View Full Version : Does Randi know what this guy is saying about him?
jmercer
24th January 2005, 11:01 AM
This Zammit guy's really got it bad for Randi:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html
geni
24th January 2005, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by jmercer
This Zammit guy's really got it bad for Randi:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html
I think he has been mentioned in the comentry a some point.
CFLarsen
24th January 2005, 11:12 AM
Randi knows all about Zammit.
jmercer
24th January 2005, 11:17 AM
Good. (Exits thread with relief)
Psiload
24th January 2005, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by jmercer
This Zammit guy's really got it bad for Randi:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html Not nearly as bad as this Victor Dammit guy...
http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/
CFLarsen
24th January 2005, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Psiload
Not nearly as bad as this Victor Dammit guy...
http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/
:D
jmercer
24th January 2005, 11:52 AM
OMG, that's FUNNY! :dl:
So THAT'S the guy Zammit is threatening with legal action for "defacing his website"! The way he was carrying on, I thought his site had been hijacked and turned into a pornography page or something!
jj
24th January 2005, 01:22 PM
One has to wonder. Does Zammit do himself a favor by acting like that? I wonder.
The problem, of course, is that the loonies get the press, and the press doesn't get the facts.
Just thinking
24th January 2005, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by jmercer
This Zammit guy's really got it bad for Randi ...
Check out this correction he requests Mr. Randi perform to his offer ...
"that the offerer not be anywhere where the psychic phenomenon is being demonstrated. This is because the offeror is technically an intruding negative extraneous variable and will inevitably make nugatory otherwise successful psychic tests - he exudes too much negativity for sensitives to operate properly."
Now, I admit I'm not the most fluent user of the English language, but just when was the last time you used the word nugatory in a sentense?
JimTheBrit
25th January 2005, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Just thinking
Now, I admit I'm not the most fluent user of the English language, but just when was the last time you used the word nugatory in a sentense? Perhaps you're more likely to use nugatory once you've transcended the boggle threshold? (See the Jenny Smedley article)
BillyJoe
25th January 2005, 04:28 AM
Please kill this thread about Australia's greatest embarassment. :(
Just thinking
25th January 2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by BillyJoe
Please kill this thread about Australia's greatest embarassment.
... and keep in mind, this guy's a lawer -- which means somewhere someone's legal rights are depending on him. (My advice to the poor soul, plead guilty by reason of insanity. Only a crazy person would choose Zammit to represent him.)
BillyJoe
25th January 2005, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by Just thinking
Only a crazy person would choose Zammit to represent him. Unless your position was completely untenable.
He would then be a shoe in for the job. :D
Rolfe
26th January 2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Psiload
Not nearly as bad as this Victor Dammit guy...
http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/ You know, that really is one of the funniest things I've seen this millennium.
Rolfe.
badnews
5th May 2005, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by Psiload
Not nearly as bad as this Victor Dammit guy...
http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/
That is realy funny... I am yeat to read more of it :)
... and keep in mind, this guy's a lawer -- which means somewhere someone's legal rights are depending on him. (My advice to the poor soul, plead guilty by reason of insanity. Only a crazy person would choose Zammit to represent him.)
btw Victor was my Corporate Law teacher at TAFE (collage) and I must say he wasn't a bad teacher and knew his law. He was a bit weird, but to us half of the teachers were weird... :) To bad at that time I didn't know of his website.. I could have debated with him about that... :)
dann
5th May 2005, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by badnews
I could have debated with him about that... :)
You can still try, cannot you?
-42-
5th May 2005, 02:52 AM
Someone apply just to reset his counter.
You know the drill, hem and haw, stall, delay, make excuses.
Beady
5th May 2005, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Just thinking
Now, I admit I'm not the most fluent user of the English language, but just when was the last time you used the word nugatory in a sentense?
Noun: "Nuggat."
Verb: ""Noogie."
Adjective: "Nugatory."
Adverb: "Nugatively."
Oh, and that's "sentence."
;)
Desertphile
15th May 2005, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by jmercer
This Zammit guy's really got it bad for Randi:
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html
The guy appears to be a fracking lunatic (though I'm not a psychiatrist, so that's just my opinion based upon the evidence of his web site only); Goddess only knows what kind of clients this apparently insane lawyer must get.
John Edward has really puzzled the closed minded skeptics. I am taping John Edward's CROSSING OVER everyday - it is being shown two and at times three times a day on FOXTEL - and some 600 television stations inside and outside the United States. I suggest that the debunkers obtain the services of a neutral, independent professional statistician and ask him/her what the mathematical probability is of John Edward obtaining the information he claims he is getting by chance. Then ask the statistician to take into consideration a cumulative month's viewing: the result? Unequivocally, trillions to one! Translated, this means John Edward IS getting his information from those who crossed over. This evidence is consistent with 23 other areas of evidence for the afterlife.
That has already been done, several times. Edward's score: less than my batting average, and I'm a near-blind clutz who couldn't bat a ball if my life depended upon it.
Note that this apparently insane individual mentions what the mathematical probability is of John Edward obtaining the information he claims he is getting by chance. Who the bloody hell said anything about "chance" being involved? Edward's victims feed Edward with all the "information" Edward spews.
As a lawyer, this guy would make an excellent post hole digger.
Desertphile
15th May 2005, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Psiload
Not nearly as bad as this Victor Dammit guy...
http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/
GODSDAMN THAT'S FUNNY! I bit my tongue laughing.
treble_head
17th May 2005, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by JimTheBrit
Perhaps you're more likely to use nugatory once you've transcended the boggle threshold? (See the Jenny Smedley article)
More like the BOTTLE threshold.
Flange Desire
19th May 2005, 09:38 PM
I have had a few emails with Victor over the years, but have now given up trying to reason with him.
He is a complete loon in my opinion!
He uses language in an attempt to intimidate his opponents, and his use of capitalizations and imperative language (eg, 'You MUST', etc, etc) indicates clearly just how a-retentive he is.
He attempts to shift the onus (to prove his extraordinary claims) onto the skeptic.
I have no more time for this whacko.
epepke
20th May 2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Just thinking
Now, I admit I'm not the most fluent user of the English language, but just when was the last time you used the word nugatory in a sentense?
I regularly refer to Ted Nugent as Ted Nugatory.
treble_head
20th May 2005, 04:37 PM
although different in spelling "nuggetory" is the proper refusal of a Chicken McNugget.
hodgy
2nd June 2005, 01:15 PM
Appropriate name for the author of one of the sites linked from Zammit's site:
Article (http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm)
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.