Snappy Retorts To Lame Excuses For Not Taking The Challenge

[CFLarsen]

All too often, we get people complaining about the challenge. I thought it would be a good idea to compose this short list of snappy retorts. :)

I've paraphrased the excuses that I've seen people use.

<hr>

"James Randi makes a lot of money from this."

Completely irrelevant to your claim. Can you do it, yes or no?

"I was tested by X and that proves it."

Read the terms of the challenge. It specifically states that:
"Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered."

"James Randi judges the outcome/I want an independent judge."

Read the terms of the challenge. It specifically states that:
"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result."
"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."
and
"No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned."

"James Randi won't let me take the challenge."

It would depend on the reason, but these are the ones I can think of right now:

The person does not have an ability, but a videotape, picture, or the like.
"Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope, within the agreed-upon limits, will be accepted. Anecdotal accounts of previous events are not accepted or considered."

The person will endanger himself or others.
"JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort, such as those involving the withholding of air, food or water, or the use of illicit materials, drugs, or dangerous devices."

The person hasn't filled out a notarized application.
"Only complete agreement with these rules will allow the "applicant" to become a "claimant." Applicant, by signing, notarizing and submitting this form, signifies agreement with all of the above rules."

It is a phenomenon that JREF simply doesn't test for.
"JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, divine healing, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc."


<hr>

Others?

[Carn]

"JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, divine healing, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc."



Why is divine healing not allowed?

Wouldn't be all sorts of extraordinary healing be a valid claim, as long as the performing of the healing is not dangerous according to known medical science?

Especially the explanation behind whatever is irrelevant, so divine healing is as valid as healing through aura massage.

Maybe you took this quote a bit out of context and its refering to some special and foolish healing claim.

Carn

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Carn
"JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, divine healing, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc."



Why is divine healing not allowed?

Wouldn't be all sorts of extraordinary healing be a valid claim, as long as the performing of the healing is not dangerous according to known medical science?

Especially the explanation behind whatever is irrelevant, so divine healing is as valid as healing through aura massage.

Maybe you took this quote a bit out of context and its refering to some special and foolish healing claim.

Carn

I don't know why divine healing is not accepted. You'll have to ask Randi.

All I am attempting here is giving a quick way of answering the most common excuses. If you think I quoted out of context, look at the rules yourself and explain how it can be done better.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't know why divine healing is not accepted. You'll have to ask Randi.


How would you test such a claim?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
How would you test such a claim?

It would depend on the actual claim.

Could we please focus on the issue? :)

[Dogwood]

Do we really want to encourage formulaic responses? There's a whole bunch of people out there that already assume we're just a bunch of Randi apologists. I think the last thing we want is the appearance of JREF talking points.

[TheBoyPaj]

I'm surprised you missed:

"He doesn't have the money"

"I don't do this for personal gain"

"Some things just can't be quantified by your limited scientific methods"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dogwood
Do we really want to encourage formulaic responses? There's a whole bunch of people out there that already assume we're just a bunch of Randi apologists. I think the last thing we want is the appearance of JREF talking points.

There is nothing apologistic about it, quite contrary. You will notice that the bulk of the snappy retorts consists of direct quotes from the stated terms. That way, there are no interpretations. And no wiggling from those complaining.

If you want clarity, you have to boil it down. It also helps you remembering it. Simplify, clarify, cut through the crap.

[Dr Adequate]

My favorite one is Sylvia Browne's stuff about the JREF money being tainted and evil. She can't even give it to charity, you see, because it would carry with it the Curse Of Randi. But why can't she give it to someone she really dislikes? There must be some way for her to funnel the evil money to al Qaida. She offers them a million dollars, they take it, they shrivel up and die. What holds her back? Alternatively, in my capacity as witch doctor, I could de-curse the money for her. I'll take ten percent, I'm not greedy.

[CFLarsen]

Dr Adequate,

Good one! That excuse has been used by Danish clairvoyant Gitte Walther as well.

<hr>

"The money is tainted. It will only bring misery and pain."

That is ludicrous: You don't get a million dollars in cash, the sum is transferred electronically from one account to another, precisely as is being done millions of times each day all over the world.

How do you know that the money you get for your services hasn't been in touch with a skeptic? (If the answer is: "I can feel it", then we have a testable claim! :))

<hr>

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you know that the money you get for your services hasn't been in touch with a skeptic?

URRRGH!!! It almost certainly has. And this is what's wrong with the world: everyone is using evil money. We shall have to switch to a cashless economy, except that, as any fundie will tell you, this will bring about the reign of the Antichrist. There's always a snag, eh?

[Tesserat]

Damn! I was really hoping for something along the lines of Mad Magazines "Snappy answers to stupid questions"

They were witty, and often sarcastic. More along the lines of:

"James Randi makes a lot of money from this."

No he doesn't! He doesn't even have enough money to replace all the cutlery Uri Geller keeps bending.

or:

"James Randi won't let me take the challenge."

Not until you take a bath.


OK, so these aren't too great, but do you really call:


Read the terms of the challenge. It specifically states that:

quote:"Applicant must state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a negative result."


quote:"All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."


and

quote:"No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned."



snappy?

[Patricio Elicer]

- Randi is just a magician, what does he know?

- Spiritual powers and money don't mix

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tesserat
Damn! I was really hoping for something along the lines of Mad Magazines "Snappy answers to stupid questions"

Sorry, but I don't have the wit of A. E. Neuman! :)

Originally posted by Tesserat
"James Randi makes a lot of money from this."

No he doesn't! He doesn't even have enough money to replace all the cutlery Uri Geller keeps bending.

or:

"James Randi won't let me take the challenge."

Not until you take a bath.

I see your point, but hardly ones that could be called serious! :)

Originally posted by Tesserat
snappy?

"Thorough", then. "Read the challenge" comes first, and then, the longer explanation.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Patricio Elicer
- Randi is just a magician, what does he know?

- Spiritual powers and money don't mix

Good ones!

"Randi is just a magician, what does he know?"

That's the perfect occupation to reveal possible trickery - which the paranormal world is full of. And he calls in scientists and statisticians, too.

"Spiritual powers and money don't mix."

Then, why do psychics, dowsers, etc. charge often exorbitant amounts of money?
Why do they sell books and go on lectures?
If they are only doing it to cover the basic expenses, why not give the money to charity?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I'm surprised you missed:

"He doesn't have the money"

"I don't do this for personal gain"

"Some things just can't be quantified by your limited scientific methods"

Sorry, didn't see these.

<hr>

"He doesn't have the money."

The Foundation has: http://www.skepticreport.com/images/investmentaccount.gif

If you want a copy yourself, contact JREF.

"I don't do this for personal gain"

Then give the money to charity. There are literally billions who could use the money, and you can do so much with a million dollars! The Red Cross will be kissing your feet!

"Some things just can't be quantified by your limited scientific methods"

1. Then how do you distinguish between a real phenomenon and one that is not?

2. We don't even need scientific methods. If it can be shown to exist, then you win the money.

<hr>

[Dr Adequate]

"I can only perform when no sceptic is

1 Involved in the experimental design
2 Offering me large sums of money
3 In any way involved in the testing process
4 Interested in the outcome
5 Anywhere on the face of the earth

because their Evil Vibrations negate my powers."

(By the way, if it is, in fact, our scepticism alone which prevents people from being psychic, we should get sponsorship from casinos.)

If only someone would offer me a million dollars to demonstrate, for half an hour, that I have the abilities which I claim to have and am paid for having. Why is it only psychics who find this offer offensive?

[Ashles]

I saw one on another thread claiming that Randi wouldn't pay out because he wants to keep the interest for himself in case he has health issues as he gets older.

Snappy response:

If you flat out disbelieve that Randi will just refuse ever to pay out the money then I guess you'd better apply, and get rejected.

Then get repeatedly tested by other scientists in repeatable observable peer-reviewed experiments.
Display your ability clearly and obviously over and over.
Make millions and millions in media appearances.
Then you will have the satisfaction of having dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe, and have made Randi and the JREF look silly.

Because, lest we forget, James Randi isn't teh only person in the world who would be interested in testing for paranormal powers. He just pays the best for two sessions, which is why he gets all the claims.




Okay, not that snappy, I admit.

[CFLarsen]

"I can only perform if no sceptic is in any way involved in the experimental design/testing process"

That will rule out any controls: That is not a test, that is a stamp of approval from your friends or people who don't know how to detect trickery. Completely unacceptable.

"I can only perform if a skeptic offers me large sums of money."

One million dollars, from a huge skeptic: Randi. Get on with it, then.

"I can only perform when no sceptic is present because their Evil Vibrations negate my powers."

That's a claim unto itself: If you can detect whether there's a skeptic in a room, then you win a million dollars.




Originally posted by Dr Adequate
4 Interested in the outcome

I don't understand 4.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ashles
Okay, not that snappy, I admit.

<hr>

"Randi will never pay, because he depends on the income."

All you need to do is do what you claim you can do. If you get rejected, offer to be tested by everyone else, under controlled conditions, at any time, anywhere. Then, you will not only have dramatically increased our knowledge of the universe, you will also have made Randi look silly.

<hr>

A little better... ;)

[sackett]

I would guess that the faith healing clause is intended to forestall claims made after the fact. For instance, somebody might say, "I was kidnapped by organ thieves and drugged insensible, whereupon my kidneys were TORN from my LIVING BODY! But I prayed very earnestly to Our Lady of Notre Dame, and behold my kidneys were miraculously RESTORED to me, and the flesh HEALED UP without a scar, so I get the million, Randi, come on, cough up, what are you, a welsher? Hey, 'm talkin' ta YOU, buddy!" Or some such drivel; the well of human cupidity has no bottom.

[Hellbound]

Actually, I'd guess that it is because of the nature of the human body (perfectly natural recoverys occur that seem amazing and counteract doctor's statements). It's hard to see how you could accurately measure the odds on something like that. This is one that I see as just plain too difficult to test. I dunno, though, I'm just guessing.

[Ashles]

Maybe the healing would also involve people becoming involved in the testing who had serious medical problems, and in participating in the experiemnt might not be getting the treatent they should be.

By refusing to test for this Randi in no way encourages anyone to persuade others to try their 'miraculous' method of healing instead of seeing an actual doctor.

I think this rule makes perfect sense.

[CFLarsen]

Any more excuses? :)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Ashles
I saw one on another thread claiming that Randi wouldn't pay out because he wants to keep the interest for himself in case he has health issues as he gets older.



You did not. Don't misrepresent me.

I pointed out that not wanting to pay out was a possible motive for a hypothetical refusal to pay. Any time you get into seven-figure numbers, the honesty of all parties in transaction starts to become a significant issue. The exact quote is here :


[T]he damage to anyone's "good name" might well be worth less than the interest on a million dollars a year to him, especially if he gets hit with some serious and unexpected medical bills or something.

Note specifically the use of the words "might," and "anyone's."

I did not say that Randi would not pay out, and in fact would find it extremely surprising if he refused to honor the JREF agreement. On the other hand, with the number of people who have specifically expressed reservations about his honesty and probity, failure to take their concerns seriously make you look, well, naive and credulist.

More pointedly : I've seen the lame excuse "Randi won't pay me the money even after I win!" offered more than once. Saying "Sure he would!" makes you seem a fool. Saying "He'd have to or you could sue for breach of contract and get the money by court order" is a much stronger argument.

[alfaniner]

Maybe not a snappy retort, but I think the JREF should offer a consolation prize of a T-shirt --

"I tried to pass the James Randi Educational Foundation $1,000,000 Challenge and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!"

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Any more excuses? :)

Surely the excuses can be found on any web browser, yes?

Some I found in about ten minutes of looking....


Randi sets the bar too high; the test is impossible (Tanya Barrientos}

"[T]he terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable" (Alternative Science)

The challege is just a meaningless PR stunt. (Various skeptics, including Randi himself)

The rules of evidence for the challenge are stacked. (E.g 'only eyewitness evidence is allowed, which is fine if the astrologer can do the business while walking on water. There is a reason for the eyewitness stipulation. Since Maskelyne, illusionists investigating the paranormal have always had an ace up their sleeve. They will say that if the effect can be produced by trickery, their stock in trade, then the effect must be trickery.' [astrozero]).

Randi will just refuse to accept what I do as paranormal. ('I might be sent a letter along these lines: "Dear Mr Elwell, Congratulations! You have succeeded in your demonstration! You have discovered a hitherto unrecognised phenomenon of nature which, however, as a natural phenomenon cannot by definition be classed as paranormal. We hope you get your Nobel Prize, but regret you do not qualify for ours."' [again, astrozero] )

It seems kind of silly to parody the arguments that people make against JREF when they're so kind as to put their idiocy on-line for all to see themselves.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"I can only perform if a skeptic offers me large sums of money."

That's a misquote. I said I could only do it if NO sceptic offers me large sums of money. It inhibits my wild talent.
I don't understand 4.
Well, although Randi doesn't design the tests, conduct the tests, or even be present at the tests, he does want to know how they turn out. This causes the famous "Randi effect" where, by excercising his supernatural powers of emitting sceptical vibrations, every experiment the JREF does turns out not to work. How else do you explain it?

This proves the following propositions

(1) James Randi is a crook
(2) James Randi knows that psi exists
(3) Psi exists
(4) I have psychic powers, but you're all too afraid of the truth to admit it
(5) I should sue (starts foaming at the mouth and raving about lawyers)

[Sloe_Bohemian]

I've also seen this nonsense:

A true psychic knows that they lose their power if they charge money for using their gift... or agree to perform for a financial reward apparently.

Of course, this was from a fanatic on a forum dedicated to a "psychic" who sold a book about her "gift" and collected money from each copy sold... apparently without harm.

The supposed idea being that "true psychics" just leave out a tip jar for donations that might appear after each session... but strictly voluntarily and with no expectation of payment.

I don't know what kind of snappy response you'd want to give to people this incredibly dense.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Sloe_Bohemian
I've also seen this nonsense:

A true psychic knows that they lose their power if they charge money for using their gift... or agree to perform for a financial reward apparently.

Of course, this was from a fanatic on a forum dedicated to a "psychic" who sold a book about her "gift" and collected money from each copy sold... apparently without harm.

The supposed idea being that "true psychics" just leave out a tip jar for donations that might appear after each session... but strictly voluntarily and with no expectation of payment.

I don't know what kind of snappy response you'd want to give to people this incredibly dense.

"Then take a big tip jar, perform for JREF and if they like it, they'll stuff a million into it."

"Then apply and ask JREF to guarantee that they will not give you a single cent and only proclaim that you passed."

Carn

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
That's a misquote. I said I could only do it if NO sceptic offers me large sums of money. It inhibits my wild talent.

Hey, I've heard both! :)

[CFLarsen]

Good, good...


"Randi won't pay me the money even after I win!"

Since the result will be self-evident, he would have a very hard time explaining why he would refuse to pay the money.

(I don't think the legal point is of much use)


"Randi sets the bar too high. The test is impossible."

We cannot relax the conditions to an extent where it is possible for you to cheat.


"The terms enable Randi to draw up specific rules that are unwinnable."

Each claim is different. Therefore, each test must be designed differently. You cannot test a dowser the same way as you would test a clairvoyant.


"The challege is just a meaningless PR stunt."

It may be a PR stunt, but the money is there. One million dollars is not exactly "meaningless". Nor is a discovery of such magnitude.


"Randi will say that if the effect can be produced by trickery, then the effect must be trickery."

Since the results are self-evident, this is no reason to refuse to pay. If you can fool Randi, you get the million bucks, too.


"Randi will just refuse to accept what I do as paranormal."

Showing your discovery of a new natural phenomenon will certainly get you the million - and a Nobel prize! But you have to show it first, not merely write to Randi and claim you did.


"I can only perform if no skeptic offers me large sums of money."

Fine! Then do it for the sake of humanity. Let us all share your knowledge, and learn from your skills. Don't be so selfish by keeping it all to yourself.


"I will lose my power if I charge money for using my gift."

How do you know this? You have never earned a penny? If you have, then it is not correct that you lose your power, so you are free to apply for the million dollars.

[RottingPhoenix]

"The JREF doesn't release any readily available results from previous applicants, so I don't know what to expect. He isn't peer reviewed from what I know- so why does that make him at all qualified to know whether or not what I can show is paranormal phenomenon? I would apply if I had the answers to these two. Knock yerselves out."

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by RottingPhoenix
The JREF doesn't release any readily available results from previous applicants, so I don't know what to expect.

Well, roughly speaking, you can expect your supposed paranormal power to be tested under conditions where you could oly perform some feat by means of your supposed supernatural powers. Don't know what to expect? Well, chum, chances are YOU WILL FAIL BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A WIZARD. Try testing yourself under such circumstances. See?
He isn't peer reviewed from what I know- so why does that make him at all qualified to know whether or not what I can show is paranormal phenomenon?
He isn't. Probably nor are the observers involved (Randi does not perform the tests himself). So you can win the prize both by levitating or by fooling the observers into thinking that you're levitating, by reading minds or by foooling the observers into thinking that you're reading minds, by successfully dowsing or by successfully fooling the observers into thinking that you can dowse.

When the JREF accepts your application, they have accepted that what you claim would be, if genuine, a "paranormal phenomenon". What they want to know is CAN YOU DO IT. If you can, you get the cash. Good luck.

[Carn]

Originally posted by RottingPhoenix
"The JREF doesn't release any readily available results from previous applicants, so I don't know what to expect."

This depends mainly on what you are going to claim.
Somethings JREF does not accept, because its either silly, not testable, dangerous to test or known to be not paranormal, e.g. you control every event in the world by shaking your head, cloud busting, immortality,...

If your claim is about getting some information you could not attain by normal means, e.g. dowsing, astrology, augury, you can expect that the test design will be made, so there is realy absolute no way for your 5 normal senses to get any hint about the sought information. E.g. dowsing for flowing water tests used buried pipes that could be flooded with water independently and randomly.

If you claim to cause any unsual effect, then expect that whatever you want to cause the unusual effect on will be kept seperately from you , if possible and if not, then there will be some requirements for yourself, like washing hands, wearing clothing that was checked to be empty,...

If you claim you have something, that is paranormal or shows paranormal effects under certain conditions, expect some tests with and without your something,so it is certain that not the conditions cause the effect.

With some claim, it is possible that JREF might ask directly for some quick demonstration, so they know its not a joke, e.g. someone claimed to be perfectly able to control meteor impacts and Randi ask him immiediately for a small harmless one in his garden next sunday.

Far more things possible depending on the claim.

And always expect that JREF will look very close for cheating.

Do not expect JREF to listen to any explanation, except those neccesary to satisfy above point(e.g. if you have some big black box, that does something and do not allow them to look into it, then they will ask for explanations and will start checking them, if possible)

Expect that JREF requires you to sooner or later clearly state under what conditions you can perform and which keep you from performing, so try to find out these before conducting tests.

And remember that from their point of view they are dealing daily with deluded individuals and many of them are in need for competent psychatrists, so try to be polite, short and clear with your statements as far as possible. You are trying to make buiseness with them.

Thats all i can come up with now, it would be best if you give some hint what you're claim could be, you can be certain that several people here will make test suggestions, that would give an idea what JREF requires.

Cannot think of any further suggestions.

Carn

[CFLarsen]

"The JREF doesn't release any readily available results from previous applicants, so I don't know what to expect."

All the results have been negative: Nobody has won. All has failed. Still, this is irrelevant to your own claim: Can you do it, yes or no?

(It's supposed to be "snappy", Carn ;))

[drkitten]

Originally posted by RottingPhoenix
"He isn't peer reviewed from what I know- so why does that make him at all qualified to know whether or not what I can show is paranormal phenomenon?"

Part of the protocol: he agrees upfront that if you can do what you claim, then it's paranormal. All you need to do is to do it. "Knock yourself out."

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Carn
Why is divine healing not allowed?


I'm reviewing this with Randi today. I would suspect that JREF should accept all healing claims, divine or otherwise.

I will get back to you on this.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by KRAMER
I'm reviewing this with Randi today. I would suspect that JREF should accept all healing claims, divine or otherwise.

I will get back to you on this.

I look forward to hearing the answer.

You know, a JREF poster, 1inChrist says he has divinely healed two other JREF posters, Nyarlathotep and The Cats Venm. Maybe we will have another applicant soon, and thus another excuse as well.

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
How would you test such a claim?

Easily: Applicant demonstrates, investigators observe.

No anecdotal "evidence" is acceptable. Only a demonstration before a team of observers will suffice.

Simple. No endless protocol negotiations, and nothing to waffle over. Just DO IT.

[KRAMER]

Randi agrees that "divine healing" must be accepted as a paranormal claim.

We have asked our webmaster to remove the words "divine healing" from the note at the end of the Challenge application stating what types of claims JREF would decline to test. He'll get to it at his earliest convenience. Hopefully, that will be soon.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
Just DO IT.

Hey, careful, or you'll be sued by Nike...! ;)

[CFLarsen]

Let me know when you have changed it. I need to update this article. (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm) :)

[Yeah_Right]

It says that Randi won't test those that can supposedly move stars, though I heard in a archived broadcast that he is going to test a claimant in Germany that purports to have this power.

[RottingPhoenix]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"The JREF doesn't release any readily available results from previous applicants, so I don't know what to expect."

All the results have been negative: Nobody has won. All has failed. Still, this is irrelevant to your own claim: Can you do it, yes or no?

(It's supposed to be "snappy", Carn ;))

How do you know that? I'm looking for files here. What happened during the tests, what the claimant offered, how this was tested and why it wasn't accepted.

[RottingPhoenix]

(Whoops! Double posted. Can a mod please delete this post?)

[Temporal Renegade]

If a 'psychic' really does believe that the million is all the money Randi has, then why not take the test, claim the cash, bankrupt him, and go around doing the "Ha! Ha! I beat James Randi at his own game!" dance?

Whoops, I forgot..they aren't allowed to take the nasty, naughty, wicked, evil money, as their own powers will short out like a radio in a bathtub, and their head might well explode.
( SCANNERS comes to mind...)

Hey! That's why they don't try! Their heads would explode! Ah, now it all makes sense..:D

[Carn]

Didn't see this one, but heard it today:

CIA, Mossad, Secret Service or someone else will harrass, threaten, employ, misuse, abuse or kill me, if i demonstrate my power.

I do not know a good answer and as JREF gets all data, applicant would have to trust them, that they keep his identity hidden.

And this excuse could actually be serious, just think how much money CIA and KGB were willing to waste on not working psychic powers, on working useful(for them) psychic powers they would be ready to spend billions and would be even ready to kill to keep it out of the wrong hands.

Carn

[Nex]

I've seen that kind of claim... I've even made it myself, back in my old woo-woo days.

Something along the lines of "I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"


I haven't really found any comeback for that. I mean, it's coming from paranoia, but in the end something like that could really happen to a person, if they gave real evidence to PSI etc. ... :con2:

[T'ai Chi]

How about: 'I don't know if this is true, but I have read that Randi has said "I always have an out." in relation to the challenge, so it seems by definition unwinnable, so why even try?'

[KRAMER]

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
It says that Randi won't test those that can supposedly move stars, though I heard in a archived broadcast that he is going to test a claimant in Germany that purports to have this power.

An applicant named HILFIGER was tested early this year for this power, and failed. This was prior to the addition of the new rules regarding which claims JREF will decline to test.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KRAMER
An applicant named HILFIGER was tested early this year for this power, and failed. This was prior to the addition of the new rules regarding which claims JREF will decline to test.

Hey, I can move stars!! I can give Sean Penn a well-deserved push.... :D

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hey, I can move stars!! I can give Sean Penn a well-deserved push.... :D

I find that claim to be dubious at best, as it is almost a certaintly he would have "pushed" back... ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nex
I've seen that kind of claim... I've even made it myself, back in my old woo-woo days.

Something along the lines of "I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"
I'm interested in your story. Would you add it to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45662&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Yeah_Right
It says that Randi won't test those that can supposedly move stars, though I heard in a archived broadcast that he is going to test a claimant in Germany that purports to have this power.
Originally posted by KRAMER
An applicant named HILFIGER was tested early this year for this power, and failed. This was prior to the addition of the new rules regarding which claims JREF will decline to test.
I'm intrigued. Surely any test of such a claim must take at least four years..?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I'm intrigued. Surely any test of such a claim must take at least four years..?

Why?

[Zamzara]

Because it would take four years for the newly moved light to reach us.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Zamzara
Because it would take four years for the newly moved light to reach us.

Ah, OK. Got it.

It would be easy to test: Just ask the person if the change would be immediate (without giving away this clue). If he answered "yes", then you can dismiss his claim immediately.

No matter what he answered, it could easily be tested by asking him what stars he had moved in the past. I am sure that there would be a few astronomers who had wondered just what the heck happened to that star....

The claim is ridiculous, OK?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It would be easy to test: Just ask the person if the change would be immediate (without giving away this clue). If he answered "yes", then you can dismiss his claim immediately.



Don't be so closed-minded. If I can move stars, I can almost certainly move photons-in-flight. After all, they weigh much less, right?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Don't be so closed-minded. If I can move stars, I can almost certainly move photons-in-flight. After all, they weigh much less, right?

If that is the case, then we can test it simply by having the guy redirect a beam of light coming from a torch. No need for stars, no need to wait for 4 years.

[skeptikat]

Hey, I can redirect the light from a torch.

But I don't think a mirror will win the million.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I'm interested in your story. Would you add it to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45662&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)?

Sure. Consider it done.

[Carn]

CIA, Mossad, Secret Service or someone else will harrass, threaten, employ, misuse, abuse or kill me, if i demonstrate my power.

"I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"

'I don't know if this is true, but I have read that Randi has said "I always have an out." in relation to the challenge, so it seems by definition unwinnable, so why even try?'

We still have those 3 unanswered.

Carn

[TheBoyPaj]

"If I pass the prelim, they'll just move the goalposts to make sure I fail the next test."

[Dr Adequate]

CIA, Mossad, Secret Service or someone else will harrass, threaten, employ, misuse, abuse or kill me, if i demonstrate my power.

Not if you wear this useful and stylish tinfoil hat.

"I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"

Wait 'til you hear about our breeding program!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If that is the case, then we can test it simply by having the guy redirect a beam of light coming from a torch. No need for stars, no need to wait for 4 years.

Ah, but you see, photons from stars are natural and haven't been contaminated by the skepticdebunkermilitaryindustrialpatriarchaltechno penis[tm].

And before you suggest using the Sun instead, that's obviously too large. I mean, look at how big it is compared to all those itty-bitty stars. It's almost the same size as the Moon!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by new drkitten
It's almost the same size as the Moon!

It is exactly the same size as the Moon (well, from our POV). Otherwise, we wouldn't have eclipses! ;)

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It is exactly the same size as the Moon (well, from our POV). Otherwise, we wouldn't have eclipses! ;)
We would if the moon looked BIGGER than the sun...

Using our own star cuts down the time to eight minutes, I think, but it's not responsible. I like the Sun where it is.

Using someone else's star might have its dangers too. A couple of centuries pass, and suddenly there's a huge interstellar warfleet of irate aliens complaining that we've commited the cosmic equivalent of Spilling Their Pint. Then where are you?

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
A couple of centuries pass, and suddenly there's a huge interstellar warfleet of irate aliens complaining that we've commited the cosmic equivalent of Spilling Their Pint. Then where are you?

Skeee-roooooed. I'd hate to be the guy who pissed off a warfleet of Klingons or what-have-you...

[Zamzara]

"I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"

Then stop advertising your abilities on Oprah, which probably has a lot more people watching than the JREF web site (sorry Randi).

[Carn]

Originally posted by Zamzara
"I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"

Then stop advertising your abilities on Oprah, which probably has a lot more people watching than the JREF web site (sorry Randi).

That is also good for the CIA excuse, except that it only applies to prominent woo-woos and i think this excuse is more used by the ones, who keep a low profile.

Carn

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sorry, but I don't have the wit of A. E. Neuman!

Don't worry, Larsen. You'll be a wit one day. You're half way there already.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Zamzara
"I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"

Then stop advertising your abilities on Oprah, which probably has a lot more people watching than the JREF web site (sorry Randi).

I've just had a burst of inspiration on this one.

Anyway, I don't see how the World's First Proven Psychicâ„¢, whose name and face would most likely be known to the world, could just *poof* disappear. How could a government or corporation manage to make a well-known celeb disappear? People would notice, and raise a big stink. I mean, the US gov't can be a little slow, but they're not stupid.

Dubya excepted, of course.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let me know when you have changed it. I need to update this article. (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm) :)

Larsen, do you know what a straw man argument is?

It's when someone chooses to invent his opponents words and makes the claim "here is what my opponent says"

You are claiming that these are the excuses used by people that refuse Randi's test. Are they really? I do hope that you are going to provide cites for every one of these excuses. That is, you will cite specific people that have used these excuses, and cite the exact words they use.

I'm sure you will find it easy to do so. After all these are the top excuses for not taking the test. You wouldn't include any fictional examples on the list, would you. When you have "If I do this in public, someone will steal my discovery" on the list, it is because many paranormalists have actually said those words. And you are of course willing and able to identify them.

[apoger]

Larsen, do you know what a straw man argument is?

These are not straw man arguments as they are not being used to refute a claim.

They are exactly what the title of the thread proposes.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by apoger
They are exactly what the title of the thread proposes.

Are they? These are real true examples of the TOP reasons cited for refusing the test? You're sure about that?

For example, reason #1 given as: "James Randi makes a lot of money from this."

This is a genuine example? really?

Has anybody, ever, actually said " I refuse to take this test because James Randi makes a lot of money from this"

People say this on a regular basis, do they? Have you heard them say this? Who has said this, ever?

Please name any person that has actually said this, or something reasonably similar. Quote the precise words used. Provide a verifiable reference from a primary source.

Repeat for every item on the list. If you cannot find a specific instance of someone saying it, then it cannot be a top argument, and must be removed.

[Nex]

Peter Morris--

I belong to a few "woo" internet message boards, and these are definetly the top excuses for not taking the test. If they were not, I would have said so.

*edit* And to go further, I made these excuses myself. They are very common excuses for not wanting to take the challenge.


So untwist your panties. :p

[T'ai Chi]

My entry wasn't addressed, so I'll repeat it:

How about: 'I don't know if this is true, but I have read that Randi has said "I always have an out." in relation to the challenge, so it seems by definition unwinnable, so why even try?'

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris




Repeat for every item on the list. If you cannot find a specific instance of someone saying it, then it cannot be a top argument, and must be removed.

I can do that for the one i added, the CIA excuse.

Last saturday i met a friend of mine, who i haven't seen for roughly 3 years. She was last time i saw her rather convinced, that under the right circumstances(never was able to have some definite answers on this) she is able to commune telepathically and also under other circumstance she is able to summon some sort of supernatural being, she mentioned Spirits, Ghosts and Demons(don't ask me for definitions).

As since i last met her, i became aware of the JREF challenge, i suggested to her, to go for the JREF prize, if she still thinks she can do something of the above. Her response was, as far as i remeber:
"One million is not worth the trouble intelligence agencies will cause one, who passes this test. Also the public interest would be annoying."

I did not press her further on the issue, it would have not been fruitfull, except she might have specified, what sort of trouble she expects. Since i do not exactly know what she meant with "trouble" , i tried instead to name several things, which fit the word trouble and which intelligence agencies might realy do, if someone shows a paranormal ability, that would be useful to them.

So, Peter Morris, you realy want everybody to post something like this for every excuse mentioned?

BTW, i remember now the excuse she offered, when she first told me that she is able to summon supernatural entities.

When she first told me this, i immiediately answered something like: "Where and when? What about this evening, i have nothing to do? I'm ready to buy candles, chalk and whatever you need, and i can do some chanting, if neccessary."

Her reply was: "These entities are to dangerous to meddle with without good reasons."

So i'm suggesting a further excuse, a bit generalized version of the above:
"One million is not worth the danger, that come with my abilities."

Snappy response: "Make sure only close minded evil sceptics are endangered by you're demonstration, then you would do the world a favor, if something goes wrong."

Carn

[Carn]

Originally posted by Nex
How could a government or corporation manage to make a well-known celeb disappear? People would notice, and raise a big stink. I mean, the US gov't can be a little slow, but they're not stupid.



I think the excuse is more about, that real proven psychic powers could be so useful to intelligence agencies (having long distance telepathy telepathy or long distance killing in mind), that they give a damn, what the public thinks about their actions.

Of course, you could argue, that the CIA and the US gov't would not ignore moral standards and voters opinion, that much, but take one look at Amnesty International reports and you know there are governments and intelligence agency, that give a damn about moral standards and public opinion.
So one could end up pleading the CIA for protection against the evil ones, which is not neccesarily a nice way to live.

BTW, you forgot, that the public opinion is perfectly controlled by the secret ruling circles, which also decide, who is the next idiot to be the puppet, that is called "President".

Carn

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Carn
CIA, Mossad, Secret Service or someone else will harrass, threaten, employ, misuse, abuse or kill me, if i demonstrate my power.

"I don't wanna be a LAB RAT the rest of my life!"

Basically the same as "If I do this in public, they will lock me up in the Pentagon or in a nuthouse."

Originally posted by Carn
'I don't know if this is true, but I have read that Randi has said "I always have an out." in relation to the challenge, so it seems by definition unwinnable, so why even try?'

Basically the same as "James Randi judges the outcome/I want an independent judge."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
"If I pass the prelim, they'll just move the goalposts to make sure I fail the next test."

Basically the same as "James Randi judges the outcome/I want an independent judge."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Don't worry, Larsen. You'll be a wit one day. You're half way there already.

Are you sure you focus on the evidence and not the persons?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen, do you know what a straw man argument is?

It's when someone chooses to invent his opponents words and makes the claim "here is what my opponent says"

You are claiming that these are the excuses used by people that refuse Randi's test. Are they really? I do hope that you are going to provide cites for every one of these excuses. That is, you will cite specific people that have used these excuses, and cite the exact words they use.

I'm sure you will find it easy to do so. After all these are the top excuses for not taking the test. You wouldn't include any fictional examples on the list, would you. When you have "If I do this in public, someone will steal my discovery" on the list, it is because many paranormalists have actually said those words. And you are of course willing and able to identify them.

Yes, they really are. They are not taken verbatim, as you would know, had you read the article.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If you cannot find a specific instance of someone saying it, then it cannot be a top argument, and must be removed.

In other words, if an example is not to your liking, it should be censored.

[Carn]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Basically the same as "If I do this in public, they will lock me up in the Pentagon or in a nuthouse."



Yes, its the same, but i do not think your answer will satisfy(public outcry), those who have that excuse, because as i said above some intell agencies and gov't do realy give a damn about public opinion and human rights.

Carn

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Carn
Yes, its the same, but i do not think your answer will satisfy(public outcry), those who have that excuse, because as i said above some intell agencies and gov't do realy give a damn about public opinion and human rights.

Carn

The point is that people will disappear. That will create a mega stir.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen, do you know what a straw man argument is?

It's when someone chooses to invent his opponents words and makes the claim "here is what my opponent says"

You are claiming that these are the excuses used by people that refuse Randi's test. Are they really? I do hope that you are going to provide cites for every one of these excuses. That is, you will cite specific people that have used these excuses, and cite the exact words they use.
I think he does know what a straw man is. It's when you pretend that someone holds an opinion which he doesn't hold, and then argue with that, as you are doing here.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Carn
I can do that for the one i added, the CIA excuse.

Last saturday i met a friend of mine ... i suggested to her, to go for the JREF prize, if she still thinks she can do something of the above. Her response was, as far as i remeber:
"One million is not worth the trouble intelligence agencies will cause one, who passes this test. Also the public interest would be annoying."

I did not press her further on the issue ...

So, Peter Morris, you realy want everybody to post something like this for every excuse mentioned?



Oh no. I want you to do a lot better than that. For all I know, you might be making up the story. It could be a work of fiction. Or you might be misquoting your friend. You could be quoting her words out of context. You might have missed something from what she said. You might have added something.

For each one that you list, give a verifiable cite from a primary source. Somebody posting under a pseudonym, claiming that an unnamed friend has said something similar to this, doesn't count.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh no. I want you to do a lot better than that. For all I know, you might be making up the story. It could be a work of fiction. Or you might be misquoting your friend. You could be quoting her words out of context. You might have missed something from what she said. You might have added something.

For each one that you list, give a verifiable cite from a primary source. Somebody posting under a pseudonym, claiming that an unnamed friend has said something similar to this, doesn't count.

So, why should anyone pay any attention to what you post?

Nobody knows if you are really "Peter Morris".

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh no. I want you to do a lot better than that. For all I know, you might be making up the story. It could be a work of fiction. Or you might be misquoting your friend. You could be quoting her words out of context. You might have missed something from what she said. You might have added something.
Yes we're all involved in a vast conspiracy of lies against you. You rumbled us.

[Ashles]

Peter, when you see people talking on street corners and on buses...

We're talking about you.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Nex
Peter Morris--

I belong to a few "woo" internet message boards, and these are definetly the top excuses for not taking the test. If they were not, I would have said so.

*edit* And to go further, I made these excuses myself. They are very common excuses for not wanting to take the challenge.


So untwist your panties. :p

Fine.

Since these are so common, yiu will have no trouble at all citing them, will you.

Name specific people that have said them. Quote the precise words used. Give a reference that can be actually checked. That way, we don't have to take your word for it.

Should be easy, since they say these things all the time.

[CFLarsen]

Peter, Peter...

Who are you? Why should we attach any significance to what you say?

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh no. I want you to do a lot better than that. For all I know, you might be making up the story. It could be a work of fiction. Or you might be misquoting your friend. You could be quoting her words out of context. You might have missed something from what she said. You might have added something.

For each one that you list, give a verifiable cite from a primary source. Somebody posting under a pseudonym, claiming that an unnamed friend has said something similar to this, doesn't count.

Ok, so help me a bit, imagine you were in my position and would try to support the quote you brought here in a way that would satisfy "Peter Morris" and that you realy met a friend last saturday, who said something very close to that quote.

I have no idea how to do it, except get her and me sign a notarified protocol of what we talked about last saturday and post a copy here and send anyone interested a real copy.

Anything that would be easier and cheaper?

Carn

BTW, i'm fairly certain, that i quoted her correctly(at least the meaning, conversation was in german, so a translation error is possible), because i knew i was going to meet her and intended to ask her about it and was interested what she say about it and if and how she would argue for not applying.
I do not no much about the working of brain, but as far as i know any healthy person should be able to correctly recall what somebody said 5 days ago, if it was about the topic the person was aiming for in the conversation and was interested to hear what the other one had to say about the topic.

So said shortly, if i'm grossly misquoting my friend i'm either intenly lying or my brain is seriously malfunctioning and i should visit a doctor immiediately(probably neurology or something like that).

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, they really are. They are not taken verbatim, as you would know, had you read the article.

I read the article, Larsen. The point of the article was to say : hey aren't the paranormalists stupid, lets list the things they say and have a good laugh at how ridiculous they are.

That is a common debating tactic. I see it in any debate on any subject, from both sides. List things that are supposed to be the sort of things your opponents say, then attack your own list. It's called a straw man. This is always dishonest. Whatever the subject being discussed, whatecver side you take, this sort of thing is dishonest. Unless you provide specific references, it might not be a fair representation of what they say. Even with references its a bit dodgy. You might be cherry-picking the ones you can answer, and ignoring the ones you can't.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Carn
Ok, so help me a bit, imagine you were in my position and would try to support the quote you brought here in a way that would satisfy "Peter Morris" and that you realy met a friend last saturday, who said something very close to that quote.

I have no idea how to do it, except get her and me sign a notarified protocol of what we talked about last saturday and post a copy here and send anyone interested a real copy.

Anything that would be easier and cheaper?


Yes. Stick to actual published sources. Don't expect people to accept hearsay.

For example, earlier in the thread, Dr. Adequate said:My favorite one is Sylvia Browne's stuff about the JREF money being tainted and evil. She can't even give it to charity, you see, because it would carry with it the Curse Of Randi.

Fine. Lets go with that. When did she say that? In print? what publication? On TV or radio? Name the show and date of broadcast. You will understand that I personally have never read or watched any of her stuff. I'm no fan of hers. But I'm not going to just take your word for it that she ever said such a silly thing.

repeat for every one on the list.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
In other words, if an example is not to your liking, it should be censored.

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.

If it's a common argument, you will be able to cite specific people saying it, and give a verifiable cite that can be checked.

If you can't provide any cite whatsoever, then it's not a common argument.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
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.

If it's a common argument, you will be able to cite specific people saying it, and give a verifiable cite that can be checked.

If you can't provide any cite whatsoever, then it's not a common argument.

Who are you, Peter Morris? Why should we pay any attention to you? Are you a real person?

[Peter Morris]

So, Larsen, you demand that I provide cites for my claims, but find it unneccessary to provide cites for your claims?

Once again, a Randi-fan displays skill at hypocritacal thinking.

Can anyone provide a cite for the Sylvia one, for instance?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So, Larsen, you demand that I provide cites for my claims, but find it unneccessary to provide cites for your claims?

Once again, a Randi-fan displays skill at hypocritacal thinking.

No, I demand that you live up to the same demands you have for others. You don't trust what people have said, why should anyone attach any significance to what you post?

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

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Can anyone provide a cite for the Sylvia one, for instance?

That has nothing to do with the article.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I read the article, Larsen. The point of the article was to say : hey aren't the paranormalists stupid, lets list the things they say and have a good laugh at how ridiculous they are.
No, it's a sort of FAQ list.
That is a common debating tactic. I see it in any debate on any subject, from both sides. List things that are supposed to be the sort of things your opponents say, then attack your own list. It's called a straw man. This is always dishonest. Whatever the subject being discussed, whatecver side you take, this sort of thing is dishonest.
You know, that's just what I was thinking!
Unless you provide specific references, it might not be a fair representation of what they say. Even with references its a bit dodgy. You might be cherry-picking the ones you can answer, and ignoring the ones you can't.
:dl:
This is a public thread, so what you have just fantasised would not be possible. No-one can prevent you, for example, posting up something which you consider a good excuse. I notice you have not done so... unless... unless... perhaps you, too are in the conspiracy against you. You never know how powerful we Evil Sceptics are. WE CAN CONTROL YOUR THOUGHTS.

You are without a doubt the most boring poster on these boards. I have, to my recollection, never, ever, seen you actually posting about the paranormal, but I have often seen you posting about your delusions concerning sceptics. If you have nothing interesting to reveal except that you are a fantasist, then, my dear Mr Morris, we know that already.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
List things that are supposed to be the sort of things your opponents say, then attack your own list. It's called a straw man. This is always dishonest. Whatever the subject being discussed, whatecver side you take, this sort of thing is dishonest. Unless you provide specific references, it might not be a fair representation of what they say. Even with references its a bit dodgy. You might be cherry-picking the ones you can answer, and ignoring the ones you can't.

I think the informal SkepticReport article (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm) is a very powerful article, because it is representative and comprehensive.

I do believe that it would be even more powerful if there were actual quotes with sources (something which I believe there are many examples to be found). These real quotes could be listed under the 'motif' quote.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B]No, it's a sort of FAQ list.

You know, that's just what I was thinking!

:dl:
This is a public thread, so what you have just fantasised would not be possible.

Why is it impossible to provide proof for your claims?

You attributed words to Sylvia Browne. Why is it impossible to provide a cite for them?

Did you make the quote up?

Did you just take someone else's word for it?

Do you have a shred of evidence that Browne - or anyone - has ever said such a thing?

You are without a doubt the most boring poster on these boards blah blah your delusions blah blah nothing interesting waffle you are a fantasist.

Ah, abuse. How very predictable.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I think the informal SkepticReport article (http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/topjref.htm) is a very powerful article, because it is representative and comprehensive.

I do believe that it would be even more powerful if there were actual quotes with sources (something which I believe there are many examples to be found). These real quotes could be listed under the 'motif' quote.

Like I said:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you want clarity, you have to boil it down. It also helps you remembering it. Simplify, clarify, cut through the crap.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Ah, abuse. How very predictable.
Entirely. You are a boring fantasist, and you should not be at all surprised that people keep letting you know this. I'm afraid that this doesn't count as a psychic power, though, because, yes, people will state the bleeding obvious.

[kookbreaker]

What Peter completely fails to realise is that Claus is actually doing the world a favor and only sticking to the coherant complaints.

Exhibit 1:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3748ec3d.1707453%40news.pcisys.net&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38B087FF.3B661254%40earthlink.net&output=gplain

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3572300a.2365956%40news.earthlink.net&output=gplain

But back inthe land of those who can at least make an arguement:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=326A5D03.154B%40erols.com&output=gplain

There's more, but I'm really bored now.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
What Peter completely fails to realise is that Claus is actually doing the world a favor and only sticking to the coherant complaints.

The incoherent complaints would be in the "Funnies" section. ;)

[BillHoyt]

H'ai, T'ai!

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
What Peter completely fails to realise is that Claus is actually doing the world a favor and only sticking to the coherant complaints.


What the Kook fails to realise is that the complaints he produces do not match the majority of Larsen's list.

From the Kook's link:

"But in our experience, even with proof in hand, collecting the million appears to be impossible. To us it's been like a rigged carney game.

As serious applicants asking for a fair trial of our claim we are instead subjected to running a gauntlet of ad hominem abuse. "

This genuinely does seem to be a common complaint against Randi, which in general terms goes like this:

I tried to negotiate a test with him, and received a load of abuse in reply. He is an appallingly-behaved, childish and aggressive man with no sense of professionalism. He cannot be trusted to carry out a test either fairly or competently.


Put that one in your list, Larsen. You've even got a specific reference that you can cite.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What the Kook fails to realise is that the complaints he produces do not match the majority of Larsen's list.

From the Kook's link:

"But in our experience, even with proof in hand, collecting the million appears to be impossible. To us it's been like a rigged carney game.

As serious applicants asking for a fair trial of our claim we are instead subjected to running a gauntlet of ad hominem abuse. "

This genuinely does seem to be a common complaint against Randi, which in general terms goes like this:

I tried to negotiate a test with him, and received a load of abuse in reply. He is an appallingly-behaved, childish and aggressive man with no sense of professionalism. He cannot be trusted to carry out a test either fairly or competently.


Put that one in your list, Larsen. You've even got a specific reference that you can cite.

Wow, Peter, that is some evidence, isn't it? I mean, fully documented and everything, eh? Compelling, very compelling. That is a fine citation, suitable for birdcage lining. Got any I can toss in my wood furnace? It looks like a long winter.

[Zamzara]

Come on then Peter, if this list was made up, what are the REAL arguments people use for not taking the test? (Also, where did Claus say the arguments have to be top arguments. I though he said they have to be lame arguments.)

[Nex]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Fine.

Since these are so common, yiu will have no trouble at all citing them, will you.

Name specific people that have said them. Quote the precise words used. Give a reference that can be actually checked. That way, we don't have to take your word for it.

Should be easy, since they say these things all the time.

I'll rise to that challenge, and one-up you.

Here's a whole message board thread, complete with excuses, excuses, excuses. (http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=8898)

Enjoy.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zamzara
Come on then Peter, if this list was made up, what are the REAL arguments people use for not taking the test? (Also, where did Claus say the arguments have to be top arguments. I though he said they have to be lame arguments.)

Well, Kookbreaker provided us with one of the actual common excuses : I tried negotiating a test protocol with him, I only received abusive language in response to my attempts, Randi's childish misbehaviour made it impossible to continue.

The person may or may not be telling the truth, but that is about the most common reason given that I've seen.

Or then there's : I don't trust Randi. I consider him dishonest. I'm willing to be tested independently, but I will not be tested by that particular man, or his close assosiates. Randi has refused an independant tester.
example (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44920)

Or then there's : I don't like the test Randi is offereing me. My dowsing skill enables me to find minerals or water in large quantities in the ground. Randi's test design insists that I find small quantities underneath a cup. That's a different thing, which I can't do.
example (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45830) (ONE of the reasons why test negotiations fell through.


Put those in your list, Larsen.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Carn
I think the excuse is more about, that real proven psychic powers could be so useful to intelligence agencies (having long distance telepathy telepathy or long distance killing in mind)

... snipped for space...

BTW, you forgot, that the public opinion is perfectly controlled by the secret ruling circles, which also decide, who is the next idiot to be the puppet, that is called "President".

Ah, yes. My bad. Apologies.

However, it was brought up in a woo message board (linked above) about Randi's challenge rule #7. Apparently, someone's reading that to say that Randi and/or JREF can pick and choose what information to use, or to just suppress all of it.

I don't see how they could do that, though. I mean, Randi's got quite a bit invested in the JREF, but if he found true evidence of psi, breaking the laws of physics, I'd think even that old crotchety codger would want the world to know about it.

*shrugs*

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, Kookbreaker provided us with one of the actual common excuses : I tried negotiating a test protocol with him, I only received abusive language in response to my attempts, Randi's childish misbehaviour made it impossible to continue.

Then try us. What is it you can do? Open a thread, and let's investigate. Hm?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Or then there's : I don't trust Randi. I consider him dishonest. I'm willing to be tested independently, but I will not be tested by that particular man, or his close assosiates. Randi has refused an independant tester.
example (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44920)

If you don't want Randi to test you, go elsewhere.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Or then there's : I don't like the test Randi is offereing me. My dowsing skill enables me to find minerals or water in large quantities in the ground. Randi's test design insists that I find small quantities underneath a cup. That's a different thing, which I can't do.
example (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45830) (ONE of the reasons why test negotiations fell through.

Why can't you do this? Have you ever been tested for finding small quantities underneath a cup? If you have, please present the study. If you haven't, how do you know?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Put those in your list, Larsen.

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

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Nex

However, it was brought up in a woo message board (linked above) about Randi's challenge rule #7. Apparently, someone's reading that to say that Randi and/or JREF can pick and choose what information to use, or to just suppress all of it.

Yeah. It would strengthen their case if that's what rule #7 actually said.

Of course, what rule 7 really says is that the JREF can use any of the data however it likes. It's doesn't say that ONLY the JREF can use the data, or that the JREF can tell you how to use the data.

If I give you a copy of a picture, then you can do with it whatever you'd like. That doesn't mean that I can't do as I like with the original.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Nex
I'll rise to that challenge, and one-up you.

Here's a whole message board thread, complete with excuses, excuses, excuses. (http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=8898)

Enjoy.

Thank you for that. I had a quick look through that. Nobody expressing fear of the CIA that I saw. Nor expressing fear that the money is cursed. Perhaps they aren't top excuses after all.

The common theme in the reasons given were :

1) Randi doesn't test these thinks fairly or properly.

2) I know it's true and have no need to prove it to anyone else.

Those aseem to be the actual top reasons.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm most willing to. All I need is evidence.

Evidence of what, Larsen?

You present this list as being the most common excuses for not taking the test.

I show you direct quotes from specific individuals, expressing THEIR reasons for not taking the test.

I have given you evidence that these ARE the top reasons given. You are welcome to disagree with those reasons if you want. Put them in your list, tell us why they are not valid excuses if you can find an answer.


Larsen, here's the point.
somebody has given their reasons gfor not taking the test thusly: "I have had no response from the Australian Sketpics, other than to invite me to the next round of testing of water dowsers. Presumably, they are going to ask the dowsers to detect bottles of water or pipes of water. It won't work, because that's not how dowsing works. I will contact them again and try to get a better response out of them. I will let you know how I get on. "

You say that you want "evidence" before you include that on your list, and answer it.

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.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by new drkitten

...
If I give you a copy of a picture, then you can do with it whatever you'd like. That doesn't mean that I can't do as I like with the original.

Well, not exactly. There may be copyright issues involved. However, if a proper release is signed (as would be expected with the JREF Challenge), then sure.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Thank you for that. I had a quick look through that. Nobody expressing fear of the CIA that I saw. Nor expressing fear that the money is cursed. Perhaps they aren't top excuses after all.

The common theme in the reasons given were :

1) Randi doesn't test these thinks fairly or properly.

2) I know it's true and have no need to prove it to anyone else.

Those aseem to be the actual top reasons.

Your quick look wasn't enough then.

Of course, the CIA et al. were not mentioned yet, but I suggest watching that thread. It will come up-- the subject's been debated there many times before, and it always goes the same way.

Also, you missed "if you take the money your powers will disappear" and "skeptics ruin the vibrations."

But like I said, looks like that thread just started a few days ago. I predict it will go on for another week or so, and all top excuses will be given.

I'm not psychic, I just know the pattern. I've only seen it a hundred times before. ;)

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes. Stick to actual published sources. Don't expect people to accept hearsay.



Sorry, Peter Morris, but from your point of view, if you are objective, my word is as good as a post in the thread, that Nex provided.

Why?

Because if i'm dishonest, i would register there under a different name, post that excuse and viola, would have something to cite to you.

As much of this conversations about JREF challenge and paranormal happen on forums and message groups, where practially anyone can jump in and post what he likes, for most of that quotes it will be impossible to cite a reliable source.

Exceptions are of cours, are the direct quote from Silvia Brown and those things you found in the challenge application section,
though that would only satisfy, if you would think KRAMER to be honest.

So when you're asking to quote reliable sources for those excuses, sorry that's nearly as impossible as finding reliable prove of psi abilities.

Carn

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Evidence of what, Larsen?

If you can't keep up in the threads you participate in, don't participate, then.

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

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

Here you go:

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

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

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

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

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

Let's see some evidence of your claims. E.g., dowsing: Where is the evidence that it works?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
(ONE of the reasons why test negotiations fell through.
Ah... all is clear. I thought that was it (chalk up another point for Dr Adequate's Psychic Powers). This is why I never see you posting about the paranormal, and always see you posting about your frothing hatred of sceptics. Unlike everyone else here, you're not interested in the paranormal, just in your own insane grudge.

Yes, you've failed as a dowser. Yes, you've failed as a human being. Now go away.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you can't keep up in the threads you participate in, don't participate, then.

Let's see some evidence of your claims. E.g., dowsing: Where is the evidence that it works?

First of all, congrats for providing the cite. Now repeat for all items on your list.

Other than that, once again, Larsen, you are lying. I have never said that dowsing "works." I have always said that I am sceptical of claims, but I want to see them fairly tested.

Your article is about the reasons dowsers and others give for not taking the test. I quoted some guy's stated reason for not taking the test. I invited you to include that reason on your list.

Now your demand for "evidence" confuses me. See, here's the scenario:

Larsen: I want to erite another fawning article singing the praises of Randi. Please give me examples of excuses the woo-woos use for not taking the test.

Peter: Here's (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45830) one for your list. A claimed dowser has rejected the test. His reason given was

"it is unacceptable to put a lump of sulfide mineralisation, or a gold ring, or any other substitute for an orebody under a cardboard box and ask me to detect that by dowsing. It won't work. It must be done under real field conditions over real sulfide mineralisation. I have had no response from the Australian Sketpics, other than to invite me to the next round of testing of water dowsers. Presumably, they are going to ask the dowsers to detect bottles of water or pipes of water. It won't work, because that's not how dowsing works. I will contact them again and try to get a better response out of them. I will let you know how I get on.

There, that's a common reason. Put that on your list.

Larsen : Where's the evidence? I need evidence. It only goes on the list when there is evidence. Without evidence it doesn't go on the list. Everything on the list needs evidence.

Dr. Adequate : Sylvia browne says the money is cursed.

Larsen : Oh, that's a good one. That goes on my list. There is enough evidence of that. The evidence is sufficient to include on the list.


You see my dilemma, Larsen? You consider evidence missing when someone complains that Randi's design for a protocol is unfair, yet evidence present when someone says the money is cursed. So I ask again. What evidence would that be? Evidence of what?


If I were a cynic, I might suppose that you are just making excuses, you don't want to include this on your list because:

- its a sensible, reasonable sounding complaint
- you have no answer for it.

But it couldn't possibly be that, cause we all know how honest you are.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen: I want to erite another fawning article singing the praises of Randi.

Liar. Larsen did not write that.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen : Where's the evidence? I need evidence. It only goes on the list when there is evidence. Without evidence it doesn't go on the list. Everything on the list needs evidence.

Liar. Larsen did not write that.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen : Oh, that's a good one. That goes on my list. There is enough evidence of that. The evidence is sufficient to include on the list.

Liar. Larsen did not write that.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Liar. Larsen did not write that.

Ah, so you have trouble understanding sarcasm, then.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
First of all, congrats for providing the cite. Now repeat for all items on your list.

Whoa....just a second. Do you admit that there was evidence? Yes or no?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Other than that, once again, Larsen, you are lying. I have never said that dowsing "works." I have always said that I am sceptical of claims, but I want to see them fairly tested.

Here you point to the evidence of dowsing:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
This is not an open minded man, willing to see evidence of dowsing. This is a closed-minded individual who will attack dowsing any way he can. He spouts a load of information designed to discredit them, and not care much whether the information is accurate or not.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870646964&highlight=dowsing)

Now, what is this evidence of dowsing, please?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen: I want to erite another fawning article singing the praises of Randi. Please give me examples of excuses the woo-woos use for not taking the test.

Larsen : Where's the evidence? I need evidence. It only goes on the list when there is evidence. Without evidence it doesn't go on the list. Everything on the list needs evidence.

Dr. Adequate : Sylvia browne says the money is cursed.

Larsen : Oh, that's a good one. That goes on my list. There is enough evidence of that. The evidence is sufficient to include on the list.

I have said none of the above things.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You see my dilemma, Larsen? You consider evidence missing when someone complains that Randi's design for a protocol is unfair, yet evidence present when someone says the money is cursed. So I ask again. What evidence would that be? Evidence of what?

Evasion noted. You don't fool me for one second. You are perfectly aware of what I am talking about.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Whoa....just a second. Do you admit that there was evidence? Yes or no?

Here you point to the evidence of dowsing:

Now, what is this evidence of dowsing, please?

I have said none of the above things.

Evasion noted. You don't fool me for one second. You are perfectly aware of what I am talking about.

What evasion, Larsen? I have been direct in my statements.

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

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

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

You include the cursed money because there IS evidence.

Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?


And of course, you continue with the same lies. You accuse me of believing in dowsing, which is a lie.

In your delusional state, a comment that Randi is closed minded becomes a statement that dowsing exists.

Show me where I said that dowsing works, you liar.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Ah, so you have trouble understanding sarcasm, then.

Again, the tactics you employ are far worse than the things you accuse Randi of doing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

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

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

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And of course, you continue with the same lies. You accuse me of believing in dowsing, which is a lie.

In your delusional state, a comment that Randi is closed minded becomes a statement that dowsing exists.

Show me where I said that dowsing works, you liar.

This is what you posted:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
This is not an open minded man, willing to see evidence of dowsing. This is a closed-minded individual who will attack dowsing any way he can. He spouts a load of information designed to discredit them, and not care much whether the information is accurate or not.
Source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870646964&highlight=dowsing)

Now, what evidence of dowsing is it that Randi is not willing to see?

If you are saying that none exist, then what is your complaint about Randi?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This is what you posted:



Now, what evidence of dowsing is it that Randi is not willing to see?

If you are saying that none exist, then what is your complaint about Randi?

Larsen, you liar, this is very simple.

Someone comes forward claiming that they can dowse for groundwater. That is natural water flowing underground in huige quantities.

Randi tries to press them into a test dowsing for a small bottle of water in a box.

Dowser does not accept this test. Presses for test dowsing for groundwater.

Randi refuses to perform that test.

That, Larsen, is an example of Randi refusing to look at the evidence. It is a proven fact that someone claimed to have evidence, offered to show it to Randi, and Randi refused to look. Randi refused to look at the evidence. That does not mean I believe the evidence is true. Only that Randi is a proven liar, just like you.


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

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Again, the tactics you employ are far worse than the things you accuse Randi of doing. So, sarcasm is worse than deliberate dishionesty and severe incompitence?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen, you liar, this is very simple.

Someone comes forward claiming that they can dowse for groundwater. That is natural water flowing underground in huige quantities.

Randi tries to press them into a test dowsing for a small bottle of water in a box.

Dowser does not accept this test. Presses for test dowsing for groundwater.

Randi refuses to perform that test.

That, Larsen, is an example of Randi refusing to look at the evidence. That does not mean I believe the evidence is true.

You are lying when you claim I believe in dowsing. but then lies come natural to you.

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

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Now, tell me what evidence you have supporting the excuse that the money is cursed.

Have you seen the Kofoed quote?

[Peter Morris]

By the way, Larsen.

I said that Randi is closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence.

You took that to mean that evidence exists.

But what of the original comment, which YOUI posted

"When we say we are "skeptical", we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. "

So, what is the evidence that you are willing to see?

After all, you quoted this, so, you must believe that evidence exists.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
By the way, Larsen.

I said that Randi is closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence.

You took that to mean that evidence exists.

But what of the original comment, which YOUI posted

"When we say we are "skeptical", we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. "

So, what is the evidence that you are willing to see?

After all, you quoted this, so, you must believe that evidence exists.

You are either deliberately obtuse or slightly short of a few bricks.

Have you seen the Kofoed quote?

[Peter Morris]

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

Try to understand this concept, Larsen.

From the quote YOU supplied:

" Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are "skeptical", we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. "

That is what I feel. I want to see compelling evidence of dowsing before I believe in it.

Randi however does not. He just KNOWS that dowsing is wrong, and attacks and invents lies to discredit dowsers. He makes a big sham of being willing to see evidence, but when someone comes forward offering to demonstrate he refuses to even look.

This idea that I cannot have any complaints about Randi. If I don't believe in dowsing, then I should forgive all of Randi's lies. I ought to ignore the stupid things he says, and justify the frauds he commits. If I don't belive in dowsing, why should I care when claimants aren't tested fairly.

It may be a peculiar concept to you, Larsen, but I object to dishonesty. You just object to the paranormal. You are perfectly happy with lies told by Randi to attack the paranormal.

Have you seen the Kofoed quote?

What is your evidence, Larsen? You say that there is some evidence you have that is :
- missing from the dowsers quote
- present in the claim that the money is cursed.

I'm still wondering what that evidence might be.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are either deliberately obtuse or slightly short of a few bricks.

Have you seen the Kofoed quote?

And your personal abuse does not change the fact that you are refusing to include things you have no answer for.

What is your evidence for the cursed money claim?

[CFLarsen]

Slightly short of a few bricks, then.

[Peter Morris]

And you continue to weasel out.

I've given you several quotes for your list, specific people who have stated their reasons for not taking Randi's challenge.

Why are you unwilling to include them on your list?

could it be because the complaints are reasonable, and you have no answer for them?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And you continue to weasel out.

I've given you several quotes for your list, specific people who have stated their reasons for not taking Randi's challenge.

Why are you unwilling to include them on your list?

could it be because the complaints are reasonable, and you have no answer for them?

No.

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that Anett Kofoed's quote is evidence of my claim?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No.

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that Anett Kofoed's quote is evidence of my claim?

Well, Larsen, it's because I don't understand what you mean by "evidence" That is why I keep asking you to explain. And you keep refusing to explain.

Now, here's the situation as I see it.
CARL BRAUHART, a claimed dowser, won't take the test offered by Randi's Australian chums, because he claims it's unfair and unacceptable.

Anett Kofoedd, a claimed psychic, won't take the test because she claims that the money has bad energy.

Now, you say that :
- You WILL include Kofoedd's excuse because you HAVE evidence for it.
- You WONT include the dowser's excuse, because you LACK evidence for it.

Now, I've invited you to say what "evidence" you are referring to, and you refuse to answer. What can you possibly mean?

Possibility 1 : You want a cite for the quote.

But I have given you the cite. Kramer reports the dowser saying this.

Possibility 2 : You want evidence that dowsing works.

Maybe that's what you are saying. The man says he can dowse. Perhaps you won't include his excuse without evidence that he really can dowse.

But, you will list the psychics excuse. And you say that you have evidence. So, are you saying that you have evidence of her psychic powers?

Possibility 3 : you want evidence of unfairness.

This could be it. The dowser has said the test is unfair. Perhaps you want evidence of that?

But the psychic has said the money has bad energy. And you say you have evidence . So, you accept as true that the money has bad energy?


Of course, you may mean something else entirely.


Once again, I invite you to say what you mean.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So, sarcasm is worse than deliberate dishionesty and severe incompitence?

Beating up strawmen and putting words in people's mouths is not 'sarcasm'. Given your pedantry, this level of deliberate deception is quite telling about your own honestly.

And for the record, "deliberate dishonesty: and "severe incompetence" are very bad things, however you have failed to prove your accusations. You have had to act in a deliberately dishonest manner to make it seem as if there was a smidgeon of evidence.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, Larsen, it's because I don't understand what you mean by "evidence" That is why I keep asking you to explain. And you keep refusing to explain.

No, I do not. Stop telling people what they say or mean.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Now, here's the situation as I see it.
CARL BRAUHART, a claimed dowser, won't take the test offered by Randi's Australian chums, because he claims it's unfair and unacceptable.

But it is not unfair and it is not unacceptable.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You WONT include the dowser's excuse, because you LACK evidence for it.

No, I don't exclude the dowser's excuse because I lack evidence of that he said it.

Let me get this straight, OK? Do you want me to include Brauhart's excuses, because you think they are valid or not valid?

Valid or not valid?

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I quoted some guy's stated reason for not taking the test. I invited you to include that reason on your list.

Now your demand for "evidence" confuses me. See, here's the scenario:


Peter: Here's (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45830) one for your list. A claimed dowser has rejected the test. His reason given was

"it is unacceptable to put a lump of sulfide mineralisation, or a gold ring, or any other substitute for an orebody under a cardboard box and ask me to detect that by dowsing. It won't work. It must be done under real field conditions over real sulfide mineralisation. I have had no response from the Australian Sketpics, other than to invite me to the next round of testing of water dowsers. Presumably, they are going to ask the dowsers to detect bottles of water or pipes of water. It won't work, because that's not how dowsing works. I will contact them again and try to get a better response out of them. I will let you know how I get on.

There, that's a common reason. Put that on your list.



Peter Morris, you should have read the whole thread about the conversation between KRAMER and the dowsers.

The dowser complains that Australian Skeptics, which have offer a price for dowsing for which one could apply without applying for JREFs, ask for a test, he can not pass with his abilities, because they work differently.

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

So KRAMER accepted in this case, that the dowser explecitely said that he can only dowse for natural sources of water and minerals and showed that he was willing to find a protocol.

The dowsers then gives some thoughts, how the test could be conducted( geologist check where something is, he does not know and gets blindfolded and tries to find it) and, now listen closely, KRAMER does not reject any of his thoughts.

What will make you especially happy is that KRAMER realized, that he could not rely upon aussie sceptics to conduct the test ("As Australian Skeptics has already proven to be a bit resistant to testing this specific claim, JREF is looking forward to finding independent investigators to assist us in the testing of Carl Brauhart.") and only notices it might be difficult to find enough help to conduct the test

So sorry, though i know that the excuse you named, might well appear, here it was not used to avoid JREF challenge, only to avoid aussie challenge and KRAMER indirectly agreed with the dowser, that it was wrong of aussie sceptics, to insist of a test protocol, that was unacceptable for the dowser.

So please find another source for the excuse you named, i'm certain there is somewhere one.

Also this applicant withdrew, because he tested his abilities under conditions, which he thought might be those he has to deal with in a JREF test.
He failed and drew the logic consequence, that he needs more knowledge about how and under which conditions, he can perform, before negotiating any test protocol for his abilities.
Which i think was very clever, because obviously if you do not know when you can perform, it might happen that you agree to a test protocol, which you think you can manage, but then fail.

So please cite from anywhere else, in this case there was no lame excuse to avoid JREF challenge, it was very reasonable and honest:

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

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



Carn

BTW, i would be still interested in your answer to my post over here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=44920&perpage=40&pagenumber=3 .

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
No, I do not. Stop telling people what they say or mean.

But it is not unfair and it is not unacceptable.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You've finally said what you mean. I'm glad of that.


So, someone says the test is unfair. And you won't includen that on list because there's no evidence that it's unfair.

Another person says the money is cursed. And you will include that on the list, because you have evidence that its cursed.

A very strang attitude for a skeptic to take, frankly.


Let me get this straight, OK? Do you want me to include Brauhart's excuses, because you think they are valid or not valid?

Valid or not valid?

Hey, YOU are the one claiming that you have "evidence," Larsen.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You've finally said what you mean. I'm glad of that.


So, someone says the test is unfair. And you won't includen that on list because there's no evidence that it's unfair.

Another person says the money is cursed. And you will include that on the list, because you have evidence that its cursed.

A very strang attitude for a skeptic to take, frankly.

You are one seriously disturbed person, Peter. How can you possibly claim that I think that the money is cursed??

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Hey, YOU are the one claiming that you have "evidence," Larsen.

Whatever.

Do you want me to include Brauhart's excuses, because you think they are valid or not valid?

Valid or not valid?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Carn
Peter Morris, you should have read the whole thread about the conversation between KRAMER and the dowsers.

The dowser complains that Australian Skeptics, which have offer a price for dowsing for which one could apply without applying for JREFs, ask for a test, he can not pass with his abilities, because they work differently.

So KRAMER accepted in this case ....

So sorry, though i know that the excuse you named, might well appear, here it was not used to avoid JREF challenge, only to avoid aussie challenge and KRAMER indirectly

So please find another source for the excuse you named, i'm certain there is somewhere one., but then fail.

So please cite from anywhere else, in this case there was no lame excuse to avoid JREF challenge, it was very reasonable and honest:

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


Thank you for your politeness. Very rare on this forum.

I underastand what you're saying, but still this withdrawal is a good example of what I'm saying.

At the end of the discussion, the man's position was : I believe dowsing works. I believe that I have some dowsing skills. But I have tried the specific test you offer, and it doesn't work under those precise conditions. I can dowse, but not in the exact way you want me to. So I'm not taking the test, for the moment. I might try again at a later date.

So, really, this withdrawal was because he found the test protocol to be unacceptable. And there was no other protocol on offer.

I suspect that this is the most common reason for not taking the test.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are one seriously disturbed person, Peter. How can you possibly claim that I think that the money is cursed??

Its what you said, Larsen. Your claim, not mine.

You demanded evidence for the dowser's claim, but said that you already had evidence for hers.

Do you want me to include Brauhart's excuses, because you think they are valid or not valid?

Valid or not valid?

Larsen, lets be serious.

You said you had evidence for Brauharts excuses, but it's pretty obvious that you said a stupid thing that you didn't mean, then refused to withdraw it. In fact, you don't have evidence for her claim.

Now, look at your list.

"James Randi makes a lot of money from this."

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

"James Randi doesn't have the money."

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

"Randi will never pay, because he depends on the income."

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

The money is tainted. It will only bring misery and pain.


Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

I can only perform if no sceptic is in any way involved in the experimental design/testing process"

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

"If I do this in public, they will lock me up in the Pentagon or in a nuthouse."

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

I tried contacting Randi to discuss a test protocol. I received nothing but a stream of ad hominem abuse in response.

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

The test protocol offered by Randi isn't a fair test of my abilities

Did you demand evidence of this, Larsen? Are you only willing to put this on your list if it is true?

I'm really puzzled by your rather hypocritical attitude.

Why are the ones I suggested the only ones that require "evidence?"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Its what you said, Larsen. Your claim, not mine.

You demanded evidence for the dowser's claim, but said that you already had evidence for hers.

Stop right here. Let's get this out of the way, before we move any further.

Where have I claimed that the money is cursed?

And let's get this one out of the way, too:

Do you want me to include Brauhart's excuses, because you think they are valid or not valid?

Valid or not valid?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Stop right here. Let's get this out of the way, before we move any further.

Where have I claimed that the money is cursed?

And let's get this one out of the way, too:

Do you want me to include Brauhart's excuses, because you think they are valid or not valid?

Valid or not valid?

You're dodging the question, Larsen

You repeatedly claimed that you had evidence for her claim.

And I answered your question in my last post.

Now, answer my question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
You're dodging the question, Larsen

You repeatedly claimed that you had evidence for her claim.

And I answered your question in my last post.

Now, answer my question.

Sorry, but there is absolutely no doubt: You are a woo.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sorry, but there is absolutely no doubt: You are a woo.


Definition of woo : someone who exposes the lies of a fraud.

Larsen, you are a coward who dare not answer the question I asked.

You are a liar and a fraud, Larsen. Your list is a work of fiction. Most of the items you and your cronies have simply made up. I've shown you real reasons given for not taking Randi's test. You cannot answer those, so you refuse to include them on your list. That's cowardice, Larsen.

Now, coward, answer my question.

Why does my example require "evidence" when none of the others do?

[Peter Morris]

Folks, Larsen claimed that he has "evidence" of the cursed money claim. Now he denies saying it. For everyone's benefit, I'll just remind you of the stupid things he came out with. Note his repeated insistence that he has evidence in the quote he supplied, and that his evidence supports the cursed money claim.

Note that he rejects my suggestions, because he wants evidence, but includes the cursed money because he already has evidence. Watch as he repeatedly claims he has evidence of cursed money .... then desperately backtracks away from his statements.

Peter : Kookbreaker provided us with one of the actual common excuses : I tried negotiating a test protocol with him, I only received abusive language in response to my attempts, Randi's childish misbehaviour made it impossible to continue.

The person may or may not be telling the truth, but that is about the most common reason given that I've seen.

Or then there's : I don't trust Randi. I consider him dishonest. I'm willing to be tested independently, but I will not be tested by that particular man, or his close assosiates. Randi has refused an independant tester.
example

Or then there's : I don't like the test Randi is offereing me. My dowsing skill enables me to find minerals or water in large quantities in the ground. Randi's test design insists that I find small quantities underneath a cup. That's a different thing, which I can't do..

Put those in your list, Larsen.


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

Peter : Evidence of what, Larsen? .... 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.

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

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

Or give it away to an enemy...?

Peter : First of all, congrats for providing the cite. Now repeat for all items on your list.

You see my dilemma, Larsen? You consider evidence missing when someone complains that Randi's design for a protocol is unfair, yet evidence present when someone says the money is cursed. So I ask again. What evidence would that be? Evidence of what?

Larsen : Whoa....just a second. Do you admit that there was evidence? Yes or no?

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

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

You include the cursed money because there IS evidence.

Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

Larsen : It's in my post. "Annet Kofoed". Now, where is the evidence of dowsing you spoke of?

Peter : It is a proven fact that someone claimed to have evidence, offered to show it to Randi, and Randi refused to look. Randi refused to look at the evidence. That does not mean I believe the evidence is true. Only that Randi is a proven liar, just like you.

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

Larsen : Have you seen the Kofoed quote?

Peter : What is your evidence, Larsen? You say that there is some evidence you have that is :
- missing from the dowsers quote
- present in the claim that the money is cursed.

I'm still wondering what that evidence might be.

Larsen : Why are you unwilling to acknowledge that Anett Kofoed's quote is evidence of my claim?

Peter : Now, here's the situation as I see it.
CARL BRAUHART, a claimed dowser, won't take the test offered by Randi's Australian chums, because he claims it's unfair and unacceptable.

Anett Kofoedd, a claimed psychic, won't take the test because she claims that the money has bad energy.

Now, you say that :
- You WILL include Kofoedd's excuse because you HAVE evidence for it.
- You WONT include the dowser's excuse, because you LACK evidence for it.

Now, I've invited you to say what "evidence" you are referring to, and you refuse to answer. What can you possibly mean?

Possibility 1 : You want a cite for the quote.
Possibility 2 : You want evidence that dowsing works.
Possibility 3 : you want evidence of unfairness.

Larsen : But it is not unfair and it is not unacceptable.

Peter : Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You've finally said what you mean. I'm glad of that. So, someone says the test is unfair. And you won't includen that on list because there's no evidence that it's unfair. Another person says the money is cursed. And you will include that on the list, because you have evidence that its cursed.

Larsen : You are one seriously disturbed person, Peter. How can you possibly claim that I think that the money is cursed?? .

Peter : You demanded evidence for the dowser's claim, but said that you already had evidence for hers..

Larsen : Sorry, but there is absolutely no doubt: You are a woo.

[Nex]

Holy crizzap, Peter Morris. Do you not know how stupid you look?

He has evidence of the claim being made-- it doesn't matter if it's true or not BECAUSE it's an excuse that was actually made by an actual person.

Really, it's a list of stupid excuses for why people don't want to go for the million. Come on.

Your blowing it out of proportion to the point of inane absurdity makes my head hurt. For the love of the great IPU, man, just stop.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Nex
Holy crizzap, Peter Morris. Do you not know how stupid you look?

He has evidence of the claim being made-- it doesn't matter if it's true or not BECAUSE it's an excuse that was actually made by an actual person.

Actually no. Read what he wrote.

Here's a summary.

1) I provided links to a dowser protesting that the test on offer was unfair and unsuitable. I invited Larsen to put it on his list.

2) Larsen replied saying that he requires evidence before it goes on the list.

3) I pointed out to him that one of the items on the list was "the money is cursed" and he didn't require evidence for that.

At this point a sensible person would have replied "hey, good point, it doesn't have to be true to go on the list. None of the others are true, yours goes on the list too. I don't need proof"

Sadly, Larsen is not sensible. so ...

4) Larsen claimed that he DOES have evidence for the curse on the money.

5) Hijinks ensue. Larsen repeatedly demanding that I prove the dowser's claim, while claiming that he has proved the money is cursed.

Pretty dumb thing for him to say, really. He shot himself in the foot with his double standards.

[apoger]

Your blowing it out of proportion to the point of inane absurdity makes my head hurt. For the love of the great IPU, man, just stop.

AGREED!

The thread is "Snappy Retorts To Lame Excuses For Not Taking The Challenge", not "Rock Solid Arguments for refuting Extensively Documented Claims".

If the list of "lame excuses" isn't good enough for you, then by all means you have the right to maintain your skepticism about this subject.

[Peter Morris]

So, Larsen shouldn't be held accountable for his dishonesty?

One of the common reasons for not taking the challenge (possibly the most common) is : I tried to negotiate a protocol, but wasn't able to agree on a fair test with him. The test he is offerring isn't a fair test of my skills.

Larsen has point blank refused to include that on his list.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
One of the common reasons for not taking the challenge (possibly the most common) is : I tried to negotiate a protocol, but wasn't able to agree on a fair test with him. The test he is offerring isn't a fair test of my skills.

Larsen has point blank refused to include that on his list. False. This excuse is listed on the first page:

"Randi sets the bar too high. The test is impossible."

We cannot relax the conditions to an extent where it is possible for you to cheat.

There are other entries on the list that could arguably be applied, like "James Randi won't let me take the challenge."listed in the first post and certainly "Some things just can't be quantified by your limited scientific methods"

1. Then how do you distinguish between a real phenomenon and one that is not?

2. We don't even need scientific methods. If it can be shown to exist, then you win the money.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So, Larsen shouldn't be held accountable for his dishonesty?

One of the common reasons for not taking the challenge (possibly the most common) is : I tried to negotiate a protocol, but wasn't able to agree on a fair test with him. The test he is offerring isn't a fair test of my skills.

Larsen has point blank refused to include that on his list.
Originally posted by Zombified
False. This excuse is listed on the first page.
So, Morris shouldn't be held accountable for his dishonesty?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Someone comes forward claiming that they can dowse for groundwater. That is natural water flowing underground in huige quantities.
:dl:

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
By the way, Larsen.

I said that Randi is closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence.

You took that to mean that evidence exists.

But what of the original comment, which YOUI posted

"When we say we are "skeptical", we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. "

So, what is the evidence that you are willing to see?

After all, you quoted this, so, you must believe that evidence exists.
I LITERALLY laughed so much I fell off my chair. I haven't done that for years. I can't stop. I can't stop. I need someone to slap me, or something. I am growing short of breath. I may faint. I have hiccups. I am beginning to choke.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are one seriously disturbed person, Peter. How can you possibly claim that I think that the money is cursed??

Its what you said, Larsen. Your claim, not mine.
You set me off again! Normally I'd feel guilty about laughing at people who are nuts in the head, but you also have such a singularly hideous personality, and are such a revolting liar and charlatan, that I can do so without shame.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Pretty dumb thing for him to say, really. He shot himself in the foot with his double standards.
I CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Its what you said, Larsen. Your claim, not mine.
You set me off again! Normally I'd feel guilty about laughing at people who are nuts in the head, but you also have such a singularly hideous personality, and are such a revolting liar and charlatan, that I can do so without shame. [/QUOTE]

Ah, the usual viriolic spew from the inadequate one:

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I CAN'T BREATHE. I CAN'T BREATHE.

In other words : I have no answer. I have no answer.

[Temporal Renegade]

What would be said, do you think, to someone who claims not to be able to perform, because they're nervous? After all, having Randi or other JREFers watching you intently, might be cause to claim that, wouldn't it?

Not that the outcome would be any different even if they weren't nervous, of course.;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
What would be said, do you think, to someone who claims not to be able to perform, because they're nervous? After all, having Randi or other JREFers watching you intently, might be cause to claim that, wouldn't it?

Not that the outcome would be any different even if they weren't nervous, of course.;)

I've seen some clips from Russia where Randi tries to accommodate both water-energizers, people who can manipulate brain waves and heart rates remotely and two Russian psychics, who doesn't know that the person on the photograph they are supposed to read, is Ted Bundy.

Randi is very open and appreciative of their demands, and goes through a lot to make the subjects comfortable.

But, of course, not to a degree where the controls are laxed.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
False. This excuse is listed on the first page:

There are other entries on the list that could arguably be applied, like listed in the first post and certainly

That isn't the same, and you knnow it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
In other words : I have no answer. I have no answer.
That is not actually the same thing expressed in other words, you halfwitted liar.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen repeatedly demanding that I prove the dowser's claim, while claiming that he has proved the money is cursed.

Pretty dumb thing for him to say, really. He shot himself in the foot with his double standards.
Now, here's my answer. You say that Larsen claims to have proved that the JREF money is cursed. He does not. This is another of your halfwited lies. What made me laugh so much, of course, was YOU talking about people saying dumb things and shooting themselves in the foot, having just done so so spectacularly yourself.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
That isn't the same, and you knnow it.You say some people won't take the test because they can't agree on a protocol... well, why can't they agree?

A test protocol must have certain properties in order to be valid. It must demonstrate that the effect happens. It must demonstrate that the effect is actually paranormal and not a misinterpreted normal effect. It is not surprising many frauds cannot find a suitable protocol with those conditions - they know they wouldn't be able to perform their little trick.

All you've done with your version of the excuse, Morris, is leave off the reason people can't find a test protocol they like. Are you trying to imply this is Randi's fault instead of the claimants'?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Now, here's my answer. You say that Larsen claims to have proved that the JREF money is cursed. He does not. This is another of your halfwited lies. What made me laugh so much, of course, was YOU talking about people saying dumb things and shooting themselves in the foot, having just done so so spectacularly yourself.

But that is exactly what he did say.

Have a read, and you will see.

Here's an example. He said the same thing several times.


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

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

You include the cursed money because there IS evidence.

Where is the evidence of the cursed money, Larsen?

:Larsen : It's in my post. "Annet Kofoed". Now, where is the evidence of dowsing you spoke of?

Just one of several times when he claimed "evidence" of the curse.

Of course he was talking bollocks. He doesn't really believe in the curse. It's just that his own lies trapped him into saying he did.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Just one of several times when he claimed "evidence" of the curse.
He did not claim to have evidence that the money was cursed. I can read what he's written. You're a liar.
Originally posted by Peter Morris
Of course he was talking bollocks. He doesn't really believe in the curse. It's just that his own lies trapped him into saying he did.
At last, I have met The Man With No Sense Of Irony.
Originally posted by Peter Morris but edited by me.
Of course he was talking bollocks. He doesn't really believe that Larsen claims to have evidence that the money was cursed. It's just that his own lies trapped him into saying he did.

[Nex]

Oh, stop it Peter. You're being ludicrous and you know it. No one claimed there actually was cursed money jokingly or otherwise, and for you to say that is a lie.

Peter, stop lying. Repetition does not make it true.


I would find this funny if it weren't so sad...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nex
I would find this funny if it weren't so sad...
Just find it funny. You are not required to sympathise with loathsome people.

Why is he doing this? Well, if a vicious, violent, half-witted lunatic is strait-jacketed and strapped down so that he can't physically assault his keepers, there is still one thing he can do to get at them, if his hatred and lunacy are sufficiently intense.

He can deliberately soil himself.

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

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

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
You say some people won't take the test because they can't agree on a protocol... well, why can't they agree?

Because Randi is incapable of polite discussion.

People report trying to correspond with him, and getting nothing but a torrent of abuse in response.

Others have objected that the protocol Randi offers isn't a fair test of their abilities, and Randi is wholly inflexible and won't discuss it further.

Others have dropped out because Randi refused to allow an independent third party to conduct the test.

A test protocol must have certain properties in order to be valid. It must demonstrate that the effect happens. It must demonstrate that the effect is actually paranormal and not a misinterpreted normal effect. It is not surprising many frauds cannot find a suitable protocol with those conditions - they know they wouldn't be able to perform their little trick.

All you've done with your version of the excuse, Morris, is leave off the reason people can't find a test protocol they like. Are you trying to imply this is Randi's fault instead of the claimants'?

Yes, I think it's Randi's fault. Randi is highly aggressive, ill-tempered and childish. Certainly he tries to railroad applicants into tests of his design, which are often pretty badly designed. His misbehaviour makes it impossible to discuss a protocol sensibly.

I am a moderate sceptic - I don't believe in the paranormal, but I'm willing to look at evidence. But I'll tell you this IF someone had a genuine "paranormal" gift that they were willing and able to demonstrate, they would not get a fair chance from Randi.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
He did not claim to have evidence that the money was cursed. I can read what he's written. You're a liar.

At last, I have met The Man With No Sense Of Irony.

And I have met the not-quite-a-man with no sense of honesty.

Larsen lied. He claimed repeatedly that he had "evidence" of the curse.

Stupid thing to say, but that's Larsen for you.


Then once he realised what he'd said, he tried to back out.

Stupidity and lies. Larsen all over.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Just find it funny. You are not required to sympathise with loathsome people.


Exactly. So stop making excuses for him.

[Zombified]

Morris, do you have an example of a claimant with what you think is a reasonable proposal for a protocol that was not agreed to by the JREF? Do you have an example of JREF's objections to that protocol that you think are unreasonable?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Because Randi is incapable of polite discussion.

People report trying to correspond with him, and getting nothing but a torrent of abuse in response.

That's odd. Randi has always been very friendly, open and forthcoming, when I have spoken to him. But he does not suffer fools gladly.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Others have objected that the protocol Randi offers isn't a fair test of their abilities, and Randi is wholly inflexible and won't discuss it further.

First on the list.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Others have dropped out because Randi refused to allow an independent third party to conduct the test.

Read the terms of the challenge:

Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives.
Source (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)

5. In all cases, applicant will be required to perform the preliminary test either before an appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, or in a location where a member of the JREF staff can attend.
Source (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)

Nope, he sure doesn't suffer fools gladly....

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, I think it's Randi's fault. Randi is highly aggressive, ill-tempered and childish. Certainly he tries to railroad applicants into tests of his design, which are often pretty badly designed.

Hmmm....if they are badly designed, wouldn't you think that someone would have won by cheating by now?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
His misbehaviour makes it impossible to discuss a protocol sensibly.

Nope, he sure doesn't suffer fools gladly....

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I am a moderate sceptic - I don't believe in the paranormal, but I'm willing to look at evidence. But I'll tell you this IF someone had a genuine "paranormal" gift that they were willing and able to demonstrate, they would not get a fair chance from Randi.

Then, tell them to go elsewhere. Fine. Can we see anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon anywhere?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Nex
Oh, stop it Peter. You're being ludicrous and you know it. No one claimed there actually was cursed money jokingly or otherwise, and for you to say that is a lie.

Fact is: Larsen claimed he had "evidence" of the curse.

I have quoted him saying this.

He was lying when he said it. That does not alter the fact that he said it.

You can deny it a million times. It won't make it so.

I'd find Larsen's lies funny if they weren't so pathetic.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's odd. Randi has always been very friendly, open and forthcoming, when I have spoken to him. But he does not suffer fools gladly.

But you are a fawning crawler, Larsen. Randi loves having his boots licked. Of course he responds well to a moron singing his praises.

You have proved that Randi ONLY suffers fools gladly. Everyone else, he hates.


And do you withdraw your claim that you have "evidence" of the curse?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
Morris, do you have an example of a claimant with what you think is a reasonable proposal for a protocol that was not agreed to by the JREF? Do you have an example of JREF's objections to that protocol that you think are unreasonable?

Already discussed earlier in the thread.

Man came forward claiming the ability to detect underground water.

Randi's Australian chums tried to fob him of with the find-a-bottle-of-water test.

This sort of thing seems to be common.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Fact is: Larsen claimed he had "evidence" of the curse.

I have quoted him saying this.

He was lying when he said it. That does not alter the fact that he said it.

You can deny it a million times. It won't make it so.

I'd find Larsen's lies funny if they weren't so pathetic.
Now, listen, you revolting halfwit. When you asked Larsen for "evidence of the cursed money", he, like everyone else reading the thread, took you to mean evidence that this "cursed money" had been used as an excuse --- the point on which you were challenging him --- not evidence that the money was cursed --- a contention which he has never made.

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

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

Now that I've cleared that up for the hard of thinking, would you care to choose a new way to make a fool of yourself?

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Already discussed earlier in the thread.

Man came forward claiming the ability to detect underground water.

Randi's Australian chums tried to fob him of with the find-a-bottle-of-water test.

This sort of thing seems to be common. First, that's not Randi. Unless you intend to suggest that every skeptic takes the same attitude you claim Randi does?

Second, remember the conditions that must be met: you must be able to demonstrate that the effect actually happens, and that it is paranormal. What protocol is suggested - by you, the claimant, or anyone else - to determine that the claimant's ability to detect underground water is statistically significant as opposed to getting lucky or looking where underground water is easy to find, and is not due to any additional non-paranormal information available to the claimant?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Exactly. So stop making excuses for him.
I think you'd better read the post again, halfwit. You will notice it contains the name "Peter Morris".

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Just find it funny. You are not required to sympathise with loathsome people.

Why is he doing this? Well, if a vicious, violent, half-witted lunatic is strait-jacketed and strapped down so that he can't physically assault his keepers, there is still one thing he can do to get at them, if his hatred and lunacy are sufficiently intense.

He can deliberately soil himself.

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

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

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think you'd better read the post again, halfwit. You will notice it contains the name "Peter Morris". :dl:

[Nex]

Speaking of lame excuses, if you check that link I gave *mumblemumble* pages back, there's someone bitching about how Randi wouldn't give him the million for "proving" his psychokinesis ability via webcam.

[Peter Morris]

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

No, you liar. He said that the curse was true.

It was a stupid thing to say. But that is what he said. Over and over.

Deny his words if you want. It makes you a liar, but doesn't change what the fool said.

You are desperately trying to attach a different meaning to his words. But he stated that he has evidence of the curse.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, you liar. He said that the curse was true.

It was a stupid thing to say. But that is what he said. Over and over.

Deny his words if you want. It makes you a liar, but doesn't change what the fool said.

You are desperately trying to attach a different meaning to his words. But he stated that he has evidence of the curse.

Peter, this is incredibly pathetic, even by your low standards.

[Nex]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Dr Adequate,

Good one! That excuse has been used by Danish clairvoyant Gitte Walther as well.

<hr>

"The money is tainted. It will only bring misery and pain."

That is ludicrous: You don't get a million dollars in cash, the sum is transferred electronically from one account to another, precisely as is being done millions of times each day all over the world.

How do you know that the money you get for your services hasn't been in touch with a skeptic? (If the answer is: "I can feel it", then we have a testable claim! :))

<hr>

Word for word, Peter. I haven't edited it at all.

You can be quiet now.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I think you'd better read the post again, halfwit. You will notice it contains the name "Peter Morris".

But the content showed that you are a deeply loathsome person.

That's why you should be ignored.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Peter, this is incredibly pathetic, even by your low standards.

What? telling the truth while liars hurl abuse? That's pathetic?

Larsen lied. His lies trapped him into saying the money is cursed. That's his own fault.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]What? telling the truth while liars hurl abuse? That's pathetic?

When that happens you will have a complaint. Right now, you are just a pathetic worm digging deeper. You invite this abuse, if I weren't so certain that your hatred is real, I'd call you a troll.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
When that happens you will have a complaint. Right now, you are just a pathetic worm digging deeper. You invite this abuse, if I weren't so certain that your hatred is real, I'd call you a troll.

Yeah, I know liars are going to hurl abuse when their lies are exposed. Abuse is their only weapon. Rest assured I will keep inviting your abuse, Kook.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
First, that's not Randi. Unless you intend to suggest that every skeptic takes the same attitude you claim Randi does?


Wrong. These Australians are Randi's associates. They are acting under Randi's authority. They have the authority to perform the preliminary test for the million dollars. This WAS an application for the million dollars.


Second, remember the conditions that must be met: you must be able to demonstrate that the effect actually happens, and that it is paranormal. What protocol is suggested - by you, the claimant, or anyone else - to determine that the claimant's ability to detect underground water is statistically significant as opposed to getting lucky or looking where underground water is easy to find, and is not due to any additional non-paranormal information available to the claimant?

Well, that's the point isn't it. Randi doesn't have the knowledge to design a protocol properly for this. So he tries to force people into a different sort of test.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, that's the point isn't it. Randi doesn't have the knowledge to design a protocol properly for this. So he tries to force people into a different sort of test. I asked you for evidence, Morris. What operational, unambiguous protocol was proposed to ensure that the dowser's could in fact detect water better than chance in a way that could not be explained without invoking the paranormal? Demonstrate that Randi rejected a well-designed protocol.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yeah, I know liars are going to hurl abuse when their lies are exposed.

Which explains you ractions.

Larsen said nothing of what you claim.

YOU ARE A LIAR.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
I asked you for evidence, Morris. What operational, unambiguous protocol was proposed to ensure that the dowser's could in fact detect water better than chance in a way that could not be explained without invoking the paranormal? Demonstrate that Randi rejected a well-designed protocol.

And you have been given evidence.

The man wanted a test for his water divining abilities.

Randi and his assosiates would not give him one.

But you will wordgame and weasel your way to excuse him for this.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And you have been given evidence.

The man wanted a test for his water divining abilities.

Randi and his assosiates would not give him one.

But you will wordgame and weasel your way to excuse him for this.
You have not provided one shred of evidence that anyone proposed a protocol clearly able to demonstrate that his ability was real and paranormal. You've simply repeated his offer to perform an uncontrolled demonstration, which is meaningless.

Is this the best you can do?

[Nex]

Originally posted by Zombified
You have not provided one shred of evidence that anyone proposed a protocol clearly able to demonstrate that his ability was real and paranormal. You've simply repeated his offer to perform an uncontrolled demonstration, which is meaningless.

Is this the best you can do?

It's been his best for some twenty-odd pages now...



*Well, twenty-odd to me, but I have my forum view set on 10 posts per page. Your own milage may vary.*

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
You have not provided one shred of evidence that anyone proposed a protocol clearly able to demonstrate that his ability was real and paranormal. You've simply repeated his offer to perform an uncontrolled demonstration, which is meaningless.

Is this the best you can do?

They refused to perform ANY protocol at all, save for the one they were offering. That was the ONLY one they were willing to do. ANY other protocol was refused.

The point is, they refused to discuss the matter. This made it impossible to arrange a protocol.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
They refused to perform ANY protocol at all, save for the one they were offering. That was the ONLY one they were willing to do. ANY other protocol was refused.

The point is, they refused to discuss the matter. This made it impossible to arrange a protocol. Says you. I did ask for evidence, though, didn't I? Rereading my post, I see that I did. Do you have any?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Wrong. These Australians are Randi's associates. They are acting under Randi's authority. They have the authority to perform the preliminary test for the million dollars. This WAS an application for the million dollars.

That they can run such tests is not indicitive that they will, nor that they are subject to Randi's specifications.

In fact, KRAMER states:


Obviously, enlisting the help of a team of local geologists will be the only true way of insuring proper conditions for this test. As Australian Skeptics has already proven to be a bit resistant to testing this specific claim, JREF is looking forward to finding independent investigators to assist us in the testing of Carl Brauhart. (emphasis mine)

Yeah, they're reeealllly jumping to do Randi's whims, aren't they...

We may never know what the AS's complaint regarding the test was. I don't know where Peter gets off telling us that Randi rejected a reasonable test protocol.

In fact, from KRAMER's comments it would seem that the JREF was trying to make arrangements to get him tested in spite of the AS.

So, another LIE from PETER MORRIS.

[Peter Morris]

see the entry in the challenge application section.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
see the entry in the challenge application section.

Hey, yes, I see it.

It's all clear to me, now that I've read it all the way through.


Peter, you're not only wrong, you're a LIAR. Why are you wasting bandwidth here?

No, don't answer that. Just stop.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
That they can run such tests is not indicitive that they will, nor that they are subject to Randi's specifications.


They are acting as Randi's agents, their tests have to meet Randi's approval.


In fact, KRAMER states:

Yeah, they're reeealllly jumping to do Randi's whims, aren't they...

We may never know what the AS's complaint regarding the test was. I don't know where Peter gets off telling us that Randi rejected a reasonable test protocol.


Indeed, you have demonstrated that even Kramer agrees that Randi's agents were unreasonable. That's why I can say so.

In fact, from KRAMER's comments it would seem that the JREF was trying to make arrangements to get him tested in spite of the AS.

So, another LIE from PETER MORRIS.

Actually, it's a proven truth, that you cannot bear to face.

The fact remains proven. Someone tried to negotiate a test with Randi's assosiates. He found them inflexible. Kramer has confirmed the complaint is both true and reasonable.

That is a common reason for not taking the test, and should go on Larsen's list.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Nex
Hey, yes, I see it.

It's all clear to me, now that I've read it all the way through.


Peter, you're not only wrong, you're a LIAR. Why are you wasting bandwidth here?

No, don't answer that. Just stop.

You're just screaming. You hate the truth, so you scream.

I quoted Larsens exact words. I exposed the lies he was telling. What he said was deeply dishonest and extremely stupid.

So, Fanatics hate me for that. They scream that I'm a liar, even though I quoted Larsen's exact words. Larsen's buddies try to find alternative meanings stretching definitions well past breaking point. It does not change a word that Larsen said.

As for the tests set by Randi's assossiates, even Kramer has acknowledged they were unfair.

Larsen is a liar if he doesn't include that on his list.

He is also a liar if he doesn't remove the excuses he has made up that nobody ever offered.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Actually, it's a proven truth, that you cannot bear to face.
The fact remains proven. Someone tried to negotiate a test with Randi's assosiates. He found them inflexible. Kramer has confirmed the complaint is both true and reasonable.


emphasis mine

Which is it? Previously you said:


I don't like the test Randi is offereing me. My dowsing skill enables me to find minerals or water in large quantities in the ground. Randi's test design insists that I find small quantities underneath a cup. That's a different thing, which I can't do.


emphasis mine.

KRAMER accepted that the dowser could not do that test and worked to find new people to test the man. Just what could Randi (or KRAMER) have done here to appease the whims of Peter Morris? Force the Australian skeptics to bow down before his whims? I don't think so. This is another case where no matter what Randi does, Peter will find a way to hate him.

Interesting is the deception that you further carry on:

ONE of the reasons why test negotiations fell through.


Test negotiations never 'fell through' since the man withdrew his application after testing himself with decent controls:

"I was very confident that I could dowse sulfide mineralisation under all conditions but today I did an extensive blind-fold test with work colleagues and the results were all over the place.
Candour in this situation is probably the best approach. I am not ready to submit to a test and so I am forced to withdraw my challenge, or, at least, postpone it. "

Unless you have some magical evidence to the contrary?

Now of course, maybe this should be on Larsen's list! After all you have shown quite well that this qualifies for the title description of a lame excuse. The very fact that KRAMER was willing to look for new testers in Australia is evidence shows just how LAME it is!

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
[B]emphasis mine

Which is it? Previously you said:



Jeez. Talk about desperate nit-picking.

So, the stated example was about Randi's agents, who are authorised by Randi to act on Randi's behalf and carry out tests for the million doller challenge. But at one point I mistakenly said "Randi" instead of "Randi's agents." And that's the only error he can find.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Now of course, maybe this should be on Larsen's list! After all you have shown quite well that this qualifies for the title description of a lame excuse. The very fact that KRAMER was willing to look for new testers in Australia is evidence shows just how LAME it is!

Sure, go on saying it's lame. Ignore the fact that Kramer agreed it's a valid reason, and that the Australians were being unreasonable. Don't let the facts bother you.

But how about including this one on your list, Larsen? After all, you want a few true ones to go with the ones you invented, don't you?

But we all know you won't. You distort facts to support your idol. you want his detractors to sound stupid, so you make up stupid reasons for not taking the test. You refuse a real reason, because it's not stupid, and you don't have an answer for it.

[Zombified]

Let's see. JREF wants a preliminary evaluation of a claimant. They contact one skeptic organization, who is reluctant to perform the test. So JREF goes looking for other people who think they can turn this into a reasonable test. Sounds to me like the independence of the two organizations is well-demonstrated, as is the flexibility of the JREF in attempting to obtain preliminary evaluations.

There seems to be no evidence that the Aussies rejection of the test protocol proposed by the claimant was not well founded. And no, Kramer looking for another group to run the test does not mean that their concerns are invalid, nor that any eventual test would use the same procedure unaltered.

[Peter Morris]

So why won't Larsen put the reason on his list, then?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Jeez. Talk about desperate nit-picking.

So, the stated example was about Randi's agents, who are authorised by Randi to act on Randi's behalf and carry out tests for the million doller challenge. But at one point I mistakenly said "Randi" instead of "Randi's agents." And that's the only error he can find.

No, the whole freaking concept of your complaint is in error. Basicly you've neatly set up your arguement so that Randi cannot possibly make a correct action in your book. The dowser states the suggested protocol is no good, so you complain, rather than acknowledge KRAMER's efforts to make a working protocol.

Would you have preferred that KRAMER cut off the dowser the moment the AS showed little interest? Oh, wait, you have no preferenece since you'll find fault no matter what action is taken.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So why won't Larsen put the reason on his list, then?He did. I explained this, you objected, you were asked for evidence, you did not provide it.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]Sure, go on saying it's lame. Ignore the fact that Kramer agreed it's a valid reason, and that the Australians were being unreasonable. Don't let the facts bother you.

Excuse me, but KRAMER never said its a valid reason to not take the test. He said nothing of the kind. This is where you lie, once again.

For that matter, the challenger never said it was his reason for not taking the challenge either.

Both were working on a protocol and KRAMER out out a call qualified volunteers who were willing to perform the test. But the challenger withdrew his challenge when a 'self test' failed. He never made an excuse.

This whole contraversy is in your head, Peter.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So why won't Larsen put the reason on his list, then?

Because in the only example you have given, the challenger in question did not use your complaint as an excuse to evade or avoid the challenge. Got it?

[Peter Morris]

I've given three examples. They give different reasons, but there is a common theme to the three.

Each claims, in his own way, that he tried corresponding with Randi (or his associates) and were unable to agree on a suitable test.

Why doesn't Larsen put that on his list?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Each claims, in his own way, that he tried corresponding with Randi (or his associates) and were unable to agree on a suitable test.

In the example I have been dealing with, there is no evidence of this. In fact there seems to have been an agreement of protocol along with a suggestion that the dowser try it with a friend first. So this fails.

I searched the thread an could not find your two other examples. I seriously hope you were not considering the John Benneth quotes you happily pulled from my links earlier in the thread to be 'examples'. Because the sound you hear is your foundation collapsing.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
In the example I have been dealing with, there is no evidence of this. In fact there seems to have been an agreement of protocol along with a suggestion that the dowser try it with a friend first. So this fails.

But he was offered a test by Randi's Australian colleagues for the million doller challenge and gave this reason for rejecting it.

So, this is a case of someone trying to apply, and not being able to agree on a suitable protocol.

I searched the thread an could not find your two other examples. I seriously hope you were not considering the John Benneth quotes you happily pulled from my links earlier in the thread to be 'examples'. Because the sound you hear is your foundation collapsing.

The other two I gave, I'm too tired right now to find the exact quote.

The second said that he had tried to correspond with Randi to discuss the protocol, and had received a stream of ad hominem abuse in response.

The third said that he wanted the test performed by an independent third party, butRandi refused.

The common thread running through these reasons: I tried to discuss the matter with Randi, but we were unable to agree on a suitable protocol.

Why doesn't Larsen include that on his list?
Either the specific examples, or the general complaint?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Zombified
He did. I explained this, you objected, you were asked for evidence, you did not provide it.

Why exactly does he require "evidence" then?


Does everything on the list require "evidence."

Or is Larsen hypocritically making an exception in this case? Is this the only item on the list that requires "evidence", and Larsen does not require it for any of the others.

Think carefully before you answer. Larsen gave a stupid answer to the question, then tied himself up in knots trying to deny he'd said it.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But he was offered a test by Randi's Australian colleagues for the million doller challenge and gave this reason for rejecting it.

So, this is a case of someone trying to apply, and not being able to agree on a suitable protocol.


No. Wrong. A protocol was decided on, it just wasn't the first, not the AS's protocol. Why do you think KRAMER was looking for geologists? Furhtermore, what protocl do you think the dowser used when he tested himself? I doubt it was his own since it was stated by KRAMER: "This just in from Carl Brauhart, who was wise enough to take Randi's advice and conduct proper, secure tests of his claim..."

Protocol agreed upon. Working on getting someone to test him. This is not a failure. Example 1 fails.


The other two I gave, I'm too tired right now to find the exact quote.

The second said that he had tried to correspond with Randi to discuss the protocol, and had received a stream of ad hominem abuse in response.


Yes, that was from Benneth (as quoted by Kettler). You are taking the man's word for what happened, and its completely, utterly wrong. Randi and several proponents of homeopathy went through months of negotiations between Randi and Benneth. Finally, they (those negotiating on behalf of Benneth) grew disgusted with Benneth and dropped him like a hot potato.

But don't take my word for it, take Syd Baumel's word. He was one of the negotiators! (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5362.53T650T8944198sgb%40escape.ca&output=gplain)

Example 2 fails.


The third said that he wanted the test performed by an independent third party, butRandi refused.


Wrong and deceptive.

Randi refused to get a 'high energy scientist' for him, but KRAMER said he was free to bring his own to the testing. This was a pathetic joke of a demand. Your persistance in this misinformation made 'high energy scientists' a running joke in this forum.

Example 3 fails.


The common thread running through these reasons: I tried to discuss the matter with Randi, but we were unable to agree on a suitable protocol.

Why doesn't Larsen include that on his list?
Either the specific examples, or the general complaint?

Beacuse your evidence for it sucks!

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker

[hysterical lies snipped]
Beacuse your evidence for it sucks!

Kookbreaker, you don't understand simple concepts.

The point of Larsen's article is to list the excuses made by people that refuse Randi's test. It is a FACT that people give these reasons for not taking the test. These ARE the reason people gave for not taking the test. They should go on the list of excuses made BECAUSE they are the excuses made.

Or does an excuse have to be true to go on the list?

[Nex]

From that same link I gave way back: (http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=8898)

An OccultForums member
< snipped for extensive ad hominems against J. Randi & JREF >

I don't claim "psychic abilities" personally but if I had any I sure as hell wouldn't subject myself to this kind of circus show and I can't see where anyone with a lick of sense would do so either. People with these kinds of abilities don't need "scientific" approval or validation, because the reality is that modern science is extremely biased to begin with. It isn't about truth and hasn't been for a long time. It's all about maintaining the status quo, particularly for miserable little jerks like these. If you can't see that, then it is because you don't want to and no one can make another person see anything they absolutely refuse to see.

Let me set up the tests and I will establish it once and for all that all scientific truth is a lie. What of it. The game is rigged and a rigged game is not worth playing. Like old gamblers always say...the only way to win is not to play the game.

:bs:

But, this is really is an issue. A lot of New Agers believe that the scientific community isn't interested in learning anything, only about proving themselves right or some garbage like that.

It's really quite shocking, and one of the big reasons I began looking outside of woo-ishness for answers. I can't handle paranoia like this, as its so obviously false.

Any takers on this one? It's obviously a "sour grapes" argument, but there's no way to argue it because it's born of sheer ignorance...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
The common thread running through these reasons: I tried to discuss the matter with Randi, but we were unable to agree on a suitable protocol.

Why doesn't Larsen include that on his list?
Either the specific examples, or the general complaint?

Why? Because it is already covered by this one:

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

There is also the small matter of the terms of the challenge:

"No part of the testing procedure may be changed in any way without the agreement of all parties concerned."
Source (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html)

Do you understand now?

If no protocol can be agreed on, then no test.

[Peter Morris]

Rubbish.

In the first place there is no similarity at all between the two:

1) Randi sets the bar too high. The test is impossible.

2) I tried corresponding with Randi. His behaviour made it impossible to agree on a protocol.

Totally different.


As for your pathetic big red letters, you moron, that's what I've been telling you all along. You have been repeatedly dodging that point. So, suddenly you say the same thing, and pretend that understood this, which you plainly did not.

No test can take place without an agreed protocol. People complain about Randi's appalling behaviour when the try to discuss a protocol. They say Randi makes it impossible to agree through his aggressive and childish behaviour, or his unreasonable conditions imposed.

Why won't you put that on your list, Larsen?

Why do you ask for "evidence?" Does an excuse have to be true before it goes on the list?

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Kookbreaker, you don't understand simple concepts.

The point of Larsen's article is to list the excuses made by people that refuse Randi's test. It is a FACT that people give these reasons for not taking the test. These ARE the reason people gave for not taking the test. They should go on the list of excuses made BECAUSE they are the excuses made.

Or does an excuse have to be true to go on the list?

Wow, what's the sound of a retreating principle?

Which is it Peter? Do you want the excuse to be on the list as another example of a lame excuse with no reality to back it up? Or did you want the excuse to be on the list as an attack on Claus since you feel that the excuse is a legitimate reason for the test not taking place. You retreat to the former reason, but it is obvious that you wish the latter. Especially given that you came on this thread throwing insults and attacking the list in the first place.

In short, make up your mind and be clear about it.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Thank you for your politeness. Very rare on this forum.

I underastand what you're saying, but still this withdrawal is a good example of what I'm saying.

At the end of the discussion, the man's position was : I believe dowsing works. I believe that I have some dowsing skills. But I have tried the specific test you offer, and it doesn't work under those precise conditions. I can dowse, but not in the exact way you want me to. So I'm not taking the test, for the moment. I might try again at a later date.

So, really, this withdrawal was because he found the test protocol to be unacceptable. And there was no other protocol on offer.

I suspect that this is the most common reason for not taking the test.

The man first suggested how a test could look like, then KRAMER did indicate that the general idea is ok.

Then the man tried something like what he suggested and failed and therfore was uncertain, how his dowsing ability works.

So the "excuse" was effectively: " i do not know exactly how my dowsing works, it does not work as i thought, i better find out before trying the test."

Sorry, if an applicant realizes during negotiating a test protocol, that his ability does not work, as he thought and is no longer sure how his ability works, then you cannot realy blame JREF, if he backs out and wants to understand his ability further, before reapplying.


Carn

[Peter Morris]

Hey, I've made the point repeatedly.

Larsen has made yet another fawning article, praising Randi to the sky. He has tried to make Randi's opponents sound stupid by listing reasons for not taking the test.

But there are two problems with his list.

1) Most of the items on the list are simply made up things that nobody actually said, ever. He claims that people say regularly that they are afraid of being kidnapped by the CIA. Then he attacks that. When asked for a specific example of someone saying that, he runs and hides.

2) He has refused to include examples of real excuses made by actual people. People have spoken of Randi's inability to discuss sensibly the test protocol. They say they have been unable to agree on a protocol with him because of his misbehaviour.

Larsen won't include this on his list because it sounds too sensible. He wants a list of "lame" excuses, not sensible ones.

And I ask the question again, which cowards keep dodging :

Why does Larsen demand "evidence" for this excuse? Does an excuse have to be true before it goes on the list?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Carn
The man first suggested how a test could look like, then KRAMER did indicate that the general idea is ok.

Then the man tried something like what he suggested and failed and therfore was uncertain, how his dowsing ability works.

So the "excuse" was effectively: " i do not know exactly how my dowsing works, it does not work as i thought, i better find out before trying the test."

Sorry, if an applicant realizes during negotiating a test protocol, that his ability does not work, as he thought and is no longer sure how his ability works, then you cannot realy blame JREF, if he backs out and wants to understand his ability further, before reapplying.


Carn

And once again, you dodge the point.

I'm referring to his application to be tested by Randi's colleagues in Australia. They are authorized by Randi to carry out preliminary testing for the million dollar challenge. This was a challenge application handled by Randi's agents on Randi's behalf.

They offered him a chance to dowse for a bottle of water. They refused to discuss any other protocol.

He has stated his reasons for rejecting that offer. Even Kramer has acknowledged that his reasons are valid and sensible.

Why won't Larsen include that on his list?

Because it's a fraudulent list, designed to make applicants look stupid. Larsen makes up his own excuses that nobody ever made. And he refuses to include real excuses that actual people did make. That is why he's a fawning liar.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Larsen has made yet another fawning article, praising Randi to the sky. He has tried to make Randi's opponents sound stupid by listing reasons for not taking the test.

I don't "praise Randi to the sky". I point out that the excuses the applicants come up with are lame.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
1) Most of the items on the list are simply made up things that nobody actually said, ever. He claims that people say regularly that they are afraid of being kidnapped by the CIA. Then he attacks that. When asked for a specific example of someone saying that, he runs and hides.

You see, the reason why people don't take you seriously, is because you simply cannot stick to the truth. Nowhere have I said that people regularly say that they are afraid of being kidnapped by the CIA. I have listed it, because it is an excuse used by some.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
2) He has refused to include examples of real excuses made by actual people. People have spoken of Randi's inability to discuss sensibly the test protocol. They say they have been unable to agree on a protocol with him because of his misbehaviour.

These excuses are already covered in the list.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Why does Larsen demand "evidence" for this excuse? Does an excuse have to be true before it goes on the list?

Fool.

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And once again, you dodge the point.

I'm referring to his application to be tested by Randi's colleagues in Australia. They are authorized by Randi to carry out preliminary testing for the million dollar challenge. This was a challenge application handled by Randi's agents on Randi's behalf.

They offered him a chance to dowse for a bottle of water. They refused to discuss any other protocol.

He has stated his reasons for rejecting that offer. Even Kramer has acknowledged that his reasons are valid and sensible.

Why won't Larsen include that on his list?

Because it's a fraudulent list, designed to make applicants look stupid. Larsen makes up his own excuses that nobody ever made. And he refuses to include real excuses that actual people did make. That is why he's a fawning liar.

Well, i think, that the excuse "They desgin test protocols, so my ability cannot work", should in one form or another on the lists for excuses for not taking JREF challenge.

But you were talking about citing sources for every excuse and used the australian dowser as an example for someone refusing the JREF challenge with this excuse, but this man refused the aussie sceptic challenge with this excuse.

So if the list would be about excuses for not taking the aussie dowsing challenge, then you would be right to cite him as source, but for the JREF challenge you would have to cite someone else.

Nonetheless i did not read the entire thread until now, so i propose to add following excuse to the list, risking its already on it:

JREF will not care what exactly i can do and instead will propose test, where my ability cannot work.

Carn

[KRAMER]

I don't know which makes me lose more sleep; being quoted by Peter Morris, or being mis-quoted by Peter Morris.

Either way, it's not a good feeling. It's nauseating, in fact.

Even Kramer has acknowledged that his reasons are valid and sensible. - Peter Morris

Excuse me while I go throw up.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Fool.

You are a coward as well as a liar, Larsen. Name-calling isn't going to get you out of the corner.

Stop dodging the question, coward.


If the example I gave was already on your list, then your claim "there's no evidence" was a lie, wasn't it.

Why did you ask for "evidence?" Does an excuse have to be true before you include it on the list?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Carn
Well, i think, that the excuse "They desgin test protocols, so my ability cannot work", should in one form or another on the lists for excuses for not taking JREF challenge.

Thank you. Sense at last.

But you were talking about citing sources for every excuse and used the australian dowser as an example for someone refusing the JREF challenge with this excuse, but this man refused the aussie sceptic challenge with this excuse.


But the Aussie sceptic challenge IS authorized by Randi as preliminary testing for the million dollars. It IS a refusal of the JREF challenge.

[Ashles]

But the Aussie sceptic challenge IS authorized by Randi as preliminary testing for the million dollars. It IS a refusal of the JREF challenge.
This is incorrect. It CAN be considered as a preliminary challenge but each case is decided individually. It is by no means automatic as counting as a preliminary test for the JREF prize. They are independent organisations who can and often do work together.
Of course you know this already, but as per usual you aren't going to let actual facts get in the way of your opinions.

You are a coward as well as a liar, Larsen. Name-calling isn't going to get you out of the corner.
Oh the irony.

[Peter Morris]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45830

He applied for the $1M challenge, and suggested that the Australians do the preliminary test.

Applying to the Australians WAS part of the application for the $1M in this case.

Kramer confirms that "Australian Skeptics has already proven to be a bit resistant to testing this specific claim"

The challenge application fell through - in part - because Randi's colleagues were resistent to performing the desired test. There were other reasons too, but this was part of it.

This sort of thing appears to be a common problem when trying to negotiate a test with Randi or his authorized representatives. It should go on the list, if the list were actually an honest attempt to document excuses. Refusing to include it is a typical example of Larsen's fawning dishonesty.

And this is NOT covered by the phrase "Randi sets the bar too high"

[Carn]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[url]

The challenge application fell through - in part - because Randi's colleagues were resistent to performing the desired test. There were other reasons too, but this was part of it.



Challenge applicant "fell through", because he failed in the test he personally organized, although before that, he was certain he could do it under those conditions.

If he had passed his personal test(which was optimal for him, because he could control parameter, so nothing would be hindering his ability), he would have writen KRAMER something like:"I'm certain i can pass the test i suggested to JREF, i passed one organized by me, which nontheless was right to the protocol we so far have, so please let us decide on a protocol and find someone to test me, i'm ready."

The file would not have been closed and KRAMER would have faced the problem how to organize help in australia without getting help from aussie sceptics.

Sorry, this applicant backed out, because he was uncertain about what he can do, so of course it would have been very difficult to him to negotiate a protocol - for that one should know, what one can do.

Carn

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[BThe challenge application fell through - in part - because Randi's colleagues were resistent to performing the desired test. There were other reasons too, but this was part of it.
[/B]

Peter and reality are polar opposites:


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

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

[Ashles]

He applied for the $1M challenge, and suggested that the Australians do the preliminary test.
This was only the applicants suggestion, it was never agreed by the JREF.

Applying to the Australians WAS part of the application for the $1M in this case.
Please show me where this was agreed?

The challenge application fell through - in part - because Randi's colleagues were resistent to performing the desired test. There were other reasons too, but this was part of it.
The fact that they are 'Randi's colleagues' does not mean they were representatives of Randi's, merely that Randi knows them and sometimes works with them. In some cases they might do the preliminary testing.
This did not happen in this instance.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And this is NOT covered by the phrase "Randi sets the bar too high"

Look, Peter....this may come as a big surprise to you, but you don't get to decide how I write my articles.

If you don't like the way I do things, write your own articles and see how far that will get you.

[Peter Morris]

No, Larsen, but when you choose to lie in your fawning articles you get called a liar.

When you choose to be a hypocrite, you get asked to justify your double standards.

When you deliberately avoid the points you cannot answer, I will continue to point that out.


How about a little honesty, Larsen? It may surprise you to know that I admire honest scepticism, its this type of dishonesty I can't stand. If you actually stopped masking stuff up, and stuck to excuses that really have been offered, then I'd support you. When you invent opinions and falsely attribute them to people, and ignore the things they really said, that is why I oppose you.

Do you even understand why I find lies objectionable? Does the concept even fit into your brain?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, Larsen, but when you choose to lie in your fawning articles you get called a liar.

When you choose to be a hypocrite, you get asked to justify your double standards.

When you deliberately avoid the points you cannot answer, I will continue to point that out.


How about a little honesty, Larsen? It may surprise you to know that I admire honest scepticism, its this type of dishonesty I can't stand. If you actually stopped masking stuff up, and stuck to excuses that really have been offered, then I'd support you. When you invent opinions and falsely attribute them to people, and ignore the things they really said, that is why I oppose you.

Do you even understand why I find lies objectionable? Does the concept even fit into your brain?

.....yawn.....

[Peter Morris]

Once again, Larsen runs away.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, Larsen, but when you choose to lie in your fawning articles you get called a liar.

Never mind that you have utterly failed to prove any of your assertions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Once again, Larsen runs away.

Whattamaroon.....

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Never mind that you have utterly failed to prove any of your assertions.

grow up.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
grow up.

For the record, you haven't proved any of your assertions.