, Claus. The burden is on him, not on me to search for hours for something I didn't even claim existed.

So, you have no interest in finding out whether Randi said it.

Originally posted by jzs
Can you look anyone in the face and say, in all seriousness and honesty, that the verbal recollection 28 years after an event is more accurate than a written recollection 6 years after the same event?

But for what it is worth, I'm not saying Randi did or did not. I just provided the Rawlings article, and am asking Kimpatsu to back up his claim.

It's worth nothing, then. Again, you merely take perverse joy in making other people work.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I will find it, but there's a lot of material to wade through. Then you'll have to eat humble pie and admit Randi did say it, after all.

I never said he didn't say it, Kimpatsu.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you have no interest in finding out whether Randi said it.


ME showing a paper where Rawlings claimed what Randi said is me making a claim? REALLY??

Kimpatsu made the claim of a source, it is up to him to provide evidence for his claim.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I never said he didn't say it, Kimpatsu.
Then why don't you dearch through all the audio files yourself? Your antagonistic attitude means you don't beleive he said it, and are challenging Claus and me to prove that he did, whereas if you do genuinely believe he said it, you will make the effotr yourself.
Of course, it could just be that your bolshiness is because you're a petty-minded little prick.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
ME showing a paper where Rawlings claimed what Randi said is me making a claim? REALLY??

Kimpatsu made the claim of a source, it is up to him to provide evidence for his claim.
OK, Randi never said it, ********. Everyone who heard him say it on air was suffering from mass auditory hallucination.
:rolleyes:

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Walt,

Has Justin admitted that he has made a claim? Not that I am aware of.

However, whether he admitted it or not is irrelevant to our exchange. He made the claim and backed it up, which is entirely relevant to your asking him to back it up.

Given that:
- his claim was '2) Randi has been reported to have allegedly said, in regards to his challenge, that “I always have an out�'
- he provided a link to that source on page 12 of this thread where Rawlins alleged that Randi said that

Do you then admit that jzs backed up his claim back on page 12?


Walt

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Then why don't you dearch through all the audio files yourself?


Beacuse you made the claim of it existing. I didn't. The burden of evidence is on you, my friend. I've already listened to 5+ hours as a courtesy.


Your antagonistic attitude means you don't beleive he said it,


That is flawed reasoning.


and are challenging Claus and me to prove that he did,


You should provide the evidence when requested since you made the claim.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Walter Wayne
Do you then admit that jzs backed up his claim back on page 12?

No, because he is not making a claim. He has referred to a source.

When you back up a claim, then you provide evidence that your claim is correct. At least, that's how I understand the term.

If it merely means "pointing to someone who said something", then we have to say that John Edward has backed up his claim that he talks to the dead.

I don't think that's what you mean, is it?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, because he is not making a claim. He has referred to a source.


I'm glad and surprised to see you finally conceed that I didn't make a claim. There is hope for you yet.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


I'm glad and surprised to see you finally conceed that I didn't make a claim. There is hope for you yet. [/B]
You really are a sloppy little jerk, aren't you?! :rolleyes:
Have you listened to all the b/casts yet?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You really are a sloppy little jerk, aren't you?! :rolleyes:
Have you listened to all the b/casts yet?

I've listened to 5+ hours, of where you originally were convinced it was.

Kimpatsu, will you back up your claim and provide the data you claimed existed?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I've listened to 5+ hours, of where you originally were convinced it was.

Kimpatsu, will you back up your claim and provide the data you claimed existed?
In other words, you've listeened to approx. 1 month's worth of b/casts. Have you tried August and June yet?
Do you really think I'm making this up, and Randi never said anything of the sort? :rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
In other words, you've listeened to approx. 1 month's worth of b/casts. Have you tried August and June yet?


I listened to where you originally were convinced it was located.


Do you really think I'm making this up, and Randi never said anything of the sort? :rolleyes:

Irrelevant, Kimpatsu. You made a claim. I am simply asking for evidence.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


I listened to where you originally were convinced it was located.



Irrelevant, Kimpatsu. You made a claim. I am simply asking for evidence. [/B]
You came to me asking where the quote was located. I gave you a ballpark location in an effort to help you out. Now you turn round and bite me. Well, to hell with you. Find the source yourself, and don't ever ask for help again. You are a snotty little arse who thinks that you have a right to make other people jump through hoops for you. Well, get this: you're wrong. Do the legwork yourself, and find your own damn quotes. Just don't expect us to lift a finger even if you're drowning in future. In fact, you drowining might just be a great idea, so go jump in the river, you stuck-up idiot.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You came to me asking where the quote was located. I gave you a ballpark location in an effort to help you out.


You were so convinced it was there where you said. After looking, it wasn't. Then you say 'try looking over here, where you didn't look' and etc.

You made a claim where it was located. I asked you for the actual evidence. It has been several days and still no evidence of something you are so sure exists. I'm not saying it does or doesn't; I am just asking you to provide evidence of your claim that it does.


Find the source yourself, and don't ever ask for help again.


I simply asked for evidence of the claim you made. Why would I have any burden for a claim that you made? Although, as a courtesy, I did search for 5+ hours where you originally were convinced it was.


Just don't expect us to lift a finger even if you're drowning in future. In fact, you drowining might just be a great idea, so go jump in the river, you stuck-up idiot.

Do you realize how much of a goofball you appear when you go off on me (not to mention saying me drowning is a "great idea") for simply asking you for evidence of your claim?

[Zep]

It would seem that all jzs wants is an opportunity to redefine the JREF Challenge rules by means of arguing about what Randi said about someone sometime somewhere in the dim dark past. He seems to think that if the evil skeptics admit that Randi admits to something nefarious from selected comments taken way out of context then they are in with a chance of winning the million. So little do they realise, so little do they know...

If Randi were to drop dead today, the JREF Challenge would go on EXACTLY as it does now, and the rules would not need to be changed (nor would they be). People equally skeptical and scrupulous and thorough would step into his shoes instantly. And to win the prize, it would STILL be as simple as it is now: Produce that paranormal thing you say you can successfully under scientifically controlled and observed conditions, and you win. It's that remarkably simple. Let's see the colour of your evidence. Put up or shut up.

So all of jzs's and Peter Morris's previous bleatings here really are quite pointless - they have no abilities of their own they wish to put to the test, and aren't pushing anyone else's. Both because they know they will get shot down in flames. So all they are doing with the above diatribe is wasting bandwidth by provoking pointless arguments - limpet trolls.

*yawn* Who needs to keep up conversations with shellfish?

[Kimpatsu]

All JZS really wants is to lord it snootily over the rest of us. He talks rubbish and tells lies. He asked for where Randi said "I have an out--I'm always right". I pointed him in the right direction, and now he wants me to do all the grunt work for him and is obnoxious to boot.
I hope he chokes on the quote.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, because he is not making a claim. He has referred to a source.

When you back up a claim, then you provide evidence that your claim is correct. At least, that's how I understand the term.

If it merely means "pointing to someone who said something", then we have to say that John Edward has backed up his claim that he talks to the dead.

I don't think that's what you mean, is it? First, you're the one who said he made a claim. Claiming that it has been reported that X happened, it is only necessray to show that it was indeed reported that X happened.

The interesting part is 1) you insisted he was making a claim 2) you don't dispute the article was indeed Rawlins claim and not fabricated 3) now you say he wasn't making a claim.

Walt

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
All JZS really wants is to lord it snootily over the rest of us. He talks rubbish and tells lies. He asked for where Randi said "I have an out--I'm always right". I pointed him in the right direction, and now he wants me to do all the grunt work for him and is obnoxious to boot.
I hope he chokes on the quote. To me, the whole conversation matters not a a single tiny jot. So what if Randi did or didn't say something! Resolving that issue one way or t'other doesn't get any levitator or psychic or homeopath any closer to the JREF million. And it doesn't make it any different to how to win.

They will just bleat endlessly about "But you said that I said that you claimed that I claimed that Randi said...". Let them. It's a totally pointless waste of energy dealing with them when all they can do is idiotic semantic games like that. Really, it's just them desperately twisting and turning to avoid the bleeding obvious about their own position...

http://pagansinthegarden.org/pictures/train_wreck_sm.jpg

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
He talks rubbish and tells lies.


You were the one making the claim, Kimpatsu. So far, when asked for evidence, you have not been able to produce it.

You have alluded to violence on my person, however. Not too intelligent.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Zep
It would seem that all jzs wants is an opportunity to redefine the JREF Challenge rules by means of arguing about what Randi said about someone sometime somewhere in the dim dark past. He seems to think that if the evil skeptics admit that Randi admits to something nefarious from selected comments taken way out of context then they are in with a chance of winning the million. So little do they realise, so little do they know...



"it would seem", "He seems", etc. :rolleyes:

No, it would not seem, Zep. I'm just asking Kimpatsu for actual evidence of what he claimed existed.


Let's see the colour of your evidence. Put up or shut up.


Oh, the 'Skeptic' toughness... yes, and that is what I am asking for, evidence of Kimpatsu's claim.


So all of jzs's and Peter Morris's previous bleatings here really are quite pointless - they have no abilities of their own they wish to put to the test, and aren't pushing anyone else's. Both because they know they will get shot down in flames. So all they are doing with the above diatribe is wasting bandwidth by provoking pointless arguments - limpet trolls.


So let me see... you are saying someone who asked for evidence is a troll, but someone who makes a claim and doesn't provide it, then wishes you'd drown and choke is not a troll.

Funny world you live in, Zep.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
No, it would not seem, Zep. I'm just asking Kimpatsu for actual evidence of what he claimed existed.
No you're not; you're trying to make me jump through hoops for your own twisted amusement.
Sod off, you idiot. Go do the legwork yourself. I'm never helping you do anything again.

[kookbreaker]

jzs, If you really wanted an answer, you could ask Randi himself. He's not inaccesable.

It is obvious that you do not want an answer.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
No you're not; you're trying to make me jump through hoops for your own twisted amusement.
Sod off, you idiot. Go do the legwork yourself. I'm never helping you do anything again.

Yes, I am clearly and directly asking you to provide the evidence that you claimed existed.

kookbreaker

I am asking Kimpatsu to provide evidence of his claim. That is obviously wanting an answer, one that Kimpatsu claimed exists.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Yes, I am clearly and directly asking you to provide the evidence that you claimed existed.
I am asking Kimpatsu to provide evidence of his claim. That is obviously wanting an answer, one that Kimpatsu claimed exists. You are a broken record.
Go ask Randi directly, and look through the archives yourself, you lazy bastard.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You are a broken record.
Go ask Randi directly, and look through the archives yourself, you lazy bastard.

I looked through 5+ hours of where you were convinced it was.

It is your claim, Kimpatsu. The burden is on you if people request actual evidence for it.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I looked through 5+ hours of where you were convinced it was.

It is your claim, Kimpatsu. The burden is on you if people request actual evidence for it.
In other words, you only listened to July, when it could just as well be August or June.
You're a lazy, manipulative sod. I'm never going to help you out again.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
In other words, you only listened to July, when it could just as well be August or June.
You're a lazy, manipulative sod. I'm never going to help you out again.

DEJA VU?

Here's some more: it was your claim. YOU provide the evidence if requested.

Or don't. Just quit whining about how difficult a file, that you said existed, is to find.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
DEJA VU?

Here's some more: it was your claim. YOU provide the evidence if requested.

Or don't. Just quit whining about how difficult a file, that you said existed, is to find.
It wasn't a claim, as you well know. Yo uasked for help to find the source; I gave you a ballpark location. If I'd known you were going to be this obnoxious, I would never have offered to help.
Go and soak your head.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
It wasn't a claim, as you well know.


"What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right.""

Claim 1.

"I have already told you; July 2003."

Claim 2.

Your Claim 2 has been shown to be false.

Got any evidence yet for Claim 1?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


"What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right.""

Claim 1.

"I have already told you; July 2003."

Claim 2.

Your Claim 2 has been shown to be false.

Got any evidence yet for Claim 1? [/B]
You're still not paying attention. Yo uasked for help to find the quote. I gave you an approximate date. But you're too bloody lazy to look it up. You make me sick. I'm never going to help you for anything again; I hope you're drowning, just so I can walk past the riverbank and not do anything.
Prick.

[Zep]

Originally posted by jzs
So let me see... you are saying someone who asked for evidence is a troll, but someone who makes a claim and doesn't provide it, then wishes you'd drown and choke is not a troll.

Funny world you live in, Zep. Did you come here for the 10 minute argument? Or is it the full half hour.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by jzs
kookbreaker

I am asking Kimpatsu to provide evidence of his claim. That is obviously wanting an answer, one that Kimpatsu claimed exists. [/B]

Confirmation can be easily made with a simple email.

This is only a problem because you insist upon making it one.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You're still not paying attention. Yo uasked for help to find the quote. I gave you an approximate date. But you're too bloody lazy to look it up. You make me sick. I'm never going to help you for anything again; I hope you're drowning, just so I can walk past the riverbank and not do anything.
Prick.

You made the claim, Kimpatsu.

That's bout it,.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
You made the claim, Kimpatsu.

That's bout it,.

So, email Randi and see what he says.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, email Randi and see what he says.

Kimpatsu's claim was about the audio file. If he'd like to provide evidence of it, he knows he has already been invited to, numerous times.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu's claim was about the audio file. If he'd like to provide evidence of it, he knows he has already been invited to, numerous times.

If you are interested in the answer, it is far easier to email Randi than to keep posting here.

[webfusion]

Sort of related to the OP ---

When someone (anyone) gets into a closed loop of looking for "sources" and "evidence" of something offered here, and the one who originally made the claim cannot (or will not) provide further details, then maybe it does become the responsibility of the one seeking answers to try a little harder to investigate and research the claim.

We have all seen this:
"You claimed such and such, so YOU have to prove it"

This goes for anything, not just the forums.
Not every discussion or claim made needs to be treated by the same rules as the Million Dollar Challenge.

I got into this once with another member, in a political forum, and it was amazing to me that he insisted in asking for 'sources' of a major event that was being covered on all the media outlets and was at the top five results of every major internet search engine that day when searched-for.

To paraphrase what I was told:
"You made the claim, I asked for sources, I don't have to search for anything, you need to provide them."

At some point, we each have to take personal responsibility and get the answers to life's minor mysteries on our own, without resorting to tactics such as laziness and indifference when we really are capable of finding out stuff on our own.

And sharing the results is so satisfying!

[/end rant]

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by webfusion
Sort of related to the OP ---

When someone (anyone) gets into a closed loop of looking for "sources" and "evidence" of something offered here, and the one who originally made the claim cannot (or will not) provide further details, then maybe it does become the responsibility of the one seeking answers to try a little harder to investigate and research the claim.

We have all seen this:
"You claimed such and such, so YOU have to prove it"

This goes for anything, not just the forums.
Not every discussion or claim made needs to be treated by the same rules as the Million Dollar Challenge.

I got into this once with another member, in a political forum, and it was amazing to me that he insisted in asking for 'sources' of a major event that was being covered on all the media outlets and was at the top five results of every major internet search engine that day when searched-for.

To paraphrase what I was told:
"You made the claim, I asked for sources, I don't have to search for anything, you need to provide them."

At some point, we each have to take personal responsibility and get the answers to life's minor mysteries on our own, without resorting to tactics such as laziness and indifference when we really are capable of finding out stuff on our own.

And sharing the results is so satisfying!

[/end rant]


The point is, jzs isn't really looking for the information. He isn't asking for the source because he want's to read or listen to it. He's just being a troll. He's pushing all of your buttons, and taking delight in your reactions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
The point is, jzs isn't really looking for the information. He isn't asking for the source because he want's to read or listen to it. He's just being a troll. He's pushing all of your buttons, and taking delight in your reactions.

It's a pattern with Justin/jzs/T'ai Chi/Whodini. E.g., he once tried to get people to provide him with transcripts of psychic readings, so he could do statistical analyses of them on a webpage he would create. On the webpage, there would also be a critique of two papers he asked other people's opinions of, while refusing to say what he thought of them himself.

Nothing happened. We couldn't even see the transcripts people had found for him.

Justin goes on fishing expeditions, so he can criticize other people's arguments. He never contributes to any debate.

Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27398&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
The point is, jzs isn't really looking for the information. He isn't asking for the source because he want's to read or listen to it. He's just being a troll. He's pushing all of your buttons, and taking delight in your reactions.

Kimpatsu made a claim. I asked him for the evidence is is sure exists.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It's a pattern with Justin/jzs/T'ai Chi/Whodini. E.g., he once tried to get people to provide him with transcripts of psychic readings, so he could do statistical analyses of them on a webpage he would create. On the webpage, there would also be a critique of two papers he asked other people's opinions of, while refusing to say what he thought of them himself.

Nothing happened. We couldn't even see the transcripts people had found for him.


As mentioned already, not too many people volunteered. In a large project, that needs volunteers (to find transcripts and multiple people to rate them, so we can see agreement), and there are few, the project won't get off the ground, and this one didn't. As far as you, you didn't want to volunteer for the project, Claus, therefore it makes no sense at all for you to see transcripts, data, etc., before the project even starts, if you have nothing whatsoever to do with anything. You still haven't answered the question of 'can you name any project where data etc is released to any party who asks, even before the project is completed' ? You couldn't then, and you can't now, but somehow I am held to a different standard.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu made a claim. I asked him for the evidence is is sure exists.

Why do you need to see the evidence?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
As mentioned already, not too many people volunteered. In a large project, that needs volunteers (to find transcripts and multiple people to rate them, so we can see agreement), and there are few, the project won't get off the ground, and this one didn't. As far as you, you didn't want to volunteer for the project, Claus, therefore it makes no sense at all for you to see transcripts, data, etc., before the project even starts, if you have nothing whatsoever to do with anything. You still haven't answered the question of 'can you name any project where data etc is released to any party who asks, even before the project is completed' ? You couldn't then, and you can't now, but somehow I am held to a different standard.

Yes, you can bitch, moan and whine as you usually do, but it doesn't change the facts one whit:

You used other people, Justin.

Why can't we see the 20-something transcripts that people found for you?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why do you need to see the evidence?

I'm curious about it.

Kimpatsu claimed it existed. When asked to provided the actual evidence, he can't (as of yet).

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, you can bitch, moan and whine as you usually do, but it doesn't change the facts one whit:

You used other people, Justin.

Why can't we see the 20-something transcripts that people found for you?

The tone and language of your interpretation is your usual dramatic self.

I asked for interested volunteers, that's all.

The transcripts? As mentioned, these were found on common sites, CNN, and so forth, where live readings were done.

And, as usualy, you utterly ran from my challenge. Claus:

Can you name any project where data etc is released to any party who asks, even before the project is completed?

Still waiting..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I'm curious about it.

Why?

Do you doubt that it exists?

What does it mean to you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
The tone and language of your interpretation is your usual dramatic self.

I asked for interested volunteers, that's all.

The transcripts? As mentioned, these were found on common sites, CNN, and so forth, where live readings were done.

And, as usualy, you utterly ran from my challenge. Claus:

Can you name any project where data etc is released to any party who asks, even before the project is completed?

Still waiting..

Your "challenge"?? Just who do you think you are?

Why can't we see the 20-something transcripts that people found for you?

[Winny]

Originally posted by Zep
Did you come here for the 10 minute argument? Or is it the full half hour.
This isn't an argument.

Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Your "challenge"?? Just who do you think you are?


Anyone can make a challenge, Claus. Anyone can also run from them, which you are demonstrating.


Why can't we see the 20-something transcripts that people found for you?

As I've mentioned, transcripts of live readings, like on Larry King Live, stuff like http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0301/10/lkl.00.html for example.

Now, please answer for my question, which you attempt to dodge yet again:

Claus, can you name any project where data etc is released to any party who asks, even before the project is completed?

Still waiting, bucko. Else, you're asking me to conform to higher standards than anyone anywhere is held to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why?

Do you doubt that it exists?

What does it mean to you?

Yawn. You asking questions ad nauseum doesn't change the fact that Kimpatsu made the claim, and when asked for specific evidence, he can't (as of yet) produce it.

I haev to explain why I am curious? You'd think me being curious would be obvious since I posted the original link to Rawling's claim of Randi supposedly saying that he always has an out. After Kimpatsu made his claim, I was curious the hear the audio he claimed existed.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by jzs
Can you name any project where data etc is released to any party who asks, even before the project is completed?

Still waiting..

Yeah, this one: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Heard of it?

:dl:

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
You made the claim, Kimpatsu.

That's bout it,.
I didn't make a cliam. I offered a suggestion to help you answer a question. You have stil lfailed to ask Randi direct.
That's about it.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Kimpatsu's claim was about the audio file. If he'd like to provide evidence of it, he knows he has already been invited to, numerous times.
I didn't make a claim, I gave you advice on where best to find the source of the quote, something you've been unwilling to do. You have also failed to contact Randi directly. That tells us all we need to know about your real agenda: troll.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Yeah, this one: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Heard of it?

:dl:

Ok, now that was a good one. :) :) :) I hadn't thought of that (neither did Claus!), but I am glad someone found an example.

I guess the vast majority of projects don't just release any and all info to anybody who requests it at any and all times. Kind of a common sense privacy thing I'd assume.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I didn't make a claim, I gave you advice on where best to find the source of the quote, something you've been unwilling to do. You have also failed to contact Randi directly. That tells us all we need to know about your real agenda: troll.

Oh now you didn't make a claim?

"What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right.""

"I have already told you; July 2003."

Me emailing Randi has nothing to do with your claim of there being an actual audio file where you said it would be. If you can't produce it when asked, just say so.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Oh now you didn't make a claim?

"What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right.""

"I have already told you; July 2003."

Me emailing Randi has nothing to do with your claim of there being an actual audio file where you said it would be. If you can't produce it when asked, just say so.
I never said I could produce it; only give you the ballpark area where Randi made the claim. Until you have listened to all the audio files, you have no right to make any comment at all, ya eejit.
Now go play in the traffic.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I never said I could produce it; only give you the ballpark area where Randi made the claim.


"I have already told you; July 2003."

does not sound like the "ballpark" area, but a specific area.

Moreover, how do you know Randi said it, as you claim, if you can't even tell us specifically where it is?


Now go play in the traffic.

So you want me to drown, choke, then play in traffic? I just want your logical and rational thinking to be made crystal clear.

I think you need to train in martial arts some more, Kimpatsu, clearly you feel threatened and can't control your reactions.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


"I have already told you; July 2003."

does not sound like the "ballpark" area, but a specific area.

Moreover, how do you know Randi said it, as you claim, if you can't even tell us specifically where it is?



So you want me to drown, choke, then play in traffic? I just want your logical and rational thinking to be made crystal clear.

I think you need to train in martial arts some more, Kimpatsu, clearly you feel threatened and can't control your reactions. [/B]
I know because I heard Randi say it on one of his internet broadcasts, idiot. Now, stop wasting my time and go ask Randi directly for the source. :rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I know because I heard Randi say it on one of his internet broadcasts, idiot. Now, stop wasting my time and go ask Randi directly for the source. :rolleyes:

You are the one who made the claim. Why on earth would one ask Randi for an audio file that you claimed exists?

You really have no answer for that except "I can't find the file."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Yawn. You asking questions ad nauseum doesn't change the fact that Kimpatsu made the claim, and when asked for specific evidence, he can't (as of yet) produce it.

I haev to explain why I am curious? You'd think me being curious would be obvious since I posted the original link to Rawling's claim of Randi supposedly saying that he always has an out. After Kimpatsu made his claim, I was curious the hear the audio he claimed existed.

Do you doubt that it exists?

I didn't ask you to explain why you are "curious". I asked you what it means to you.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
You are the one who made the claim. Why on earth would one ask Randi for an audio file that you claimed exists?

You really have no answer for that except "I can't find the file." I never said I can't find it; I said your behaviour was so obnoxious, I stopped looking. Big differenec.
I see you're still scared to ask Randi when he said it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I never said I can't find it; I said your behaviour was so obnoxious, I stopped looking. Big differenec.
I see you're still scared to ask Randi when he said it.

More dancing around....too bad the music stopped a long time ago.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
More dancing around....too bad the music stopped a long time ago.
More obfuscation from the master of lies; why haven't you asked Randi directly? What are you afraid of?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
More obfuscation from the master of lies; why haven't you asked Randi directly? What are you afraid of?

More dancing..

Randi has nothing to do with the location of the audio file you claimed existed.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
More dancing..

Randi has nothing to do with the location of the audio file you claimed existed.
More obfuscation.
Randi will know where it is (better ballpark) than I, and can tell you the very first time he maed the quote. Which fact you know full well and are deliberately failing to address, which shows you to be a liar, a cheat, and a very unpleasant person.
Now go drown yourself.

The comment "Now go drown yourself." is not acceptable here, the Membership Agreement states:

Advocacy of suicide or of violence to others: If you tell someone to kill themselves, or to harm someone else, you will be suspended without prior warning. Example: "Go kill yourself."

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
, which shows you to be a liar, a cheat, and a very unpleasant person.
Now go drown yourself.

You've moved from a slow waltz, to tap dancing, and now you are full on breakdancing.

Still hostile I see. So much for the martial arts having any effect on your ego. Maybe it is just an inferior martial art though?

If you find the evidence you claimed was "July 2003", let me know. Otherwise, you'll be talking to yourself here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
More dancing..

Randi has nothing to do with the location of the audio file you claimed existed.

So, you are only concerned with Kimpatsu's claim and not actually finding out if it is true or not, by asking Randi directly?

Don't you realize what a fool you are?

[Zep]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Don't you realize what a fool you are? Yes, Justin does know what a fool he is. He's just trying to tap-dance like mad until he find the exit door.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you are only concerned with Kimpatsu's claim and not actually finding out if it is true or not, by asking Randi directly?

Don't you realize what a fool you are?

I'm not disputing that Randi uttered some words, Claud.

I'm asking Kimpatsu for evidence of his claim that the audio file exists and he knows where it is.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Zep
Yes, Justin does know what a fool he is. He's just trying to tap-dance like mad until he find the exit door.

Really Claus Lite? By sticking around I am trying to find the exit?

Yeah, you don't want to hold Kimpatsu to his claim, nor to his foul, abusive, hurtful, and irresponsible language either.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Really Claus Lite? By sticking around I am trying to find the exit?

Yeah, you don't want to hold Kimpatsu to his claim, nor to his foul, abusive, hurtful, and irresponsible language either.
What's irresponsible is your lack of graciousness after helping you to help yourself. You wanted to source a Randi quote; I gave you a ballpark area to search, and you think I should do all the legwork for you. That's the behaviour of a lazy SOB, not a genuine member of this forum.
Can't you get it through your thick skull that your behaviour is unacceptable on this forum, and you should just piss off and leave us alone?

[Jackalgirl]

> My favorite one is Sylvia Browne's stuff about the JREF money
> being tainted and evil.

So how about she proves herself and...just doesn't take the money?

Oy.

-- JG

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Jackalgirl
> My favorite one is Sylvia Browne's stuff about the JREF money
> being tainted and evil.

So how about she proves herself and...just doesn't take the money?
Oy.

-- JG
Jeez, why are you being rational...?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Try again. Depsite Rawlins' balwing the fact is that Randi was trying to preven the loose cannon nature from flying off the ship.

Rawlins was hated because he told the truth, and exposed some liars that disgrace the Skeptical movement. The exact same reason that you hate me.


And those results were testing what exactly? C'mon Peter, what were they testing? Make sure you get it right.

It was the claim that Mars affected people's choice of career.



QUite literally, I think you are a kook. I seem to have better support for my arguement around here.

The only thing you have is your inability to see facts.

Oh, yeah, right, like "Larsen said the money was cursed". That was a knee-slapper alright.


You can see the original

==========================

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 t's in my post. "Annet Kofoed".

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

============================


Fact: Larsen said that he had evidence of the curse. A claim that he repeated several times in following posts.


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dream faster! You were shown to be laughable with the Larsen comment, your claims about the quotes being total fabrications by my post. All uyou could do is froth and rant, and that'a ll you are doing now.

Kook, if you actually believe that, seek help. I really mean it. If you genuinely think you have supplied evidence of me lying, then you are mentally ill. You are, quite literally, either telling a very stupid lie, or else you are totally insane.

The record of Larsen's posts show him claiming proof of the curse. There's no getting around that.


Evidence please. I think you'll find that I was probably the only one. Give us three sources where it is quoted.

1) [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi (]HERE [/url)

2) Your posts, as you admit above. You admit using the argument, do I have to search out specific examples of you doing so?

3) here (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/c83795b47dac6137?q=g:thl1798659314d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8)

4) Repeated many times in posts on sci.skeptic and other forums. Every time somebody quotes Randi's "I always have an out" comment, someone will post the link above to prove that Randi really meant he doesn't let people cheat.


Don't confuse issues, Peter. I was quite clear that I was making a point about some people mistaking comments from Randi with others. This is you being deliberately obtuse.

It's quite plain what you said, and the fact that you tried to backtrack when your errors were demonstrated.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Fact: Larsen said that he had evidence of the curse. A claim that he repeated several times in following posts.

Feel free to post that evidence.

Anytime. At your discretion.

[kookbreaker]

For flips' sake, WEEKS go by and Peter comes crawling back with nothing but insults.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Rawlins was hated because he told the truth, and exposed some liars that disgrace the Skeptical movement. The exact same reason that you hate me.


Rawlins made an ass of himself, and went crying to the woowoo crowd. He was hailed as their new hero. Since then, Rawlins has made a damned fool of himself with regards to other claims of his. The dressing down he got from the NGS showed his true character. Of course, cRYBABY, written Phillip Klass showed his true nature already.


It was the claim that Mars affected people's choice of career.


But what, exactly, were Abell and Kurtz testing, Peter. And what was Rawlins' initial problem with it?

And who made the claim about Mars affecting people's choice of careers? Oh, and which then-member of CSICOP did that person consider litigation against? (Hint - Not Randi).


You can see the original HERE


Well, there's a lovely link to all your evidence.



Fact: Larsen said that he had evidence of the curse. A claim that he repeated several times in following posts.


And yet you cannot provide a quote or a link. Despite your first claim about this being made months ago.


Kook, if you actually believe that, seek help. I really mean it.


The only one around here who needs help is you. Your obsession is extremely unhealthy and the lengths of self-deception you have gone to are beyond bizarre.

Example:


If you genuinely think you have supplied evidence of me lying, then you are mentally ill. You are, quite literally, either telling a very stupid lie, or else you are totally insane.


No Peter, you have lied about this "Curse" thing. Get over it.


The record of Larsen's posts show him claiming proof of the curse. There's no getting around that.


Then provide some evidence. You have produced none. Zero. Zip Nada. You flee for weeks at a time to avoid this when ask then come back hoping reality has warped to your perception. It hasn't. Your claim about Claus is a lie, and a lie you've wrapped your emotional state and reputation around.

The rest of this is just wankery from Peter. He's about the only person who could think that


A) "tests are designed in such a way that challengers cannot cheat"

and

B) "I am always right" finishes the quote.

are diametricly and violently conflicting quotes. Either way, it does not matter. Randi has stated that the quote is about the challenge and he could have said it was otherwise. Either one you choose it hardly matters. Rawlins the aggressive bobo used a quote without context, something he does quite frequently is his 'my-way-or-nothing' attitude.

Furthermore, there is no 'out' against real psychic powers. All Randi's magic trick preventions would be laughed by a person who could really bend spoons. This claim of outs is a joke.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
For flips' sake, WEEKS go by and Peter comes crawling back with nothing but insults.

And proof. dont forget proof.

Rawlins made an ass of himself, and went crying to the woowoo crowd. He was hailed as their new hero.

No, he has always maintained his opposition to the paranormal. The only people to hold him in high regard are honest sceptics. The people that hate him are lying pseudo-sceptics, like Randi, Larsen and yourself.

But what, exactly, were Abell and Kurtz testing, Peter. And what was Rawlins' initial problem with it?

Anwered already.

And yet you cannot provide a quote or a link. Despite your first claim about this being made months ago.

quotes and links provided over and over.


The only one around here who needs help is you. Your obsession is extremely unhealthy and the lengths of self-deception you have gone to are beyond bizarre.

YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up, not me.

As for self-deception, YOU are the one refusing to see facts under your very nose.

No Peter, you have lied about this "Curse" thing. Get over it.

Larsen said some stupid things, I made fun of him for saying them. I cited the exact things he said. I told the exact truth. Your hatred isn't going to change the facts. He said what he said, and you can't change that.

Here's just one of the many times he said it:

--------------------------
Peter : Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

Larsen : it's in my post. "Annet Kofoed"
---------------------------

I've provided the link several times. You can go and see Larsen's words for yourself.

Go and look, please do. See for yourself exactly what Larsen said, and ignore what Larsen claims he said.

Tell me, Kook, how exactly do you explain Larsen's words?


Furthermore, there is no 'out' against real psychic powers. All Randi's magic trick preventions would be laughed by a person who could really bend spoons. This claim of outs is a joke.

Randi's "out" is to claim that it isn't paranormal after all, as he did in the case of Arthur Lintgen. Randi could and would use the same excuse whenever someone passed his test.

[princhester]

Deleted

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Here's just one of the many times he said it:

--------------------------
Peter : Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

Larsen : it's in my post. "Annet Kofoed"
---------------------------

I've provided the link several times. You can go and see Larsen's words for yourself.



What you leave out is this, from page 4: (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870649788&highlight=kofoed)

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.

And then, I show you the evidence that "some people refuse the test because the money is cursed".

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And proof. dont forget proof.


In your dreams.


No, he has always maintained his opposition to the paranormal. The only people to hold him in high regard are honest sceptics.


The only honest skeptic being Peter Morris?

Rawlins was a loose cannon. Plain and simple. A year before sTARBABY was printed, FATE magazine was gleefully talking about how nasty and mean Rawlins was for making harassing calls to a Dean of Students at a major University.

Let's also not forget Rawlins' stunt with Mercello Truzzi.

Let's also not forget that Gauquelin had to threaten the man with lawsuits to stop the Ad hominens he used in every article.


Anwered already.


No, you didn't. But thanks for demonstrating that you have ZERO knowledge of the affair you claim makes Rawlins so honest and admirable.


quotes and links provided over and over.


Nope.


YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up, not me.


Because it shows what a deceptive idiot you are.


As for self-deception, YOU are the one refusing to see facts under your very nose.


Sorry, Peter, but what you want Claus to have said is simply not what he said.


Larsen said some stupid things, I made fun of him for saying them. I cited the exact things he said. I told the exact truth. Your hatred isn't going to change the facts. He said what he said, and you can't change that.

Here's just one of the many times he said it:

--------------------------
Peter : Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

Larsen : it's in my post. "Annet Kofoed"
---------------------------

I've provided the link several times. You can go and see Larsen's words for yourself.

Go and look, please do. See for yourself exactly what Larsen said, and ignore what Larsen claims he said.

Tell me, Kook, how exactly do you explain Larsen's words?


I'd explain it by saying it is laughably weak, out of context, and depends on your piss-poor wording of a question. Your desperation is very, very sad. This is really all you can come up with? Pathetic.


Randi's "out" is to claim that it isn't paranormal after all, as he did in the case of Arthur Lintgen. Randi could and would use the same excuse whenever someone passed his test.

You already got your butt handed to you over this (and a dozen other pathetic complaints) in your thread "Uri Geller - Where's the harm". The short answer is that Randi wasn't testing Lintgen as part of the Randi challenge:

For those who wish to see Peter making a fool of himself (again). (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27015&perpage=40&highlight=lintgen&pagenumber=7)

[JimTheBrit]

Regarding Randi's alleged "I always have an out" remark:

"The Rawlins quote has been dangled endlessly. The fact is that the "out" I referred to is the simple fact the tests would be airtight against trickery or misinterpretation. Either Rawlins (for whom I have much respect, despite our falling out) misunderstood, or chose not to understand. I opt for the former." Swift newsletter, vol. 2 no. 2, 1998 (page 3)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
Regarding Randi's alleged "I always have an out" remark:

"The Rawlins quote has been dangled endlessly. The fact is that the "out" I referred to is the simple fact the tests would be airtight against trickery or misinterpretation. Either Rawlins (for whom I have much respect, despite our falling out) misunderstood, or chose not to understand. I opt for the former." Swift newsletter, vol. 2 no. 2, 1998 (page 3)

I wonder if Randi said all of that at the time, or just said he had an out and didn't add the extra details of what he really meant.

Either way, in general, I wonder what is more reliable, written words several years after the event, or 25 years after? I opt for the former.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I wonder if Randi said all of that at the time, or just said he had an out and didn't add the extra details of what he really meant.

Why don't you ask him?

You post and post about this, but you could get an answer simply by asking Randi.

Don't be afraid, he won't bite.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why don't you ask him?

You post and post about this, but you could get an answer simply by asking Randi.

Don't be afraid, he won't bite.

Tell me, what will that do? Get another recollection even more time after the original event?

If I was claiming something, asking Randi might do some good. Since I'm not, it is really moot.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
Tell me, what will that do? Get another recollection even more time after the original event?

If I was claiming something, asking Randi might do some good. Since I'm not, it is really moot.

So, why do you bother?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Tell me, what will that do? Get another recollection even more time after the original event?

If I was claiming something, asking Randi might do some good. Since I'm not, it is really moot.
This is disingenuous. You ARE claiming something; namely, that Randi never really said it. If you really thought otherwise, you'd have found the quote for yourself, by now, as you're supposed to.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
This is disingenuous. You ARE claiming something; namely, that Randi never really said it.


Feel free to show me where I specifically made that claim, as you claim. No, you can't as usual.


If you really thought otherwise, you'd have found the quote for yourself, by now, as you're supposed to.

You made the claim of it existing in an audio file.. one you were sure was in July or whatever, but wasn't. One you are sure exists... but cannot find. etc. I'm not required to look for something that you claim exists.

If you don't understand that logic by now..

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


Feel free to show me where I specifically made that claim, as you claim. No, you can't as usual.



You made the claim of it existing in an audio file.. one you were sure was in July or whatever, but wasn't. One you are sure exists... but cannot find. etc. I'm not required to look for something that you claim exists.

If you don't understand that logic by now.. [/B]
Again, you are being disingenuous. If you didn't believe the quote was fiction, why your continual challenges to prove it?
You seem to think that I'm going to do your homework for you. I bet you were a real cheat and bully in school. I offered o help you find the quote; not do the actual work for you. Given your persistently obnoxious attitude, however, that offer of assistance is now withdrawn. Find the source yourself, and shut up here, as no one likes you, you whining little brat.
There's a bus leaving in five minutes; be under it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
why your continual challenges to prove it?


That's "provide evidence", something which you cannot manage to do for your claim.

I wonder why that would be?


I bet you were a real cheat and bully in school. I offered o help you find the quote; not do the actual work for you. Given your persistently obnoxious attitude, however, that offer of assistance is now withdrawn. Find the source yourself, and shut up here, as no one likes you, you whining little brat. There's a bus leaving in five minutes; be under it.

Sad.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


That's "provide evidence", something which you cannot manage to do for your claim.

I wonder why that would be?



Sad. [/B]
I gave you the ballpark location. You are evidently unwilling to do the homework yourself. Nor have you contacted Randi directly. Your behaviour clearly indicates that you have no interest in the truth; you are merely frustrated that we don't kowtow to you.
And, yes, you are sad. So go take a long walk off a short pier.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I gave you the ballpark location.


At first you were convinced it was in a certain month. When I looked, and it wasn't there, you then changed your story.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs


At first you were convinced it was in a certain month. When I looked, and it wasn't there, you then changed your story. [/B]
I see you're still living in fantasyland (i.e., telling lies).
The bottom line is that I did my best to help you, but you are an ungrateful bastard who thinks I should do all the work. Get this through your thick skull: I am not going to do your homework for you. If you want the file, it is your duty to search the b/cast archives, not mine. No f*$k off and leave the forum to those of us who know how to use it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I see you're still living in fantasyland (i.e., telling lies).


*sigh*

Let me repost what you originally said.

"I have already told you; July 2003. Randi says it on-air in response to the charge that you are making. How is that not specific?
"

Still want to claim that you gave a "ballpark"?


, but you are an ungrateful bastard who thinks I should do all the work. Get this through your thick skull: I am not going to do your homework for you.


Did you make the claim where it was? A simple Yes or No will suffice..

[Kimpatsu]

Yes, it was still a ballpark figure as it was given to the best of my knowledge. I never claiemd it was certain. You are merely trying to avoid the reailty that you are an arrogant wanker who thinks I should do the legwork for you. Contrary to your self-belief, you are nott he most intelligent person on this board, and people do not respect or envy you for your giant intellect. Instead, we all find you an immature self-centred ass who really needs to learn some social skills.
Now go bother your mother some more.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Yes, it was still a ballpark figure as it was given to the best of my knowledge. I never claiemd it was certain.


So by saying July 2003 you really weren't saying July 2003? You demand others to spend hours looking and you aren't even sure where it is?? Gotcha.


You are merely trying to avoid the reailty that you are an arrogant wanker who thinks I should do the legwork for you. Contrary to your self-belief, you are nott he most intelligent person on this board, and people do not respect or envy you for your giant intellect. Instead, we all find you an immature self-centred ass who really needs to learn some social skills.
Now go bother your mother some more.

Tell us how you really feel. :D Just make sure to keep not telling us specifically where the evidence is you are so sure exists.

Considering you've told me to go get injured about 3 or 4 different ways now, I'd say you need to learn some social skills, among other skills, like citing a specific source, or retracting your claim.

[Kimpatsu]

You are clearly a complete idiot. My pet goldfish can understand more than you.
I NEVER GAVE YOU ANYTHING MORE THAN A BALLPARK.
IT IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, MY JOB TO FIND THIS REFERENCE FOR YOU. IT IS YOUR JOB.
I AM NOT GOING TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU.
As for social skills, you should develop one called "telling the truth". You might find it useful in the future, Schaffery.
:rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
You are clearly a complete idiot. My pet goldfish can understand more than you.
I NEVER GAVE YOU ANYTHING MORE THAN A BALLPARK.
IT IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, MY JOB TO FIND THIS REFERENCE FOR YOU. IT IS YOUR JOB.
I AM NOT GOING TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU.
As for social skills, you should develop one called "telling the truth". You might find it useful in the future, Schaffery.
:rolleyes:

Zzzzz,

If you make a claim, it is up tp you to provide the evidence.

Wake me when its over.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
Zzzzz,

If you make a claim, it is up tp you to provide the evidence.

Wake me when its over.
But I NEVER MADE A CLAIM!
I pointed you in the general direction so you could complete your homework.
Asking the teacher to do your homework for you is an automatic failing grade, kohai.
:rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
But I NEVER MADE A CLAIM!


Kimpatsy, you said

"What Randi actually said was: "I always have an out: I'm always right.""

"The JREF Internet Show archive, somewhere around July 2003."

The internet radio shows, circa July 2003"

"I have already told you; July 2003. Randi says it on-air in response to the charge that you are making."

"You bloody well know it exists"

" I heard it during the b/cast in question."

You claim

1) what Randi said
2) where he said it
3) that it exists

But can't produce on any of them when called on it.

Oops!

[Kimpatsu]

You are either really, really dense, or (moe likely) actually avoiding the issue.
I gave you a ballpark figure. It was NEVER incumbent on me to provide chapter and verse. Finding the actual b/cast is YOUR JOB, as you're he one looking.
I gave you a ballpark starting place. You are now insisting that I do your homework for you. Ergo, you are a liar and a cheat. (But then, a glance at your homepage shows that, in your pathetic attempts to join the bandwagon of genuine mathematicians, particularly popular ones that are featured in TV shows, rather than publishing any original work yourself.)
Go find the quote yourself. I'm done trying to help you. And I hope you drown, because I will stand by the shore and just watch you. After all, you don't need any help rescuing yourself, do you; ever...?!
:rolleyes:
You are a liar. You are a phoney. You are a coward.
Funny how those three things always go together...

[CptColumbo]

jzs
If you had tried to find the source, when it was first mentioned, you probably would have found it by now. Of course, by refusing to look it up yourself, you are able to still claim that the second-hand-taken-out-of-context quote you have is proof of Randi being a fraud.

This is like Holocaust-deniers, who latch onto one unanswered question or missing document, and claim that the whole thing must be a fraud, despite all the other overwhelming evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I hope you drown, because I will stand by the shore and just watch you.


So you cannot provide the evidence that you were so sure existed. Fine.

Don't throw an embarassing (for you) hissy fit.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by CptColumbo
jzs
If you had tried to find the source, when it was first mentioned, you probably would have found it by now. Of course, by refusing to look it up yourself, you are able to still claim that the second-hand-taken-out-of-context quote you have is proof of Randi being a fraud.

This is like Holocaust-deniers, who latch onto one unanswered question or missing document, and claim that the whole thing must be a fraud, despite all the other overwhelming evidence.

Very appropriate comparison.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
So you cannot provide the evidence that you were so sure existed. Fine.

Excuse me?? Do you deny that the evidence exists??

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Excuse me?? Do you deny that the evidence exists??

I'm skeptical. I'm not denying anything.

It is up to the person who says it exists (Kimpatsu), to show the evidence when asked.

You know the 'rules' Claus, now apply them fairly for a change. :D

[T'ai Chi]

CptColumbo


If you had tried to find the source, when it was first mentioned, you probably would have found it by now.


If you had read the thread, you'd have read that I did in fact search many hours worth of recordings, even where Kimpatsu was sure it was. Nope, haven't found anything.


Of course, by refusing to look it up yourself, you are able to still claim that the second-hand-taken-out-of-context quote you have is proof of Randi being a fraud.


I didn't make that claim at all. Which hole did you pull that out of?

More malicious lies. Quit it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I'm skeptical. I'm not denying anything.

Given what you have been presented with, is it your opinion that the evidence exists, yes or no?

Originally posted by jzs
It is up to the person who says it exists (Kimpatsu), to show the evidence when asked.

What if other people have provided it? Why this obsessive behavior of yours?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Given what you have been presented with, is it your opinion that the evidence exists, yes or no?


I'm keeping an open mind. I have no idea if it exists or not. I know (not opinion) that it doesn't exist in the July 2003 section. I do know Kimpatsu didn't back up his claims when called on it. But given all of that, I am still not denying anything. Sure, it may exist. It may not.


Why this obsessive behavior of yours?

News at 11: irony meters worldwide implode.

Don't you have someone new to stalk and be a hypocrite to?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I'm keeping an open mind. I have no idea if it exists or not. I know (not opinion) that it doesn't exist in the July 2003 section. I do know Kimpatsu didn't back up his claims when called on it. But given all of that, I am still not denying anything. Sure, it may exist. It may not.

This didn't persuade you:

Originally posted by JimTheBrit
Regarding Randi's alleged "I always have an out" remark:

"The Rawlins quote has been dangled endlessly. The fact is that the "out" I referred to is the simple fact the tests would be airtight against trickery or misinterpretation. Either Rawlins (for whom I have much respect, despite our falling out) misunderstood, or chose not to understand. I opt for the former." Swift newsletter, vol. 2 no. 2, 1998 (page 3)

You have refused to contact Randi himself. What precisely will persuade you?

Originally posted by jzs
News at 11: irony meters worldwide implode.

Don't you have someone new to stalk and be a hypocrite to?

This quote is from April 3rd:

Originally posted by jzs
If I was claiming something, asking Randi might do some good. Since I'm not, it is really moot.

And yet, you go on for more than two weeks?

:hb:

[webfusion]

If someone would be so kind as to buy me a copy of the Broadcast Archives CD, I'll gladly sit throught the ENTIRE thing and resolve this silly dispute.

PM me and I'll give you my PayPal account, and I'll order the disk from JREF right now.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
So you cannot provide the evidence that you were so sure existed. Fine.

Don't throw an embarassing (for you) hissy fit.
Still refusing to admit to the REAL issue, I see.
You asked for help with your homework.
I told you the library shelf where the book is located. As you are not prepared o find the book yourself, you're denying that it actually exists.
Pathetic. :rolleyes:

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I'm skeptical. I'm not denying anything.

It is up to the person who says it exists (Kimpatsu), to show the evidence when asked.
This is a lie, and a gross distortion of the truth.
You asked for help with your homework.
I gave you pointers.
But now, because I didn't do your homework for you, you're crying foul.
You are a LIAR!

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What if other people have provided it? Why this obsessive behavior of yours?
It's because he wants to manipulate us, Claus. He mistakenly thinks our role in life is to do his bidding. Have you seen his website? It's just a list of links to great mathematicians, but no original work by himself. Now, isn't that telling...

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by jzs
I'm keeping an open mind. I have no idea if it exists or not.
So ***** well LOOK for it, moron! :rolleyes:

[webfusion]

Well, that sure was a snappy retort!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Have you seen his website? It's just a list of links to great mathematicians, but no original work by himself. Now, isn't that telling...

More pointless personal attacks from Kimpatsu.

Of course, if he had even read my personal page, he'd find I have more than "just a list of links to great mathematicians", as he claimed (another claim he can't provide evidence for!), and I do have some links to my own work.

For example, this (http://www.martini.nu/justin/688.htm).

So, more pointless personal garbaged spewed to bore us all. Keep it to yourself please Kimpatsu. I'm only interested in the evidence you claim exists. Back on ignore for you until you say something pertinant.

[Kimpatsu]

I never made any claims, you liar. I gave your homework an assist, but you think that I should do all your homework for you. You must have been one hell of a cheat in school.