THE COMPETITION

[KRAMER]

Uh-Oh. The competition rears its ugly head. How frightening.

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

$1 Million Challenge To Disprove Evidence Of Life After Death

VictorZammit.com

$1 MILLION CHALLENGE

8th YEAR!

One million dollars is offered to any closed minded skeptic who can rebut the existing evidence for life after death. Closed-minded skeptics and other materialists: some of those whom are psychologists, ex-magicians, biologists, physicists and others, have miserably failed to rebut expressly stated evidence for the existence of the afterlife - life after death. By contrast, more scientists, more physicists, more psychologists and more people in the professions and others are conceding the empirical evidence for the afterlife is just irrefutable. This million dollar offer has been discussed by US medium Sylvia Browne on national television CNN LARRY KING Live - also cited and discussed on TIME WARNER, on US, UK, Australian radio stations, in newspapers, journals and goes to thousands every day to most countries around the world.

A reward of one million U.S. dollars is offered to any sceptic anywhere in the world who can rebut and refute beyond absolute all [sic] the evidence for the existence of the afterlife.

Why the challenge?

The million U.S.dollar reward is guaranteed by four Sydney lawyers including myself - all experts in evidence - who, after examining the circumstances and the evidence, stated that initially it is only reasonable, fair and equitable to match and to mirror the skeptics' fundamental conditions one by one as the skeptics have had them on the Internet for a number of years now.

Countering the skeptics offer:

I concede that the skeptics' million dollar offer has been used very successfully - the offer has been huge propaganda against psychics and universal truth - it has fooled and conned journalists, radio and TV interviewers. It has been a powerful tool for the dissemination of global darkness. The media's pet rent-a-skeptic vociferates on behalf of some 2% of the population yet is given exaggerated time and space in the media.

What evidence?

The applicant has to rebut beyond absolute doubt (the same test used by closed-minded skeptics ) the substantive objective and other evidence for the following - not the full list: Materialisation, Electronic Voice Phenomenon, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments; Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice; Xenoglossy, Myers Cross Correspondence, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing; Laboratory Experiments; Poltergeists; Apparitions; Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences.

Examples of each of these kinds of evidence are presented in my book A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife, Arthur Findlay's On the Edge of the Etheric, Ronald Pearson's Intelligence Behind the Universe, Sir William Crookes' On Human Personality and Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism, Sir Oliver Lodge's Raymond and Geraldine Cummins' Swan on a Black Sea.

An impossible task?

A few skeptics have already applied - those who bothered to respond answered in words to the effect: "Where do you start, it is impossible to rebut!" That is EXACTLY the psychics' argument - not only is it IMPOSSIBLE to rebut the evidence - my three expert professional litigation lawyer colleagues and I in this matter claim it can NEVER be rebutted.

The challenge:

Here is the challenge for those skeptics who have been continuously campaigning in the media that there is no afterlife - those closed minded sceptics especially in England and a couple in the United States who have been crusading around the world denigrating, destroying and demeaning the credibility of gifted psychics, trying to dismiss the positive evidence being produced for the afterlife.

Will these high-flying skeptics, who have been wilfully misperceiving psychic phenomena have the courage to apply for the reward? Or will these crusading English, American and Canadian skeptics push cowardice to its extreme and in great humiliation chicken out?

There is a danger that if these said materialist, closed minded skeptics do not take on the offer the public will always remember their names as the greatest fools and frauds in psychic history. From the UK and the US the very impatient public expect anti-afterlife skeptics and debunkers such as Dr Susan Blackmore, Dr Richard Wiseman, Dr Chris French, James Randi, Paul Kurtz the founder of CSICOP in the US, and others to take on the challenge.

Register for the challenge.

To register for the $1 U.S.Million Challenge send an email to victor@victorzammit.com

http://www.victorzammit.com/index.html

[Brown]

Thanks for posting this. It reminded me that I need to buy some fertilizer for my yard.

[wahrheit]

VictorZammit.com
This million dollar offer has been discussed by US medium Sylvia Browne on national television CNN LARRY KING Live - also cited and discussed on TIME WARNER, on US, UK, Australian radio stations, in newspapers, journals and goes to thousands every day to most countries around the world.
Come on, you silly skeptics, how dare you doubt the evidence of afterlife since it has been "discussed" by Sylvia Brown, Larry King, and - drum roll - even Time Warner and several newspapers!!!

The next believer that accuses me of being "closed minded" get's a punch in the face.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by wahrheit
Come on, you silly skeptics, how dare you doubt the evidence of afterlife since it has been "discussed" by Sylvia Brown, Larry King, and - drum roll - even Time Warner and several newspapers!!!

The next believer that accuses me of being "closed minded" get's a punch in the face.

Wait, which is correct? "Closed minded," and, "opened minded," or, "close minded," and, "open minded?"

[wahrheit]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Wait, which is correct? "Closed minded," and, "opened minded," or, "close minded," and, "open minded?"
Funny you would mention this: Before hitting the submit button I double-checked the original text. To my (German) ear "closed minded" sounds very strange, though I looked it up and it is correct.

Anyway, they still deserve the punch.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by wahrheit
Funny you would mention this: Before hitting the submit button I double-checked the original text. To my (German) ear "closed minded" sounds very strange, though I looked it up and it is correct.

Anyway, they still deserve the punch.

It sounds funny to my (American) ear too, but I thought about it and seems that to say someone has an, "opened mind," or a, "closed mind," is more correct, hence "opened/closed mindedness."

You do realize the punch has to be delivered with enough force and precision to knock the dumb out, right? But then, I have enough contempt for this whole thing, that I'd rather sit and nit about proper usage.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wait... this is... a joke

right?

[Metullus]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
Wait, which is correct? "Closed minded," and, "opened minded," or, "close minded," and, "open minded?"
Personally, I'm open to either, which is to say, closed to neither.

[-42-]

Pretty absurd.


They're comparing it to when a "Believer" says "I can find water with a forked stick". $1 Million if he can find water with a forked stick under controlled conditions that both agree to.

Perhaps a better challenge is, $1 Million if a skeptic can prove Sylvia Brown can't speak to the dead.

While there are still plenty of built-in outs trying to prove a negative that would prevent a $1 Million payout, it would still be amusing to see fail after fail after fail and the subsequent excuses. (As always)

Too bad many in the public might see them as the same and the woo's get another big rung (flimsy balsa with termites) to hang on to.

I wish I had $1Million so could challenge the world to disprove the existance of a Snarf. Which no one could do......

[webfusion]

OK, I thought about it and I'm now pretty sure that it will be possible for someone to go ahead and apply for their money, using this protocol:

Proposal to prove that there is no afterlife, by the following method:

I am likely going to die within the next six months (terminal brain cancer).
I will be buried. That's it.
I promise not contact anyone through a medium or re-appear after my death by other method. I will sign a notarized affadavit to that effect.

I declare that any and all attempts after my death that purport to be in contact with me, or be able to feel my 'spirit' are merely fradulent and in no way have actually succeeded in bridging the gap between life and death.
My notarized affadavit stands as testimony to that declaration.

The million will be paid to my widow.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
You do realize the punch has to be delivered with enough force and precision to knock the dumb out, right?

I don't know if you can knock the dumb out without the brains going, too. But if you like, I can show you how to punch hard enough to give it a good shot. ;)

[Patricio Elicer]

Originally posted by KRAMER
The applicant has to rebut beyond absolute doubt (the same test used by closed-minded skeptics ) the substantive objective and other evidence for the following - not the full list: Materialisation, Electronic Voice Phenomenon, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments; Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice; Xenoglossy, Myers Cross Correspondence, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing; Laboratory Experiments; Poltergeists; Apparitions; Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences. Rebut beyond absolute doubt?, that's pretty vage. Anyway, if they challenge skeptics to rebute the "objective evidence", then they should have the data that describe what that "evidence" consists of. So if someone is not able to independantly replicate the "experiments" and produce that same evidence, then he/she wins the million?

[BPSCG]

Some substantive differences between this challenge and the JREF challenge:

1) Implicit in the JREF challenge is the requirement that the applicant prove that he can do something, that something does exist. Zammit's challenge (if it can be dignified with that term) is to prove that something does not exist. He might as well challenge the world to prove that unicorns do not exist. Trying to prove a negative almost always leads you down a rabbit hole.

2) His "challenge" is not to rebut one or another piece of evidence for the existence of the afterlife, but all of it. This is an invitation to a game of Whack-a-Mole; even assuming you knock down every "study" he cites (and you have to wonder what he would accept as a protocol for refuting his cited studies), he comes back at you with, "Hah! You didn't rebut the case that was in the Weekly World News (http://weeklyworldnews) yesterday about the girl in Jerkoffistan who spoke with Pope John Paul II, Jimmy Hoffa, and Elvis! You lose! Good day, sir!"

I'd call this guy an idiot, but I'm sure he's making more than enough money to support his website with this charade. Wish I'd thought of it first.





Hmmm...






BPSCG
A Systems Analyst Presents the Case for the Afterlife (http://stupid.com/)

[Hitch]

The best way to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife is through direct observation.

Contact the person putting up the $1 million for this and a neutral third party. The third party will hold the money.

The claimant will prove to the sponsor that there is no afterlife through direct observation. If they do observe an afterlife, all they have to do is contact the third party within six months and state so.

The sponsor will then be killed.

If, after six months, no contact has been made, the money will be turned over to the claimant. If contact has been made, the existence of an afterlife will have been conclusively proven.

I realize this is somewhat over-simplified, but could serve as a framework for more rigorous negotiations.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Hitch
The best way to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife is through direct observation.

Contact the person putting up the $1 million for this and a neutral third party. The third party will hold the money.

The claimant will prove to the sponsor that there is no afterlife through direct observation. If they do observe an afterlife, all they have to do is contact the third party within six months and state so.

The sponsor will then be killed.

If, after six months, no contact has been made, the money will be turned over to the claimant. If contact has been made, the existence of an afterlife will have been conclusively proven.

I realize this is somewhat over-simplified, but could serve as a framework for more rigorous negotiations. Let me see if I understand this correctly:

Heads - evidence for afterlife is not refuted, and the sponsor loses his life.
Tails - evidence for afterlife is refuted, and the sponsor loses his life and the claimant wins a million bucks.

Hitch, you are an evil-minded S.O.B. I love it.

Welcome to the forum!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In the end, it is merely a pathetic reaction to the JREF. First the current movement against evolution, and now this? Are the 21th century Dark Ages approaching? :(

[Winterfrost]

... Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments; Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice...

Hmm... Sounds like a good opportunity for someone to finally get their hands on Schwartz's experimental data...

I mean, I'm certain Zammit must have his cooperation. After all, how can anyone expect to offer a rebuttal unless they have all the information?

With all his goings-on about lawyers and "reasonable doubt" I figure we should be able to subpeona this information. :p

[Sherman Bay]

Dammit, Janet, it's Zammit.

I'm pretty sure any C-grade student in a college Logic 101 class could point out the obvious flaw in Z's Challenge.

Remove that, and there's nothing left but yelling and shouting, Zammit's stock in trade.

[Pyrts]

Should I offer to give 50 cents to anyone who can prove that Zammit actually HAS the million dollars to offer?

[Odin]

please rebut the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[Pyrts]

Should I offer to give 50 cents to anyone who can prove that Zammit actually HAS the million dollars to offer?

[Squidd]

Originally posted by Pyrts
Should I offer to give 50 cents to anyone who can prove that Zammit actually HAS the million dollars to offer?

And how are we to know that you actually have the fifty cents?

I offer a ha'penny to anyone who can prove it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Odin
please rebut the existance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

... and if you cant, its because... :rolleyes:

[KRAMER]

JAMES RANDI ORGANIZATION -

"At James Randi Educational Foundation , we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event"

http://www.randi.org/research/

$1 Million Challenge To Disprove Evidence Of Life After Death

http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

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

Van: Daniel Benor <healingresearch@earthlink.net>

Verzonden: maandag 2 mei 2005 12:27:59

Aan: <victor@victorzammit.com>

Cc: Frank Eeken

Onderwerp: Re: Lawyer's paranormal-letter to His Holiness Pope

Hello,

I came across your site through this email. Congratulations on your excellent work! For years I've held the opinion that the "skeptics" were more than skeptical. My doorway into this arena was through my critique of James Randi's book on healers. When I published a critical review in a parapsychology journal, he threatened to sue me and the journal. I stood firm and with his bluff called, he melted away from our horizon. I believe you could sharpen the focus of your challenge, pointing out obvious ways in which Randi's challenge – with Randi as the arbiter of whether evidence presented is accepted – is a bogus challenge. You may be interested in my references, below, which do for spiritual healing what your site does for psi phenomena in general. V1 of Healing Research, popular edition, has a chapter specifically on healing in the context of psi effects.

With best wishes for your continued good work,

Daniel J. Benor, MD

P.O. Box 502

Medford, NJ 08055

Tel. 877-HEAL-777 (877-432-5777) 609-714-1885

Fax 609-714-3553

DB@WholisticHealingResearch.com

International Journal of Healing and Caring - On line

http://www.ijhc.org

Spiritual awareness and healing resources

http://www.WholisticHealingResearch.com

Monthly NEWSLETTERS of the IJHC and the WHR sites

SUBSCRIBE http://wholistichealingresearch.com/#sub

RECENT http://wholistichealingresearch.com/Newsletters/Newsletters-04i.asp

Council for Healing

http://www.CouncilForHealing.org

Healing Research, V. 1 - Scientific Validation of a Healing Revolution

Http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/Books/Series.asp

Healing Research, V. 2 – Popular edition

How Can I Heal What Hurts?

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/Books/Series.asp#v2pop

Healing Research, V. 2 – Professional edition

Consciousness, Bioenergy and Healing

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/Books/Series.asp#v2

(10% author's discount on V2. paperback and CD-ROM worldwide,

and free postage in the US)

Healing responses to 9-11

http://www.ijhc.org/9-11Healing.asp

> From: "Frank Eeken"

> Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 20:56:32 +0000

> Subject: Lawyer's paranormal-letter to His Holiness Pope

Who & What, in liability & responsibilty,

(for billions of people and their Health),

is heard and seen ?

(by Media, Politicians & other policy-influencers )

(Human / Scientific) Evidence or (Non-) Belief-conviction ?

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

A LAWYER'S OPEN LETTER TO HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL

By Victor Zammit -

Lawyer of the High Court and Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia (retired).

May 2004

A MOST URGENT CHURCH PROBLEM BIGGER THAN THE GALILEO CASE

Your Holiness.

This most serious and important correspondence has been precipitated by some very urgent spiritual matters which concern all Catholics and others - and which need most urgent attention. The primary concern is that the Catholic theological explanation of what happens to us when we die is fundamentally inconsistent with empirically produced results.

Your Holiness has the power, the discretion, the authority, the heavy duty and the great responsibility to ameliorate any fundamentally erroneous theological beliefs................

.........................................

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/pope.html

http://www.victorzammit.com/index.html

[Winterfrost]

Originally posted by KRAMER
... Catholic theological explanation of what happens to us when we die is fundamentally inconsistent with empirically produced results.

Your Holiness has the power, the discretion, the authority, the heavy duty and the great responsibility to ameliorate any fundamentally erroneous theological beliefs...

Translation: "My beliefs can beat up your beliefs."

Though it might be fun to see ol' Benny-16 and Zammit go toe-to-toe (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Victor+Zammit%22&word2=%22Pope+Benedict+XVI%22)...

[CaptainManacles]

Randi's challenge allows anyone to show any sort of psychic phenominon. Can we assume then that this challenge will hold itself up to the same rigor, and I can claim the million by disproving any single belief about the afterlife?

I then assert that I believe the fabric of reality was created moments ago, is held together by our collective thoughts, and the moment anyone on the planet dies the reality of the universe will disolve and we will return to our true forms, that of interstellar chickens.

....

wait for it

....

wait for it

.....

Can I have my money now?

[c4ts]

Gee, nobody can absolutely prove that invisible leprechauns with jet packs aren't real, therefore they must be real! And this is exactly the argument skeptics make when they want me to prove that the leprechauns are real!

[Sherman Bay]

I've been waitin' oh, so patiently, but lately I'm comin' to the conclusion that Houdini just ain't comin' back no more or talkin' from beyond the grave, neither...

[Zep]

Zammit is clear proof that not all the world's complete off-their-trolley nutters live in the USA. So I feel so proud to be Australian, what with Victor living here... ;) :D

[Winterfrost]

Originally posted by KRAMER
...those closed minded sceptics especially in England and a couple in the United States who have been crusading around...

... will these crusading English, American and Canadian skeptics...

I was wondering if he wasn't explicitly including Australians out of respect or because he assumes he's already got the situation "under control" over there. ;)

As a Canadian, I'm not clear whether I'm "in" or not...

If only we had a Bush or a Blair to make us more crusade-y.
:D

[Odin]

timecube guy has a challenge too! (http://www.timecube.com/)


I will give $1,000.00 to any person who can
disprove 4 days in each earth rotation.

I have $10,000.00 that I will
wager that Cubicism transcends
and disproves Theism Creation.

Creation of 4 simultaneous 24 hour days,
within a single rotation of Earth, empowers
me above all 1-day gods and educated stupid scientists. I will wager $10,000.00 on it.

I will wager $10,000.00 that
Cubic Creation is almighty.

I will give $10,000.00 to 1st education
institution or to the 1st professor who can
disprove 4-Day Time Cube. Evil professors
ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally posted by KRAMER / Daniel Benor?
My doorway into this arena was through my critique of James Randi's book on healers. When I published a critical review in a parapsychology journal, he threatened to sue me and the journal. I stood firm and with his bluff called, he melted away from our horizon.Kramer, while I don't put much credence to this claim, can you enlighten us as to the source and facts here? I sure would like to hear the other side of this story.

[KRAMER]

Randi would never threaten to sue anyone over a bad review.

I have no idea what "journal" he is refering to. You'd have to ask Benor.

[brodski]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
It sounds funny to my (American) ear too, but I thought about it and seems that to say someone has an, "opened mind," or a, "closed mind," is more correct, hence "opened/closed mindedness."


Think of it this way, is that (hypothetical) door open, or is it closed?

is your mind open, or is it closed?

a mind may be opened, but it will remain open.
once a mind has been closed, it will remain closed.

am I making any sence here?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Odin
timecube guy has a challenge too! (http://www.timecube.com/)

That is really, really sad. :(

[Hastur]

My brain crashed 5 seconds in. The stupid! IT BURNS! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!!!!

[HutchTheCrutch]

WTF is this guy on?? Any road up, I'll take his challenge, he proves to me that this cubism stuff is true and then gives me $10k, I think that's what he says ... cool .... I believe already, no need for the tests !!

H

[Hitch]

Originally posted by HutchTheCrutch
WTF is this guy on?? Any road up, I'll take his challenge, he proves to me that this cubism stuff is true and then gives me $10k, I think that's what he says ... cool .... I believe already, no need for the tests !!

H
No. No. No. That's not the way it works. No money at all for believing in the obvious truth -- only if you can achieve the impossible task of disproving it.

Of course, in order to disprove it, you'd have to first figure out what the hell he's talking about. That has eluded me personally since 1997. I'm not sure when the page first went up.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Its really amusing to see how guys, like this "cube man", sincerely believe that we all are "stupids". Interestingly, everything all humans do, "confirms" what he beliefs.

[KingTim]

Has anyone read Dr Benor's book 'Spiritual Healing: Scientific Validation of A Healing Revolution'? hmm, new thread maybe.

[Admiral]

I kinda miss Kramer. Read through his old posts on the forums, they're usually really interesting and insightful...

I was hoping he wouldn't leave the forum just because he was no longer handling the challenge.

[krelnius]

Ok, obvious sarcasm, and its funny if youve seen this forum before but I fear some newcomer might fall for it...and that would be even more hilarious. :D

But, honestly....we CAN prove there is NO life after death....its a pretty reliable source and its available to everyone everywhere for FREE! My argument is that if you want to prove its raining you can't just look out the window and make assumptions. You gotta go outside and get wet.

If you want proof there is NO life after DEATH then simply check for yourself. IMO thats enough said.

[hellaeon]

Anyone seen penn and tellers episode with the scientific evidence showing how its simply a mind reaction to trauma?

I'll give someone a million bucks if they can prove boba fett is NOT real.

[joller]

I'll give someone a million bucks if they can prove boba fett is NOT real.
He's as real as you and me.
Or maybe even more!

[Mendeli]

emphasis mine.

What evidence?

The applicant has to rebut beyond absolute doubt (the same test used by closed-minded skeptics ) the substantive objective and other evidence for the following - not the full list: Materialisation, Electronic Voice Phenomenon, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments; Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice; Xenoglossy, Myers Cross Correspondence, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing; Laboratory Experiments; Poltergeists; Apparitions; Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences.


I know I could absolutely debunk all those other evidences, but how on earth would I go on about debunking Laboratory Experiments? Such a specific and widely known phenomena is surely impossible to debunk. Indeed, I was just doing one such experiment myself before the coffee break and now I should be debunking myself?

Well, I guess, for million dollars I just might!

[Peachy]

The applicant has to rebut beyond absolute doubt (the same test used by closed-minded skeptics ) the substantive objective and other evidence for the following - not the full list: Materialisation, Electronic Voice Phenomenon, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments; Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice; Xenoglossy, Myers Cross Correspondence, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing; Laboratory Experiments; Poltergeists; Apparitions; Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences.


Am I to understand that the claimant must debunk ALL of these? That could take a while, I better get started.

'The Committee' refers to a group of people expert in afterlife evidence. The 'afterlife evidence' refers to the evidence mentioned above in the Preface.

I would love to know the names of the people on this "Committee".

[Zax63]

I'd love to have them give some examples of what would win their challange. Hypothetically, of course.

If I can produce a burning bush that isn't consumed that says "Just kidding about that afterlife business", would that qualify? Shouldn't be much harder than a gas or electric fireplace.

[joller]

how on earth would I go on about debunking Laboratory Experiments?
I noticed that too. But then I visited Victor's website, and it actually says Psychic Laboratory Experiments.

The challenge is a sham, since it's his appointed afterlife experts and evidence experts (like him) that will judge the outcome.
It's a little bit like the MAS collective 1 million zimbaroos.

Just look at his website and what he uses as support for his argument:
"WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF BOOKS ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE – BUT WE NOT ONE BOOK THAT SHOWS THE AFTERLIFE CANNOT EXIST"

"DR E SWEDENBORG – the greatest scientist of his time, “After the spirit has been separated from the body - which happens when a person dies – he is still alive, a person, the way he was before.”"

Plus his mastery of evidence analysis:
"I regularly receive emails stating from people who state that they had a paranormal experience. I accept their claims on the basis of more likely than not when these people show they are normal, intelligent and sensitive – because they are consistent with claims which have been related to me from around the world these last sixteen years"

Sound a bit like Interesting Ian, don't you think?